Category Archives: War on Terrorism

Why the Left can’t fight terror: they don’t even understand it.

So John McCain (D, AZ) has once again added his unrequested two cents to the War on Terrorism. Now you probably thought he couldn’t have done more after campaigning for Obama in 2008 or taking pictures with members of Al-Qaeda just a few years ago. But he just came out and said that speaking against radical Islam will turn radical Muslims against us. Yeah, because a culture that has been attacking US interests for so long that they are actually the first overseas conflict we had to be engaged in, is only now hating us because we don’t like them.

 

John. Just shut up and go away. You’re not helping. You are never helping. Even on those rare occasions when you’re right, your very presence hurts the cause. Go away.

But don’t worry, liberals are picking up the slack on this. Leftist economists are saying that it’s inequality that is causing Muslims to turn to violence. The fact that most of the people who are radicalized in the West are well educated, middle and upper middle class men. Or the fact that head of ISIS has a Ph.D. and the Bid Laden family is filthy rich has no bearing on the fact that liberals like to blame everything on inequality. Inequality. For the left it causes everything. Slow economy? Inequality is to blame. Terrorism? Inequality is to blame. Massive Debt? Inequality is to blame. Bad acne is probably caused by inequality. There is pretty much nothing the left doesn’t blame inequality for…except maybe global warming….

 

Which, by the way, our dear idiot-in-chief thinks that global warming (not seen since the turn of the century) is to blame for terrorism. Despite the fact that even if global warming was even partly responsible for drought in the Middle East, it’s not like they weren’t rolling in money, had access to ports, and Israel as an example of how to efficiently desalinate sea water for agriculture. No, the refusal to actually deal with your problems in an intelligent fashion has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with the boogey man of global warming.

 

So do they hate us because we hate them? Because of inequality? Because of global warming? Do liberals even try to have any logical consistency in any of this?

Nope. They just want some kind of excuse where it is the fault of the West and no blame be put on the culture of death itself.

So what does cause them to hate us? Because let’s be honest here, it’s certainly not any of the liberal BS…they hated us before we questioned the long-term practicality of taking in Syrian refugees, they hated us before we invade Iraq, they were gathering support against Classical Liberalism before Israel was ever formed, hell the Barbary pirates were attacking the West before America even existed. If you think US actions in any way, shape, or form are the cause of radicalizing Muslim extremists, I would suggest you join the cult of the Anti-Semites that follow Ron and Rand Paul (they too would like to put blame on America for 9/11 and all other acts of terror).

So what is the cause?

111988_original.jpg

The desire to control all of this (and much more after that) is not caused by Global Warming, Inequality, US actions abroad or any other liberal drivel.  There are evil people out there.  They must be fought and their ideas must be fought. 

Well, I propose it comes down to three things, none of which on their own might be too difficult a problem to tolerate—but together they spell disaster.

The first is a culture of death and violence.
Judaism was founded on a single guy making a deal with God. Christianity on an act of sacrifice. Buddhism on a guy sitting under a tree. Hinduism’s roots are so far back it’s hard to nail then down but it’s a religion based on meditation so…meanwhile when you have a religion that started with “hey, let’s rob from and then kill people we don’t like, and oh, those Jews that didn’t want to back us in our acts of theft and murder, they can all die too.” Amazing that when you’re a child raping, genocidal lunatic writeing down the voices in his head he mistakes for God you get a religion not exactly grounded in love and compassion. Every religion has it’s dark points, every religion has it’s prophets that were crazier than others….but when your religion has only one prophet and he a bloodthirsty nut job obsessed with conquest, there aren’t exactly any countering voices in scriptures to offer any balance.
And lo-and-behold this leads to a culture a little more open to violence as a method of conflict resolution…and not just as an option of last resort, but more of an opening gambit.
You can whine all you want about the myth that it’s a religion of peace, but the fact is that, Islam praises violence over and over again in the Koran, unlike every other religion on Earth it does not grant intrinsic value and divinity to the human soul, and also unlike every other religion it actively denies reason. And being that static encourages them to never evolve or improve themselves as people or as a culture. And worse the ethics implicit in this culture are ones that lead to not just tyranny but a fascist form of tyranny.

Does this mean that most people in the Muslim world are violent? Nope. Like most people in the rest of the world earning enough to put food on the table for the family is a far more important factor than religion. But ideas have consequences. And the ideas of Islam, especially modern Asharaite Sunni Islam, have serious consequences.

The second reason is that teenagers are stupid.
You’ll notice that most of these people are young or get started in these ideas when they’re young. Probably because, biologically, your brain is not developed until you’re about 26 and you’re fairly brain damaged until that development stops. Just spend some time with teenagers—In any culture they’re morons, most of the time lovable little bastards, but morons nonetheless. Some are ahead of the curve, most are not horrifically stupid, but as a group not the exactly the group known for long-term thinking. From the Hitler Youth to stupid teenagers in the ’60’s adopting various forms of violence in the U.S., to the Occupy scum, to idiot young people going to join ISIS, teenagers are morons, and statistically some of them will do incredibly violent things because they’re stupid. Ideally your culture allows outlets for these morons to be morons that are at least less destructive (like college or joining some hippie commune)…but as we’ve seen you can be raised in a culture that doesn’t glorify violence and young people will still be stupid enough to seek it out. Granted it’s not only young people attracted to this kind of stupidity (see Jonestown) but youth had the predominance of morons out there.

 

And because they’re stupid they do hate us for our liberties. Because if there is one thing that kind of stupid is looking for it’s a simple, plain, easy explanation of the universe, the world and life. Liberty offers none of that. Liberty comes with chaos…and worst of all personal responsibility. The idiocy of youth hates those things, they like black and white stability and the will lash out against anything that jeopardizes it (doesn’t matter if their lashing out leads to more chaos than liberty could ever produce, that understanding is exactly the kind of long term thinking they’re not capable of.)

Okay so let’s be honest there is pretty much nothing we can do about these first two points. History isn’t going to change, and biological facts are also pretty stable.

So let’s look to the third reason.
As I suggested before you want your culture to have alternative voices. And ever since the pro-reason Mu’tazalite Muslims were slaughtered about 800 years ago there haven’t been many pro-reason Muslim groups…individual yes, movements not so much. So we need to stop that. We need to stop looking for “moderates” and start looking for people who actually want to reform this religion and bring it out of the sixth century, that position is fairly radical and would never be considered moderate.

Honestly when we were in a conflict with those radical Germans back in the 1940’s did we reach out to the moderates at the time, those self proclaimed “Good Germans” who had an amazing ability to not know what was going on right in front of their faces…no I’m pretty sure we first reached out to German underground and looked for intel and ways to put high explosives and Der Fuhrer in the same room.

But there are real reformists…a few at least…

…and we should support these people and make sure they have the means to get their message out to the entire Muslim world. We need to dig out those old Arabic translations of Plato and Aristotle (and update them with Farsi, Pashto and every other major language of the era) and see a rebirth of Mu’tazalite ideas that once created the golden age of Islamic civilization).

And we need to do this because while we, should and must kill the ones who have already embraced the evil of terrorism, you’re not going to stem the problem until you start attacking the ideas.

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, Uncategorized, War on Terrorism

The Problem of Syria

 

 

Someone (we’re not sure who, Obama and Kerry say Assad, the UN says the rebel—I don’t trust either, so who knows) used chemical weapons in Syria.

 

Now it’s really funny how the left suddenly thinks that chemical weapons in the hands of a Mideast dictator is a bad thing that needs to be stopped.

 

Some might argue that we should punish those who have done so.  That we need to go in to save lives.

 

But they’re looking at it wrong.  While we do as decent people have a responsibility to stop genocide, that isn’t enough, we have to make sure we can actually improve the situation.  The question shouldn’t necessarily be is Assad (or the rebels) killing people, it should be, can we stop the killing?  In Germany, Iraq, and Afghanistan there were either prodemocracy forces (and in those last two I will fully admit we botched any attempt to rally those forces and form a real government)…and in Japan we had the wherewith-all to stay in charge for over a decade to ensure a stable government was left in place.  The problem with Syria is that it’s a choice between Assad and his Iran/Hamas terrorists backers and the Rebels (read Al-Qaeda)…if either side wins, they’ll use the chemical weapons and kill the people of Syria and probably other nations…and America at this point (even if we had a leader and not an idiot in charge) doesn’t have the resolve to stay the time needed and spend the money required to take over Syria and build a system that will end the killing of people.  The fact is that no matter what we do, people are going to die.  If we help people die, if we don’t help people die.  There is no way out of this that can stop the killing.

 

Kerry Syria

Kerry was against intervention over chemical weapons before he was for it…and he was for it before he was against it…

Now some people, whose opinions I respect, suggest we should go in and just bomb Assad’s ability for air dominance, level the playing field and let the rebels and Assad fight it out on equal terms.  I can see the wisdom in this…but this assumes a leader who knows what do to and how to handle such a campaign.  And here’s the problem if you had such a leader my NeoCon side might just say, why half-ass it?, go in occupy the nation and set up a democracy…but lacking such a leader I don’t know if I can even trust the idiot we have now to level the playing field…honestly has he done anything else right in foreign policy?  Which again leads me back to it’s best to stay out of this mess.

 

The silver lining to not doing anything at the moment is that this is Hamas and Al-Qaeda killing each other…which saves us the time and trouble of doing it.

 

But let’s talk about what we should do if reality had no bearing on this (or, say, if we had done the intelligent thing and elected a leader and good man and not a buffoon and corrupt hack).  Now Syria would present it’s own challenges but I think the best way we should do with Syria, if we were going to get involved is to look at our two most recent mistakes, Iraq and Afghanistan, and see where we screwed up there.

 

Now let’s first deal with some of the points of why we went.  We went to take out terrorist threats (and both nations did present such a threat), we went to do the ethical thing and stop genocide, and we went to spread democracy.  All could have been accomplished if Bush and/or Obama had had even half a brain between them…but Obama likes to grovel and apologize for America’s virtue and Bush was an isolationist (just look at his debate with Gore where he said he didn’t want to engage in nation building…so stop blaming NeoConservatives for Bush’s idiocy, he was never one of us and never will be).  It was the right war to fight.

 

It was also fought well.  The military is not the part to blame, it is the diplomats and politicians who screwed the occupation up, not the war itself.

 

Now let’s review what we should have done but didn’t.  And, in terms of full disclosure, I honestly thought we would have been bright enough to do these things when I gave my support for these wars…I thought that even if Bush was dumb enough to not know to do these, his advisors would at least be bright enough…boy was I wrong.

 

Obama moron

Do you trust this man to do anything right? Do you even trust to not make it worse?

The first thing we should not have done was turn over Iraq and Afghanistan to Iraqi and Afghani control so soon.  We were in control of Germany for year (and only gave them independence to gain their alliance in the Cold War) and were in complete control of Japan for nearly a decade.  We should have remained in political and military control of Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly a decade as well.  It takes time to rebuild the infrastructure of a nation, it takes time to get the culture used to the principles of rule of law and a democratic-Republic, it takes time to properly write a Constitution.  All of these were rushed for political convenience.  And that is partly what ultimately made these situations so terrible.

Someone should have gone to Congress to first get an act of war declared and second to get Congress to lay out in writing and law what defines success and when we can legally leave.  Right now we can leave whenever, whether we’ve finished the job or not, and it is largely up to the president and the president only. These are powers that Congress should have, and they should not have been given up, nor should any president have grabbed them.

The nations should have been broken up.  Their current borders are arbitrary creations of colonialism and forced numerous ethnic and religious groups that loathe each other.  Pluralism is also superior, but it grows best naturally when two group both doing well see each other as equals that both can grow and learn from, not from being forced together.  Iraq, should have been three nations (Kurds, Sunni, Shia)…Afghanistan should have likely been broken into a Southern and Northern part (although I’ll admit my knowledge of the breakdown of clans, ethnicities and religious divisions in Afghanistan is not as deep as it could be).  My point here being that smaller less diverse areas are easier to administrate, easier to work with, easier to maintain stability it…and if there is terrorist activity in one it does not mean that destabilizes the whole operation (for instance Kurdistan would have likely been stable, and possibly even economically prosperous very quickly which would have led to more stability in the whole area and an ally we can count on).

We should have never let the armies disband as quickly as we did.  We should have kept them as POWs vetting every single one of them before releasing them.  This would have delayed the terrorists attacks.

I agree completely with the surges, only disagreeing that they should have been done earlier and probably to an even greater degree.

We should have burned each and every poppy field in all of Afghanistan to the ground and shot any drug lord who complained.  The terrorists live off the funds of the drug trade and one of our first goals should have been to deny them any and all funds.

The Peace Corp should have been recalled for training in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, Dari, (and anything else we needed) and then sent to Afghanistan and Iraq.  There is no point in having a Peace Corp in helping in social and economic development if you’re not going to use it where it was needed most.

Border walls.  As we have learned in the US, there is nothing so important as a border wall…more so when dealing with terrorists.  We should have been building walls on the border of every single nation, starting with the borders of Iran, Pakistan, Syria.  If we had done this the terrorist activity would have been drastically reduced (as most of it came from Iran, Pakistan and Syria)…and if there had been a division of the nations we should have had walls between them as well to help stop the spread of terrorism.

With staying longer, our first responsibility should have been building up roads, water, electricity, schools, hospitals and the basic of industry…the infrastructure needed to support a republic of law.  Training the military and police should have been a distant second (because when you rush that, you let the terrorist infiltrate easily and attack us from within, as we’ve seen all too well) as the military can handle that for a longer period as we’ll be there for a while.

There is no way we should have ever left Iraq without gaining a permanent military base and the same goes for Afghanistan. One of the only reasons why these invasions made sense in the long run from a tactical stand point was gaining foot holds to ensure stability in the area (would Syria be as violent as it is right now if there was a permanent US base with missile launch capability just a few minutes from it’s borders?)

Massacre of Syrian Christians

This is a picture of the handy work of Obama’s allies in Syria…the massacre of Christians for no other reason than their religion. Yes we should help these people.

Among stronger women’s right pushes than we made, we should have made it a requirement that both nations add full rights to women and some version of our burning bed justifications (which more or less makes it justifiable for a woman who is afraid of her husband beating or murdering her to kill her husband…and then we should have probably armed every woman as we could have). This would hopefully have cleared out a lot of the worst bastards we would have to worry about, and the scum who objected should have just been summarily shot as well because you know they’re shit who would be nothing but a blight on humanity. (And I can hear some liberal whiny about it’s their culture who are you to judge.  I’m a human being with a brain, that’s who.  Any man, any law, any religion that says women are inferior to men is shit and deserves to be wiped off the Earth with extreme prejudice.)  We should probably also have installed a lot of women in positions of power, those who objected can be shot.  (This is more to quickly identify the terrorist scum and quickly eliminate them).

We should never have stopped it being a major function of the military and CIA to gather intelligence.  We should be capturing terrorists leaders and water-boarding every last piece of information out of them.  The problem with drones isn’t their use or their death toll…it’s that they’re being used in lieu of gathering intelligence which actually (causes more death in the long run) kills even more people in the long run.

(On a side note) We should have backed, supported and armed the revolution that started in Iran.  Conversely we should not have given moral support to the largely terrorist led Arab Spring.

We should have gone in and still should be going in with the mentality that first and foremost this is a war.  If you are dealing with rational people then negotiate with them, but otherwise there is no retreat, no fallback, no quarter and all that is acceptable is either complete and unconditional surrender or every member of your opposition dead.  No negotiations with the Taliban, no playing nice for Iran and Pakistan.  This is a war, we are in the right (or at least we could have been) and we will not stop until every tyrant is dead or in jail and every innocent citizen enjoys full human rights.

 

Now, while Syria presents it’s own challenges and idiosyncrasies, but it is these general principals that should guide the occupation and rebuilding of any nation.  And the question you need to ask is, do you think Obama has the spine and intelligence to do any of this?  Do you think he even has the brains to carry out attacks on Assad’s military targets?

For me the answer is simple.  No.  I would love to spread liberty and end genocide everywhere…but from what I have seen of this nation, and especially Obama, we don’t know how to do it, we don’t have the patience it takes to do it, and right now we certainly aren’t in an economic position to do it.  In an ideal world intervention is what we should do, but the realities of the present state that our current situation will only lead to making things worse.

Leave a comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Congress, Conservative, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, NeoConservative, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

The Short-Term-Thinking Ideas of Liberals on Foreign Policy

Red Eye is the one of the greatest TV shows ever.  It is fun, witty, bizarre, informative in spite of itself, and a place where you will hear commentators be bluntly honest where in other formats they would be more reserved.  And then there is Bill Schulz, Bill is the liberal on Red Eye…most of the time he plays just a coked out hobo spouting idiocy…but sometimes he’ll tell you what he really thinks, and that’s when his spiel turns from funny to just plain stupid.  But it’s not that the real Schulz is particularly below average…in fact, I think his honest moments show us the level of idiocy of your average liberal (and probably some of your dumber libertarians*) on foreign policy.  So to give you an idea of how little your average liberal knows, let’s look at some comments made by Red Eye’s liberal voice.

So let’s start with a discussion about his opinion about Obama’s term in office so far.

Amb. John Bolton: And significantly in the days of the IRA terrorism, Britain was led by Margaret Thatcher—we’re led by Barack Obama.

BS: Who has got a really good record so far.

Bolton: Five dead in Massachusetts .  And four Americans in Benghazi.  All unanswered at this point. That’s the signal to the terrorists that it’s open season.

BS: I think so far that’s a great record.  You don’t want anyone dead, but those are the realities of our war on terrorism.  I thought he’s done a great job defending this country so far.  I have never understood that argument.

Bolton: The question is stability in the Middle East where the Arab Spring has turned badly wrong.  The loss of influence in Iraq.

BS: How is that his fault?

Bolton: Because of the policies he’s pursued.  The withdrawal from Iraq, the withdrawal from Afghanistan. And the unwillingness to take on the war on terror.  The unwillingness to go after countries like Iran and North Korea who are pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

BS: I think if you ask most Americans they’re going to say I want out of Iraq.  I want out of Afghanistan.  And I don’t see what the negative repercussions will be.

Red Eye April 23rd

So so many stupid statements in such a short period of time.  Let’s deal with the last statement first.  That because people wanted out of Iraq then it’s a good thing.  Leadership is not about doing what the people want.  Leadership is about doing what is best for the nation in the long run. If those happen to match up, great.  But when they diverge leaders do the unpopular thing, they will try to convince the nation that it is the best thing, but if they can’t they will still expend all their political capital and even commit political suicide to do what is important and right .  But just doing what is popular is the base and cowardly move of hacks.  And to praise that is idiocy that only liberals can embrace.  It doesn’t matter if everyone thinks a course of action is wrong, if you believe it to be right and it is your job to set policy you do what you believe to be right.  Now there may be compromises here and there to ensure the most good comes about depending on the limitations of your power, but overall you do not care about what is popular if you are a leader.

But then let’s deal with the truly idiotic statement of “And I don’t see what the negative repercussions will be.”  Which pretty much sums up the rest of his comments and shows the differences between liberals and their opponents.  Liberals are too stupid to see any long term consequences.  They think only in the emotional moment.  Libertarians and conservatives on the other hand both consider the long term perspectives—where they differ is Libertarians focus on the consequences of action and conservatives point out that the consequences of inaction outweigh the negative effects of action.**

So let’s look over some of Obama’s foreign policy moves.

Iraq: Bush was an idiot who didn’t have a plan on how to rebuild Iraq.  But if I can lay into Bush for being short sighted, Obama was worse.  First off, did he do any of the right things and begin to rebuild Iraq?  Nope he left, and left it to crumble.  Yeah there are still US soldiers there (so if anyone tells you he ended the war in Iraq, they’re either lying or they’re dumb) but there are not enough there to do anything substantive…only enough there to get killed.  Great plan Barry.

Then he did something even more short sighted.  You don’t have to be terribly bright to realize that the Middle East is going to take up a large portion of foreign policy for a while.  Part of the reason to go into Iraq was not only to stop a dictator (something we should have done in the  early 90’s) and to stop support for terrorist networks…but one of the major reaons, long-term reasons, (besides stability, but you’d need a plan for that) was to establish a base from which we would be centrally located in the Middle East and thus have more effective influence on the entire area.  Right now our only major staging grounds (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel) are kind of on the periphery of the Middle East.

So thinking short term Obama not only doomed the nation to chaos again but he also blew one of the most important long term goals of the war.  Also since problems you don’t fix always tend to come back, don’t be surprised to see that this is not the last of major US troop deployments in Iraq in your lifetime.

time.afghan

Even the liberals at time seem to have an understanding of exactly what will happen if we leave the Taliban in charge.

Afghanistan:  Initially I thought this might not be a complete cluster.  We were burning more poppy fields than under Bush, and the initial stories of the uptick in drone warfare were hopeful.  But then we found out drones weren’t being used to take out high value targets we couldn’t easily get to, they were being used without any concern.  No one was being captured, no one was being interrogated.  You run a war as much on intel as you do on manpower….yes you can perhaps keep the problem at bay by an unrelenting drone war, but that is like sandbagging a river that shows no sign of stopping its flooding, the minute you stop sandbagging the flood will break, the second you stop the drones the flood will break (keep in burned with acidmind Obama was planning on putting strict rules on how to use drones should Romney have won).  And then you will have no drone and no intel to work with.  Whoever takes over from Obama will have their hands tied on both fronts.  And not only that…we’ve been in negotiations with the Taliban.  That’s right we want to make peace with the people who throw acid in women’s faces for not wearing a burka and who shoot little girls in the head.  I want you to take a look at these pictures.  Those are the people Obama has tried to negotiate a peace with.  Take a long look.  You cannot, you must not negotiate with things that can do that to the innocent. The collateral damage of war is one thing, the intentional mutilation of innocent is another, and any society that can coexist with people who do this as typical means to get what they want has no right to call itself civilized.  And to negotiate with butchers like that sends a very clear message that America does not stand for ethics, values nothing but her own whims, and will tolerate any evil so long as it does not bother us.

Iran: Besides leaking information about the virus we planted in Iranian computers and probably leaking information of Israeli plans to attack to ensure everyone in Iran was safe.  But while general incompetence abounds in not seeming to realize psychotically crazy religious people with nuclear weapons is a bad thing (and I would like here to thank Bush for blowing all his political capital by not having a plan, thus not being able to deal with this before moron boy took over) it takes a special kind of stupid to consistently back the wrong horse.   In Iran that would be the uprising in 2009 where (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/15/iran-elections-protests-mousavi-attacks)  the people of Iran rose up against the government run by the Ayatollah…and the US did nothing.  Now you can argue to me all day long about how we couldn’t do much…but please consider that in the light of running guns to Al Qaeda backed rebels in Lybia and Syria…to using US intel to help these groups allied with our enemies…to giving money and weapons to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt…during the pro democracy, true pro democracy uprising in Iran, we did nothing.  No word of encouragement.  No behind the scenes support, not even running our jets and ships dangerously close to their border to remind them we are watching.  NOTHING.  When it is a real battle between tyranny and liberty, this worthless pieces of scum did nothing.  I can’t promise that there was any way for this uprising to succeed, there probably wasn’t, but because we did nothing we made it very clear to every real desire for liberty in the world that we will not back you.

Israel: Obama has made it clear time and again he will not defend the democracy of Israel, going so far as to compromise the safety of Israeli intelligence officers so he could appear like the leader he is not (notice also they haven’t gone after this and like leaks that they thought made them look good…but leaks that made them look bad hell they’ll bug the AP, call reporters criminals for reporting, and god knows what else in the days to come.

In each and every dealing with Israel Obama leaves no doubt that support for Israel will be tepid at best, and nonexistent at worst, only encouraging further buildup and, God forbid, aggression.

Arab Spring: So while the pro-democracy protests of Iran were left to die, the pro tyranny, pro-Sharia, pro-Al Qaeda uprising of the Arab Spring were praised, supported, encouraged, armed, supplied, and even given money after their reigns are in place.  I wonder if the long term consequences of this will be five countries supporting terrorism where we had just gone through so much in Iraq to get rid of one.  Again I feel the long term effects of this will be less liberty and more terror.

I could go on, but in every single move the Obama administration has taken it has set long term advantages for the very people who want to destroy liberty and held back the long term strength of those who defend it. Don’t believe me on the weakening of our side, well then I would suggest you take a look at the latest lawsuit against Obama by the families of some of the dead members of SEAL Team 6…they’re not happy.

(yes the video of the press conference is very long, you may want to come back later and watch it because it’s worth it…though infuriating).

But back to Bill Schulz, it’s not a one night occurrence.  Try this recent debate with former CIA Agent Mike Baker on the May 1st show.

BS:The congress thing is true.  When he ran in 2008 it was not a Republican led Congress.  It is now.  There is no way he can get this to happen.  You guys can complain about that but that’s the fact.

Mike Baker: You know why he’s not closing Gitmo.

BS: Because Congress won’t let him.

Baker: Bush spent several years doing what Obama found out is almost impossible to do.  Get someone to take these people.

BS: Well Yemen wants 90 of them why won’t we give them to them.

So Bill’s genius idea is to send them to a nation where terrorists are numerous and partly in control.  Can’t see the possibility of a jail break at all, can you?

Baker: The best way to end this prison let them die from the hunger strike.

BS: A lot of them have never been tried for anything and we don’t know if they’ve done anything.  I don’t necessarily know if that’ s a great idea.

This is the face of "You can't possibly be that stupid." brought to you by Mike Baker.

This is the face of “You can’t possibly be that stupid.” brought to you by Mike Baker.

Baker: I’m sorry what.

BS: None of them have been tried for anything and we’ve already released a bunch that were innocent.

Baker: We just randomly picked these guys up and threw them in there?

BS: A lot of people have admitted that we’ve done just that.  A guy working under Cheney said just that.

Greg Gutfeld: I think Baker’s going to kill you .

BS: No but isn’t that true?

I’ll agree Gitmo isn’t perfectly simplistic and that we probably did pick up a few innocent people (there is a reason we have the term “the fog of war”)…but the way Schulz is portraying it (especially if you watch the recording) is that everyone down in Cuba was just minding their own business and the US military randomly picked them up off the street (hence Baker’s face)…also the guy Schulz is likely referring to, Lawrence Wilkerson, who was on Colin Powell’s staff (yeah real conservative credentials there) is also on the record that we made up all the evidence against Saddam and he never had any WMD programs…which in light of the fact that we had to ship 500 ton of yellow cake uranium out of Iraq (according to CNN).  Also Wilkerson currently makes a living as a pundit who goes on left wing shows and says that the GOP is nothing but a bunch of racists.  Given that he’s clearly a liar (or too stupid to understand what 500 tons of uranium is) and he hates the party he supposedly is from (thought I doubt) his statements about us taking the innocent and shipping them to Gitmo so one finds that his statements may be more motivated by leftist ideology than those pesky things known as facts, which makes most of his points as being the kind you should take with a grain of salt.

Yes military tribunals would be nice…but Schulz in his hypocrisy has forgotten about the constant blocks from liberals who wanted to give them every single civil liberty of US citizens and all protections of the Geneva Conventions (this ignores that little point that the Geneva Convention only applies to those in uniform, and the uniform clause was put in there specifically to prevent the major kind of terrorism that these terrorists were engaged in.  The Geneva Convention wanted to set rules that you will fight in certain ways, or we will not guarantee your safety in the least and you’re on your own.  To offer this scum those protections only encourages the kind of behavior you don’t want to encourage…but there again we go back to Obama and other leftist). And their lack of understanding of all rules and regulaions, laws, constitution, etc.

And an earlier part of the conversation dealt with the foolish idea that Gitmo is something that makes us enemies…yeah cause our drone attacks are making us so many friends (I don’t buy into the pacifist BS that the drones do nothing but kill innocent children, I’m an adult and realize there is such a thing as unintended collateral damage…but on the same token Barry is rather haphazard in his use of drones and doesn’t seem to care about doing the normal thing and trying to limit collateral damage where possible).  But back to creating enemies. It’s not creating more enemies.  Religious psychopaths tend to hate whether they have a reason to or not.  Note they hated us before the first Gulf War, they hated us before the Shah was put into power, the Mufti of Jerusalem was conspiring with Hitler on how to kill all the Jew in the 1930’s before there was a major Western presence, they have waged endless and constant war on the west since, well, their founding. When you found a religion on an act of genocide (the killing of the Jews of Medina) the after effects tend to be people who find enemies whether you give them a reason or not.  If we pulled out every Western base from the Middle East tomorrow AND moved all of Israel here to America…I’d lay down my entire net worth on a bet that would say they would still be calling for death to the Great Satan.  We’re not making enemies by our actions, an ideology that hates reason is going to find any example of it as an enemy.

The fact of the matter is that no sane person thinks the people in Gitmo are a bunch of saints.  The fact of the matter is that liberals only care about what’s popular now and doing what they want now with no concern for long term.

Yeah Bush botched the job at rebuilding…probably because he wasn’t a real neoconservative (go back to the Bush/Gore debates, you will hear him say he doesn’t believe in nation building), it’s just that like his liberal sensibilities he did the only thing that made sense in the short term.  The fact of the matter is that we don’t have anyone in power right now in this nation who thinks long term, and we haven’t had one for a while (although we did blow the chance to have one very recently).  I’ve pulled out Bill Schulz  as the representative of liberal thought here, but you hear dumb shit like this all over the place, not just on the token liberal of one show, and it is an ideology of short term thinking that will always lead to problems.

*Honestly, libertarians, why are you letting your party get taken over by the whiny anti-war crowd. You used to be Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater types who encouraged destroying tyranny.  What happened?

**Libertarians may dispute the idea that they don’t see as far into the future as conservatives, but history backs up neoconservatives on this point in terms of foreign policy

***Anyone who thinks George W. —Let me expand entitlements, give federal control of education, sign stimulus bills, not worry about Tort reform, Social Security reform, cutting any part of the government, do nothing about Fannie and Freddie –Bush was a fiscal conservative in any way, shape, or form is deluding themselves.  But he lowered taxes!  No he didn’t, conservatives know that a temporary tax reduction has no lasting effect on the economy, so even that move wasn’t conservative.   The man was conservative only in the part of “conservative” that is a gross misuse of the word and that the GOP needs to drop, let’s the use government to promote social values.

Leave a comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Conservative, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Israel, liberal arrogance, NeoConservative, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

The Problem with Libertarianism

2 Comments

by | October 18, 2012 · 9:17 pm

An Open Letter to Libertarians: Something you should consider

Libertarians.  Look, we’re not going to get along on everything.  Let’s just admit this.  Now we can sling insults and hold a grudge match that will get neither of us what we want…or we work together.

Now before we get into my proposal, I would like to go over three basic points.

The first is that it is better to get half of what you want than to get none of what you want.  Yes moral superiority might feel good for a few seconds but when it’s dealing with pragmatic issues, actually getting half of what you want is always better psychologically and tangibly.

The second is that politics is a game of trying to convince people who might be open to you.  Romney’s 47% comment, despite the Democratic spin, was a pragmatic comment of “there is a percentage of the country that does not agree with me and pandering to them won’t work.”  Thus any group that makes it clear that they will never vote for someone because of this or that issue makes themselves politically irrelevant.

The third is that Romney’s going to win.  Wednesday’s debate shows that we are going to have 4 debates of Obama and Biden getting their asses handed to them.  Add to that the fact that when you consider what we all know, that all the polls (even before the debate) were being cooked and are still being cooked (they’ve now moved from over sampling Democrats to under sampling independents where Romney has a 7  to 8 point lead BEFORE the debates).  Then take that fact that the polls are skewed and add the fact that the remaining undecided voters invariably vote 2 to 1 for the challenger, even a conservative estimate makes it clear that Romney already has the electoral votes and 3 more debates like that plus Obama clearly just phoning it in at this point means, that without question, Romney’s going to win.

Now, Libertarians, as much as I have been frustrated with you and your party this year, I say with all honesty, I want you to have a larger influence in all levels of government.  I may not agree with you 100% on all things, but trust me there are a lot of issues I stand about halfway between you and the Republican establishment.  On a lot of things you are the intellectual foundation of the Tea Party, and I want to see that foundation strengthened, not weakened.  I loathe the social conservative branch of the Republican Party, and I was beyond giddy when their nearly Satanic candidate Rick Santorum went down in flames.  But guess what?  You’re not making it easy to get the Republican Party to embrace it’s Coolidge/Goldwater/Reagan roots of libertarianism and kill this monster called social conservatism that is really just intrusive government under a different branding.

Why are you making it hard? Because you aren’t accepting point one that it’s better to get half than none.  The Republican Party does admit that.  You tell the Republican Party composed of Milton Friedman monetarists that unless they embrace the most radical branches of Austrian economics you won’t vote for them.  And knowing you’re this intractable, if they want capitalists in the GOP to have any chance of halting full on Keynsian socialism, they have to make a deal with the mixed economy people.  The GOP is willing to make compromises and go to or three steps to the right or left to keep it centered around their beliefs…but since you demand they go five steps to the right (two or three further than their morals will go) the two steps to left, while repugnant, prevents ten steps to the left.  (Of course if you compromised and made the three steps we did you would get more of what you want and we wouldn’t have to constantly compromise with the left).  Same goes with social issues.  I saw a Reason ad this week hitting Romney/Ryan for being terrible social conservatives who are opposed to medical marijuana.  Is this true? Not really.  Paul Ryan came out and said that he and Romney wouldn’t personally vote for it if they had a choice, but they consider it a state’s rights issue and will not get the federal government involved.  But apparently the libertarians over at Reason are so rigid that unless you embrace both absolute states rights AND complete social liberalism you’re just another big government hack.  A pragmatic person would say, if the federal government isn’t getting involved, what does it matter if the people in that government hold a different opinion.  But no, unless libertarians get to eat their cake, have it, keep it and eat it again over and over again, nothing is good enough for them.

Libertarians make it quite clear, that unless you march 100% lockstep with them, they will not vote for you.  And then they bitch about the fact that the coalition that is the GOP doesn’t listen to them.  We may not have a parliamentary government like most of Europe, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have coalitions.  We just form them when we form the party not when we form the parliament.  And, I’m sorry, if you want to be in the coalition you have to work with the coalition.

And I want you in this coalition.  And I want more voice calling for less government in the economy and in my personal life.  I want government out of religion and business.  I want that to be a legitimate voice that holds sway.

But you have to work with us.

So how do we make the Libertarian vote a legitimate voice again?

Well this election provides a great opportunity.

The first thing I’m going to say that in any state that is clearly 10 point to the Romney or Obama side, if you want to vote for Gary Johnson, vote for Gary Johnson and get your libertarian friends to come out.  In these states where, let’s be honest here, your vote isn’t going to make a difference let’s at least make it count by showing that there is a huge number of libertarians out there.

However if you live in a state where theoretically your vote could swing things (remember how close some of these states have been in the last few years) you need to vote for Romney.  (In the second half of this blog I’ll show you Romney will give you half of what you want, where Obama will give you nothing, but let me finish this line of thought first).  By voting for the Libertarian in large numbers in non-swing states but voting for Romney (and I would hope the GOP Senate and House candidates in close contests if you can stomach it) in swing states you are showing that the Libertarian Party has grown up and is willing to work with the Republican Party.  That you are the swing voters the GOP needs to get* and that you are open to working with the GOP.

In addition to this, you need to get every liberal you know to not vote Obama but vote for Johnson.  This will give a better clue as to which voters do really care about economic conservatism and social freedom.  Let’s be honest you may not agree with Romney on a lot of issues…but is there one you agree with Obama on?

Again this will show the Republican Party you’re open to compromise, that we can drop the social conservatives sometimes, and it will increase the power of the Tea Party and the Libertarian view in federal government.  The GOP is probably going to take Congress and the White House, but a move like this will temper any social conservative urge for fear it might alienate the segment they picked up, and embolden them on the economic conservative front as they will believe there will be no backlash.  It’s a win for the Libertarians.  It’s a win for the Republicans.  And it’s a loss for big government.

But I understand you might have reservations.  You’ve heard for months that Romney is big government, that Romney is just like Obama.  I get it, I was once there myself.  But when I looked at facts, I found that just wasn’t the case. 

 

Let me put out a few common complaints by Libertarians and show you how these complaints are not the case.

If you listened to some in the Libertarian party, these two are to the left of FDR…sane people know there is a difference between these guys and their opposition.

As I pointed out above, the Romney and Ryan ticket believe in states rights…and unlike Obama they’re not going to waste federal dollars prosecuting medical marijuana cases.  It may not be full legalization, but the end result is the same.

Another claim is that he’s going to outlaw abortion.  No he’s not, he’s going to try to get rid of all funding for Planned Parenthood.  You’re libertarians, like me, even if you’re pro-choice you should support getting rid of government funding of abortion.  Now he has said he’s supporting an Amendment to the Constitution–1.  The president has absolutely no power and no role in the process of adding amendments and 2. There is no way you will ever see 38 states agree to banning abortion…thus him saying that he’ll support an Amendment is like saying “I’d support cold fusion if someone actually created it”, it doesn’t matter because it’s not going to happen.  But yes he can appoint judges to the Supreme Court who might do something conservative judges hardly ever do, overturn previous major decisions…which would make abortion a states rights issue again (the court has the power to make something legal, but it has no authority to make something illegal…all overturning Roe would do is make it a states rights issue)…hey aren’t you libertarians in favor of states rights issues?

Same with gay marriage.  The amendment won’t go anywhere and he’ll keep it as a state’s rights issue. However, if the libertarians follow my suggestion they might be able to get enough power to propose disentangling the state from religion as it currently is in its treatment of marriage. But Libertarians would have to have some power for that to happen.

Romney has said he supports auditing the Fed and will sign the bill if it gets to him.  You give Romney a Republican Senate and you will get the audit of the Federal Reserve you’ve always wanted. Will you get that with Obama?

On spending Libertarians keep going off on Romney’s budgets in Massachusetts and the Ryan plan.  Did you miss that both cases were budgets designed to pass legislatures controlled by liberal Democrats?  Yes those things didn’t solve all the problems.  But they were as close as these two conservatives felt they could reasonably get past liberal legislatures.  (Romney’s did…and if Harry Reid wasn’t illegally stopping the bills from coming up, the Ryan plan would have passed as well.).  The actual outline of the budget (and it’s only an outline because Romney understands it is the House that is the only body with the Constitutional authority to draft the specifics of a budget). There is nothing in the Romney plan, or the 59 points of that plan that will not lead to cuts in government spending.

Yeah, after these 59 major things, I have no idea what Romney will do…

Screw the first 100 days, the first 100 hours is going to be productive under Romney.

On taxes this is the most bizarre one of all.  Romney didn’t raise a single tax as Governor of Massachusetts.  Taxachusetts.  That’s impressive.  That shows commitment to keeping taxes down.  Libertarians scream that he did raise taxes.  This is either a lie or insanity.  What Romney did do was raise fees for government services.  Why libertarians are upset with this, I’m not entirely sure…for decades I have heard and read capitalists from the more moderate Sowell, Freidman and Hayek to the extreme of Rand in the later years (after she had completely gone off the deep end) and every shade of capitalist and libertarian in between say that it would be better if the government raised revenue through fees rather than taxes.  Then someone does that…and libertarians scream he’s a bleeding heart liberal…for doing what they suggested.  WTF?  Are there some in the libertarian party (those with the pulpit) suffering from Romney-derangement syndrome?  I think so.  Yeah it would be better if he lowered taxes (you know like he wants to at the federal level) but let’s see how many taxes you could get lowered with a legislature that’s 87% Democrat?

Gun rights…the NRA endorsed Romney-Ryan…they don’t always endorse candidates, lots of elections go without an NRA endorsement…go on tell me Romney’s anti-gun.

RomneyCare is 70 pages and protect the private sector.  Obamacare is 300o pages and destroys the private sector.  A mandate is constitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution…it is not Constitutional under the U.S. Constitution (shame John Roberts has never read it).  Romneycare looks like what the Heritage Foundation proposed…Obamacare looks nothing like that. But please tell me how they’re the same.

The Patriot Act and NDAA…look we’re not going to agree on this one.  And you’re not going to get what you want out of either Romney or Obama.  What you will get is that Romney won’t sue courts to put back indefinite detention of captured foreigners (the bill that passed didn’t include indefinite detention of U.S. citizens who have not already committed an act of treason (which technically you could already hold them even without NDAA) (Libertarians are now going to throw a hissy fit and tell me I’m wrong….here’s the link to the bill    find for me the text that says otherwise…I’ll save you some time, it’s not there).  And yeah, Romney will use what parts of the Patriot Act haven’t been overturned by courts to go after terrorism (and most of you do realize that the majority of the Patriot Act was just extending the powers the federal government had against organized crime to terrorism, getting rid of the Patriot Act won’t get rid of the powers if you have someone like Obama who is willing to abuse every law for personal gain.)  I can say that, unlike Obama, Romney will keep to the letter and spirit of the law.  You don’t like it, and we won’t agree…but you have to admit one is better than the other.

Defense.  Again you’re not going to get what you want here. But would you prefer someone like Goldwater and Reagan who understand peace through strength and keep conflicts to a minimum….or someone like LBJ, Carter, and Obama who through gross incompetence spark conflicts that eventually draw us in whether we want them or not.  Further, I know you want the defense budget cut…Romney’s not going to cut troops or arms or the size of the Navy…but this is the genius of Bain.  Do you really think he’s not going to have some very good people go through every department and go line by line looking at all the worthless bullshit and eliminate that? Romney, will give you cuts in every department’s budget.  Big ones.  If you let him.

Look, like I said at the beginning it’s better to get half of what you want than nothing.  Romney will give you that half.  Obama won’t.  Romney believes in smaller government, Obama doesn’t.

I said that to be relevant you have to show that you’re willing to work with us.

And Romney’s going to win.

It’s up to you.  You can do what I suggested, vote for Romney in the swing states, vote for Johnson in the non-swing states and get every libertarian leaning liberal to vote for him too.  This will show the Libertarians have numbers but are also willing to work with the GOP, thus they can and should be courted as a voting block.

Or you can hold to your rigid stance that Romney and Obama are the same.  Attack both of them. And keep your ideas marginalized, keep the GOP beholden to social conservatives, and make it that much harder to get big government off our backs.

I hope you chose the win-win-win plan I’m suggesting, and not the lose-lose-lose plan of just holding rigidly to anti-Romney.

(Oh if there is some issue you truly feel Obama and Romney are the same on, let me know and give me a chance to dissuade you…but first please ask yourself if they really are the same…or it is just that Romney will only give you part of what you want and Obama will give you none.)

*Some might say that alienating the social conservative base will cause Republicans to lose.  But if you actually look at polls endlessly like I do, you’ll see that what turns a lot of moderate Democratic voters off of the GOP is not the economics but the social issues.  It’s a gamble I know, but if the GOP moved a little away from social conservatives I think they’ll win 3 blue dog Democrats for every social conservative radical (Santorum) who leaves the party.  But there has to actually be more than just Ron and Rand Paul advocating for this in the party.

2 Comments

Filed under Ayn Rand, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Goldwater, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Paul Ryan, politics, Ronald Reagan, Taxes, Tyranny, War on Terrorism, Welfare

The Conservative New Ager and The Snark Who Hunts Back Review The Dark Knight Rises: A Tale of Heroes, Politics and Death

This last week we (The Snark Who Hunts Back and The Conservative New Ager) went to go see The Dark Knight Rises together for the second time (the first being a trilogy marathon on opening night). We delayed writing a blog then because it became obvious there was so much we would have to see it again to fully appreciate the depth…and even on a second viewing we realized there is more than a single blog here.

But let’s get the overture out of the way. The final piece of this spectacular trilogy, like almost all of director Christopher Nolan’s recent work is thematically based off a work of literature…A Tale of Two Cities, in the case of The Dark Knight Rises. And while it might be hard to find the undercurrents of Othello in The Dark Knight, Faust in The Prestige, or Zorro in Batman Begins (which for symmetry should be renamed The Dark Knight Begins).

But it’s not just literary, it’s political…or at least it appears to be. The Dark Knight seemed pretty obviously a defense of the War on Terror, and The Dark Knight Rises seems a pretty striking assault on the morals of leftist economics. Now Nolan claims that his works aren’t political (a common defense by those who want to survive in a hostile political environment) and Occupy Wall Street thugs think they’re really smart in pointing out that the movie was written before OWS so it can’t be about them (this poor argument ignores that their rhetoric of evil has been spouted by the left quite vehemently in the last few years and also they clearly are so ignorant of the history of their own ideas that they don’t know their filth was spouted by demagogues in ancient Athens, and shown to be stupid then…so just because Nolan didn’t know about OWS doesn’t mean he wasn’t responding to the evil)…and even if Nolan is telling the truth that he didn’t intend it to a political statement (which I doubt) it works too well as one not to make some comments about the philosophy of the work.

Now ignoring the message of the trilogy taken as a whole (that’s another blog for another time) we think there are three main philosophical statements to this film: The nature of heroism, the politics of progressivism, envy and “social justice”, and the fear of death.

The Nature of the Hero

“A hero can be anyone. Even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat over a little boy’s shoulder to let him know the world hadn’t ended.”

One of the more unbelievable complaints I’ve heard about The Dark Knight Rises was that it made it look like the common man can’t do anything for themselves, that they need the rich to save them. Never mind the fact that, by the end, Bruce Wayne barely had a cent to his name or that his money certainly didn’t help him climb out of the pit. We would just want to know if the person who made the complaint was even watching the same movie that we saw with our friends.

Not long after Bruce Wayne loses all his money, due to Bane’s attack on the stock exchange, he has a conversation with John Blake, a police officer who knows Wayne’s identity as Batman. Wayne tells Blake that the whole point of Batman was that he could be anyone, Batman was meant to be an inspiration to the people of Gotham, something that is repeated in both of the previous movies.

In Batman Begins Bruce Wayne tell Alfred:

“People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy. And I can’t do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man I’m just flesh and blood, I can be ignored, destroyed. But a symbol….as a symbol I can be incorruptible, everlasting…..”

In The Dark Knight, the Joker asks the fake Batman, Brian what batman means to him. Brian answers “He’s a symbol … that we don’t have to be afraid of scum like you”. And the whole point of Batman, as we see come to fruition at the beginning of The Dark Knight Rises, was not to create a legion of caped crusaders, but an army of men like Harvey Dent (before his psychotic break) and Jim Gordon—a group of people willing to stand up for what is right.

But we digress. The point is what made the average person a hero in The Dark Knight Rises.

At no point did John Blake, Commissioner Gordon, or the other members of the resistance, sit down and go ‘well, I’m just a common person, I’m just going to wait for the government or Batman to come save us’ (except for the character of Foley, who was rightly called out for being a coward). They worked tirelessly to find a way out on their own, they realized they were on their own the moment Bane took over the city and began to look for ways to free the city’s police force from the sewers.

When Batman did come back, in an a miraculous 11th hour miracle, they didn’t wait for him to clean up the mess. The police banded together and marched on Bane’s army, many of them dying in the fighting to save their city.

Selina Kyle, despite telling Batman that she was leaving the city as soon as she destroyed the debris blocking the tunnel, turned around and risked her life to fight for the city and to save Batman’s life.

Lucius Fox risked death and drowning , trying to find a way to stop the nuclear bomb from detonating.

Even Ra’s al Ghul (don’t you hate it when you agree with the words, if not the actions, of a villain?) says, during Bruce’s training, “The training is nothing! The will is everything! The will to act.”

The heroes who kept Gotham alive while Batman fought his way out of the pit

Every one of these people, training or no, had the will to act. They were all willing to give everything for their city, for their freedom. What could possibly be more heroic than that?

Fancy toys, nice cars, and a cool suit will only get you so far if you don’t have the will to do what is necessary, even when what is necessary may end your life.

Heroism isn’t about money, toys, or good looks; it’s a state of mind and living life, not with no fear of death, but with a willingness to die to defend others and defend your beliefs.

You may not be a superhero, but anyone can be a hero. That’s what The Dark Knight Rises shows us about heroism.

Politics, Socialism and evils of envy

“Repression is the only lasting philosophy. The dark deference of fear and slavery, my friend, will keep the dogs obedient to the whip, as long as this roof shuts out the sky.'”—A Tale of Two Cities*

You would have to have been pretty dense not to get that this movie was thematically inspired by A Tale of Two Cities. Even Dickens, for all of his sickeningly naïve progressive rhetoric, had an inkling of the evil of the French Revolution. A quick review of history if it’s been too long since that high school history class. Louis XVI in response to economic woes and civil unrest had given the public everything they wanted: an assembly, power of due process of law, and abdicated much of the absolute power of the monarchy. And while many where happy with these changes, the ignorant rabble who were open to the rhetoric of the most extreme thought it wasn’t enough. They stormed the Bastille, arrested Louis and his wife (who if you actually study history was not the vapid slut a layman’s understand of history tries to depict her as), and placed power in the hands of radicals like Robespierre and Marat. The Terror, Madam Guillotine, rivers of blood, atrocities on a scale that wouldn’t be seen again in France until the Nazi’s allowed the French to revel in their anti-Semitism. (A similar pattern would be seen when the Russians replaced the Tsar with a democratic government…but soon got rid of that in favor of a psychotically evil government).

She learned to hate her “ideal” world quickly enough.

This history lesson is important because this is the same pattern Nolan shows in Gotham. For all of it’s corruption in the first two films, Gotham at the beginning of The Dark Knight Rises was a city that had everything it wanted: Clean streets, an efficient police force (a city of 12 million with only 3,000 uniformed officers means an obscenely low crime rate), a healthy economy (the city could afford multiple simultaneous construction projects by Dagget, that means an incredibly good tax base, ergo strong economy…and football stadiums aren’t packed to the brim with every last seat filled during hard times), a mayor who has survived for over 8 years in office (usually a sign of prosperity) Even Selina Kyle’s words of decrying inequality ring hollow, he “old town” (suggestive of the gutter) apartment is hardly a shabby SRO or the slum heap of “the narrows” from the first film—and while in Batman Begins criminals could carry on with their nefarious dealings out in the open, or hide them in the vast slums, this is a Gotham where there are so few places to hide your activities you literally have skulk in the sewers (everywhere else is too bright and too well off to hide such activities)…Like the French they had everything they had asked for. And, like France, it took only a little fear and few mad men to stir the lowest rungs of society and bring about anarchy.
There are of course differences between A Tale of Two Cities and the Revolution it describes and the events of The Dark Knight Rises. The Bastille was stormed not to free prisoners (there were hardly any left in the Bastille by the time of the Revolution) but to gain weapons to take over the city. And even if you buy the myth of the Storming of the Bastille, the prisoners released from the Bastille were primarily political prisoners…not hardened thugs of organized crime. The fact that the Dent Law in The Dark Knight Rises was passed because there was a martyr to push through the law, does not change the fact that it, like all three-strikes laws and mandatory sentencing laws, are a particular point of hatred for the progressive who think it’s unfair that people who do evil and horrific things should, heaven forbid, be locked up where they can’t do any harm. But be it the Bastille and the release of a mere seven political prisoners or the opening of Blackgate Prison and letting a host of violent criminals go free, the result was ironically the same: The Terror.

The terror: a system where justice and trials are a mockery and the innocent are held as guilty for crimes they never committed…and where there is only one punishment: death. The terror, a system that provides so much that it makes everyone so equal that they are all starving and tearing at each other for daily sustenance (or like the Soviet Union or Gotham you could have food imported from the capitalistic society because you can’t produce any on your own). The terror: the utopia every half brained progressive idealist praises, only to lead to their own downfall.

In the real French Revolution the villain was Robespierre who used high rhetoric to justify rank thugery as a progressive march to fraternity and equality. In A Tale of Two Cities the villain was Madame De Farge, a woman so hell bent on avenging her family’s murders that she will see the whole world burn to get her pound of flesh. Nolan gives us both villains in the form of Bane and Talia al Ghul. Which of course leads us into the villainy of their perverse understanding of economics.

Let me spout the politics of envy and class warfare knowing it will only lead to your eventual destruction!

Before we get into showing how Nolan destroys the ideals of progressivism by showing what it brings, let’s dismiss one semi-intelligent objection: Bane and Talia don’t believe in progressivism, they’re trying to show how it is a failed system and how people must reject it. That’s not entirely an incorrect point…but what you need to also realize is that just because the villains may be a tool they don’t really believe in doesn’t mean that it isn’t showing the flaws of progressivism…and that just because they don’t believe in progressivism doesn’t mean they’re capitalist. Point in fact, the entire League of Shadows from Ra’s Al Ghul’s first words to Talia’s last is a world view based on feudalism and cronyism. The League believes it should be the one who decides who shall be successful and who shall fail. Bane says as much when he tells Wayne, “I learned here that there can be no true despair without hope. So, as I terrorize Gotham, I will feed its people hope to poison their souls. I will let them believe they can survive so that you can watch them clamoring over each other to “stay in the sun.” You can watch me torture an entire city and when you have truly understood the depth of your failure, we will fulfill Ra’s al Ghul’s destiny… We will destroy Gotham and then, when it is done and Gotham is ashes, then you have my permission to die.” As we stated above they rule through terror, not reason, not ethics, not law, justice—they dress their words up in the clothes of these higher ideals but their actions show them to be as hollow and lacking in substance on the inside as any scarecrow (especially if said Scarecrow sets himself up as the instrument of justice).

Politically speaking, there is much that is applicable to our current political situation in our country. Now, to be fair, I don’t believe that Christopher Nolan’s intent was to create a modern political allegory. This movie was written and being filmed long before the Occupy Wall Street movement, which shares many of the villains sentiments, began.

During the first few weeks of the Occupy movement we both remember having many conversations about the similarities between that movement and the early days of the French Revolution. Which is why the connection between The Dark Knight Rises and OWS comes so easily.

The views of Occupy Wall Street were shown almost perfectly in Bane’s and Catwoman’s words, as well as the actions of the people who jump at the chance to drag the rich out and punish them for their success.

Bane’s entire speech outside of Black Gate Prison is so reminiscent of something from a ‘mic check’ at Occupy Wall Street

“We take power from the corrupt, who, for generations, have kept you down with myths of…opportunity and we give it back to you, the people. Gotham is yours, none shall interfere, do as you please. We’ll start by storming Black Gate and freeing the oppressed…an army will be raised, the powerful will be ripped from their decadence and cast out into the cold where we all have endured, courts will be convened, spoils will be enjoyed…”

-Bane (apologies for mistakes, I was working from a VERY scratchy audio clip)

and for those of you who remember the scenes that accompanied the final lines of that speech, the violence is so similar to the rioting at Occupy Oakland that is was almost frightening, especially when you realize that this movie was written months before any of that every happened.

Selina Kyle (Catwoman) starts out with the same exact rhetoric as many an Occupy Wall Street supporter. In a conversation with Bruce Wayne she says “You think this is gonna last? There’s a storm coming Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches. ‘Cause when it hits, you’re all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large, and leave so little for the rest of us.”

Though after her betrayal of Batman she appears to change her tone in a way that OWS never did. Upon entering a home that had been ransacked after Bane’s Black Gate speech she comments on the fact that ‘this used to be someone’s home’ when she looks at a smashed family photo. Her friend says ‘now it’s everyone’s home.’ Kyle, unlike just about everyone in OWS who only has to look to the failure of the Soviet Union, the collapse of Greece or the repression of China and North Korea to know what a failed system socialism, when she saw what her ideals brought about very quickly had no problem seeing their evil and abandoning them.

The Dark Knight Rises shows what happens when give us capitalisms for anarchy or socialism. You have perversion of justice. You have to survive on the handouts and scraps provided to you. There is no growth. No prosperity. No civilization. Only blood and the terror.

Now on to a slightly more hilarious turn of events.

Shortly before the movie came out the Obama campaign (and liberals in general) noticed something they thought they could use as a brilliant attack against Romney.

Did you know that Romney had a business named Bain Capital?

Bain/Bane…get it?**

One of these guys is someone rich who could easily leave others to fend for themselves but doesn’t…the other is named Bane. Which one reminds you the most of the presidential challengert?

“It has been observed that movies can reflect the national mood,” said Democratic advisor and former Clinton aide Christopher Lehane. “Whether it is spelled Bain and being put out by the Obama campaign or Bane and being out by Hollywood, the narratives are similar: a highly intelligent villain with offshore interests and a past both are seeking to cover up who had a powerful father and is set on pillaging society,” he added.

As the Friday release date has neared, liberal blogs were the first to connect Batman’s toughest foe with Romney’s firm.

– Christopher Lehane (via Washington Examiner)

Yeah, they actually did that.

Hilariously, when Rush Limbaugh dared to point out the name similarities, liberal bloggers thought he was being insane and completely ignored that their side was the one who made the comparison first.

Luckily conservatives had a fellow conservative Chuck Dixon, comic book creator, and coincidentally, the co-creator of the villain Bane, to smack some sense into liberals.

In an interview with ComicBook.com Dixon had this to say.

“The idea that there’s some kind of liberal agenda behind the use of Bane in the new movie is silly…I refuted this within hours of the article in the Washington Examiner suggesting that Bane would be tied to Bain Capital and Mitt Romney appearing. Bane was created by me and Graham Nolan and we are lifelong conservatives and as far from left-wing mouthpieces as you are likely to find in comics…As for his appearance in The Dark Knight Rises, Bane is a force for evil and the destruction of the status quo. He’s far more akin to an Occupy Wall Street type if you’re looking to cast him politically. And if there ever was a Bruce Wayne running for the White House it would have to be Romney.”

-Chuck Dixon (Via ComicBook.com)

Romney is Bruce Wayne? That’s the best pseudo-endorsement I’ve heard all year. If I wasn’t voting for Romney before, I sure am now.

The Fear of Death

Blind Prisoner: You do not fear death. You think this makes you strong. It makes you weak.
Bruce Wayne: Why?
Blind Prisoner: How can you move faster than possible, fight longer than possible without the most powerful impulse of the spirit: the fear of death.
Bruce Wayne: I do fear death. I fear dying in here, while my city burns, and there’s no one there to save it.
Blind Prisoner: Then make the climb.
Bruce Wayne: How?
Blind Prisoner: As the child did. Without the rope. Then fear will find you again.

Now on the Conservative New Ager we have a fairly low opinion of the fear of death. In numerous blogs it has been ridiculed as the foolish, childish, ignorant paralytic it is. However, it must be admitted, that in the rush of these blogs to point out that “Wise men at their end know [death] is right” and that it is nothing to be feared but merely a natural part of life, that the wise also “do not go gentle into that good night.”

Bruce Wayne doesn’t fear death for the first half of the movie, that is true. He is not hindered by the fears that he once was. The problem is that in this attempt to rid himself of fear he went too far and rid himself of the desire for life as well. While the movie only uses the phrase “fear death” it might seem that it is encouraging people to embrace fear. But from context the movie is not telling people to embrace the paralyzing fear of death because it is this fear that encourages the federal government and the people of Gotham to stand ideally by, and the fear that causes Modine’s Foley to hide, while a terrorist takes over the city. Rather, the movie is encouraging a balance—that the proper way is to rid one’s self of the paralyzing fear of death of Wayne did in the first film, but to maintain the love of live, and the appreciation of death and knowledge that each moment could be your last and must be fought for, that comes with this love of life. It is only this appreciation of death, that pushes Wayne to make a jump that he could not otherwise make, because he knows that if he is to live he must push himself—and he cannot push himself without both the knowledge that there is no turning back or without the desire to do something other than seek his own end.

And then of course, as a final thought we can’t forget how wonderfully patriotic this film is. Okay maybe not so much in it showing the President to be a sniveling coward who gives into terrorist demands (patriotic or not that might be an accurate assessment)…or in how cowardly the bureaucracy is when they blow the bridge condemning many to die (again might be an accurate conservative message). But you will notice that the people of Gotham (not the scum the who follow Bain mind you, but the people who are terrorized by them) stand for “The Star Spangled Banner” and the only person shown to not have his hand over his heart is the scummy mayor (who apparently is close to an even scummier Congressmen…again perhaps an accurate assessment of current events). And along with the police it is these people who fight against Bain. And you’ll notice that on the day of the battle even a British director like Nolan knows to show the tattered remains of the flag still flying, still offering hope, and as a symbol that on that day evil will fall. Finally the last words about Gotham, which they say is America’s greatest city, is that it will rise from the ashes of this act of terrorism…you would have to be pretty dense not to see this as a reference to New York, and a testament to how quickly America did pick itself up.

You don’t owe these people anymore. You’ve given them everything.

Not everything. Not Yet.

And the sad fact is that we’ve only scratched the surface of this film…

*On a side note, it should be said that, for all of Dickens’ flaws, A Tale of Two Cities is Dickens’ best work…too bad he stole half the plot from Victor Hugo’s Ninety-Three.

** Oh and if you want to to play the silly let’s compare political figures to fictional ones…I see your Bane/Bain…and raise you…
(Romney Ryan photos thanks to Heather Parsons)
 

4 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Atlas Shrugged, Capitalism, Charity, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Death, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Individualism, Literature, Long Term Thinking, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Natural Rights, NeoConservative, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, Patriotism, Paul Ryan, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Purpose of Life, Taxes, Tyranny, virtue, War on Terrorism

Some thoughts on Foreign Policy

Sad how this is still very relevant (just add Beijing and Teheran to Moscow)(sorry about the music, I couldn’t find this part of the speech on it’s own)


Over the last 4 years:

A dictator has returned to the Russian Presidency

China is building it’s Navy and saber rattling

Pro-Democracy forces were slaughtered in Iran and the U.S. did nothing

Anti-American Islamists have taken over Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and are about to take over Syria (and yes these psychos

are worse the bastards they booted out)

We abandoned Iraq

Israel backstabbed at every opportunity

Pakistan is actively supporting Islamists

We are in talks to give Afghanistan back to he Taliban

But, it’s not our problem…just like Kaiser, the Red Army, the Fuhrer, the Ayatollah, Mao, Tojo, Ho, the Khmer Rogue, all of Africa were never our problem.

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, China, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, Goldwater, GOP, Individualism, Israel, Libya, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, NeoConservative, Obama, philosophy, politics, Ronald Reagan, War on Terrorism

Most Patriotic Films #24: 24

 

“You still have a life, Jack. You wanna be a real hero, here’s what you do. You get back down there and you put the pieces together. You find a way to forgive yourself for what happened to your wife. You make things right with your daughter, and you go on serving your country. That’d take some real guts.”

 

Now for those who didn’t watch this show religiously you might be under the impression that it is only about every terrorist in the world being methodically slaughtered by a man who makes Chuck Norris look like a cowering wimp.  And it certainly is that.  And for those who did watch it, it might have occurred to you that at a far deeper level this is a study in how much can even the strongest person take before they finally break (the answer is apparently a lot).

 

But for all the corrupt politicians and traitors, there is a core of patriotism at the center of this show.

 

Part of this patriotism comes in showing that many people who like to wrap themselves in the flag (politicians especially) are not always patriotic.  That it’s action not merely words that define a person.  And this is a very American theme…we don’t care for genealogy, or family history, or “storied pomp” what do you personally do?  This partly is shown by the fact that Jack Bauer is related to and trained by traitors and it still does not corrupt him.

 

“You took an oath. You made a promise to uphold the law. When you cross that line, it always starts off with a small step. Before you know it, you’re running as fast as you can in the wrong direction just to justify why you started in the first place. These laws were written by much smarter men than me. And in the end, I know that these laws have to be more important than the 15 people on the bus. I know that’s right. In my mind, I know that’s right. I just don’t think my heart could ever have lived with that. I guess the only advice I can give you is… try to make choices that you can live with.”

 

But of course the real patriotism is shown by Jack Bauer and the members of CTU who give repeatedly everything they have (their lives sometimes being the least of what they give, especially in Bauer’s case for whom the writers invent whole new meanings for the phrase “last full measure of devotion”) so that others may live and their nation remains safe.   Also as the quote above shows, unlike most of the world (not all but there certainly is a spirit of servile following in the behavior of a lot of nations) which simpers and looks to bureaucrats in the U.N. for treaties, sanctions, and rules…Americans for we tend to care more about what’s right and act on it than what others say we can and cannot do (again there are exceptions, a lot of them, but the ideal of America is a country that does do what’s right and one that will act unilaterally to stop tyranny if we have to).   Bauer’s motives are hardly shortsighted selfishness, though they are selfish (anytime you act because you could not live with yourself to do otherwise, is, inherently caring about yourself, and that’s a good thing…long term thinking leads to selfishness like that and that leads to happy people and societies that work)…his motives are for justice and for country (though certainly not for governments that betray both…and you’ll notice his fury is often the worst when directed at traitors).  And even with all he has given up for this country, he never seems to say it wasn’t worth it…which suggests what the true value of this nation’s ideals are worth.

 

Finally as with my point in Iron Man 2, there are few things quite so American as insulting our elected leaders on the floor of the legislature and call them out as the cowards they are (which is probably why we use the scene so often) as we see in this conversation…

 

Senator: Did you torture Mr. Haddad?

Jack: According to the definition set forth by the Geneva Convention, yes, I did.

Jack: Senator, why don’t I save you some time. It’s obvious your agenda is to discredit CTU—

Senator: My only agenda is to get to the truth!

Jack: I don’t think it is, sir.

Senator: Excuse me?!

Jack: Ibrahim Haddad had targeted a bus carrying 45 people, 10 of which were children. The truth, Senator, is that I stopped that attack from happening.

Senator: By torturing Mr. Haddad!

Jack: By doing what I deemed necessary to Protect innocent lives.

Senator: So basically, what you’re saying, Mr. Bauer, is that the ends justify the means, and that you are above the law!

Jack: For a combat soldier the difference between success and failure is your ability to adapt to your enemy. The people that I deal with, they don’t care about your rules. All they care about is a result. My job is to stop them from accomplishing their objectives. Am I above the law? No, sir. I am more than willing to be judged by the people you claim to represent. I will let them decide what price I should pay. But please, do not sit there with that smug look on your face and expect me to regret the decisions I have made. Because, sir, the truth is, I don’t.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

I hate Obama Conspiracy Theories

Maybe it’s a reaction against my teen years where I was utterly infatuated with the X-files and all ideas that surrounded it, or maybe it’s because those plot lines made more sense than some of the crap I’m hearing now, but I find Obama conspiracy theories pointless and stupid.

Let’s run through some of them…

“Some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”…and some men are just blithering idiots…Obama is in this latter category.

He was born in Kenya…he could have been born on Mars; it is still not a worse point than the fact that this man has not done a single thing to help improve the economy.  Yes economies go up and down on their own and Congresses and Presidents don’t have absolute control over them, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are certain things that could have been done to reduce the severity of this recession, Obama did none of them.  And even if he wasn’t eligible to run for the presidency, this absolute failure of leadership is a far greater damning point than a mere technicality.

That Barrack Obama Sr. isn’t really is his father…he could be the son of Hitler and it would still not negate the fact that every action by this president has hurt the economy.  Every thing he has done with the economy has been to hurt it in the short run and hurt it in the long run.  Now he could have done even worse things, but I don’t think he is doing it because he wants to ruin the economy, he and his people are just that dumb.  And

If only Obama wanted to earn a million dollars.

incompetence of that level should never have been let in the White House, let alone re-elected, to hell with who is parents are.

That he’s really a Muslim…he could be a Satanist, it doesn’t change the fact that in reality the only thing he really does believe in is himself.  The man has an ego that makes Caligula, Napoleon and Mao put together look humble.  He puts portraits of himself all over the White House, he puts himself in every president’s biography, he acts like he is unbeatable and he never deigns to actually talk to people in Congress.  He has written 2 biographies and he is not yet 60 or accomplished anything of value.  I don’t care what religion he professes, the only god he believes in is himself.  And while I don’t trust people with low self-esteem, megalomaniacal narcissists are even more worrisome and definitely should not be allowed into positions of power.

Every person in this picture is an idiot. Only one of them isn’t bright enough to actually leave a mark on history for good or ill. Guess which one.

That and Rev. Jeremiah Wright planned a massive socialist take over…or maybe it was a take over by blacks…or maybe by zombies for all I care…or whoever was in his past that you want to critique…none of that compares to the insanity of his current associations.  A corrupt hack as Attorney General, a jackbooted fascist as Homeland Security Secretary, an incompetent twit in HHS, a tax evading moron in Treasury, and two of the worst Supreme Court Justices ever…need I go on?  This man has an inability to surround himself with qualified people.  No president has ever possessed the experience and intelligence to know everything about every part of the government, but some presidents do possess the ability to find qualified people who, in turn, have the qualifications to run their section of the government.  Obama has failed on every point (I mean the most qualified person he has is Hillary, how sad is that?)…and this is far more important than which church he went to for years.

As dumb as he is, and as much as I loathe him, I still don’t think he rises to this level of evil.

That Obama is seeking to make the US subservient to the UN  and is going to sign treaties that will eliminate the Constitution…uh-huh…the UN and what army?  I think Obama’s idiocy on foreign policy, his stupidity in declaring the war on terror over, his supporting every Islamic government he can (not because he’s a Muslim, but because he’s an idiot who wants to not appear as being anti-Muslim…please tell me how that’s working in America’s favor), his destroying the military readiness are all more important than whoever make believe conspiracies you can think of.

That he’s really the Manchurian Candidate, planted by George Soros years ago…ummm….if he was going to make a play for absolute control, wouldn’t he have done so by now?  I mean by the time the opposition has a leader to rally around any fascist type takeover becomes near impossible.  This is kind of why most dictators quickly kill all their opposition…right now the right could unite around Romney, Ryan, Christie or a few others.  If there was a plan to take over it’s the worst plan of all time…and more importantly I think Obama’s actual disregard and ignorance of the Constitution, as shown by his fiat rule by executive order, and his gross misunderstanding of state’s rights and limited government, are far more dangerous than any supposed communist plan.

That Obama has a gay lover…oh, like I care…there have been what four maybe five presidents in the last hundred  who haven’t had a mistress or two, and it has no bearing on whether they were a good president or not.  I’d worry more about his failure to uphold his Oath of Office more than whether or not he’s upholding his wedding vows.

He’s not bright enough to plot Armageddon.

That’s he planning a takeover of the government, ruin the economy, declare permanent marshal law, suspend elections, disband Congress, a coup d’état, yaddah yaddah yaddah…this one has to be my favorite.  So I am supposed to believe that a man of unspeakable arrogance and astounding stupidity is simultaneously a villainous mastermind of such caliber that he makes Lex Luthor and Ernst Stavro Blofeld look like amateurs, that he has planned a coup and kept all the major details secret within a government so bloated and useless it can’t keep any of its departments in line.  Yeah, no contradiction there.  Or that a military that is not doing much to hide it’s abject dislike for Obama is going to sit by and let him take over…and that there is a gun for almost every man, woman and child in this country which pretty much prevents government takeover.  You know, I’ll worry more about his absolute inability to balance a budget or even recognize that the growing debt is a problem.  Obama is not a villainous mastermind bent on world conquest, he’s a buffoon well in over his head and wouldn’t know where to begin if he wanted to take over (as evidenced by his laughable campaign).

The fact of this matter is that this man’s character, intelligence and actions as president are all you need to convict him of being unfit to serve one term, let alone two.

So why is a certain part of the right so obsessed with Obama conspiracy theories and scandals when we could crucify this jackass a dozen times over on real issues.  Well I think the answer is Palin Derangement Syndrome.  Palin Derangement Syndrome?  The habit of the media to obsess about Palin to the point where they will make crap up about her when just ignoring her would be better? Yes that.  PDS is caused in fact by two things. The first one is that Palin supporters are following a dimwitted unprincipled narcissist who is good at creating a cult of personality among morons who don’t care for facts but love meaningless platitudes from a cult leader.  The second is that Obama supporters are following a dimwitted unprincipled narcissist who is good at creating a cult of personality among morons who don’t care for facts but love meaningless platitudes from a cult leader.  Both sides aren’t quite competent enough to trade in facts (for instance, liberals could have ripped Palin apart with conservatives for her saying in the VP debate that the solution to education problems was to throw more money at it, but as facts elude them they’d rather trade in questionable personal attacks)…the same applies to those who trade in conspiracy theories against Obama, they’re not the brightest bulbs in the box.  Both parties have them.  (Although you’ll notice that while they were strong enough to catapult Obama over the more qualified Clinton, they were not powerful enough to elevate their beloved Santorum.)  If you put Obama and Palin in a room and they didn’t have their cults of personality backing them, the appropriate soundtrack to this moment would be “Dueling Banjoes”…but since they do have their respective cults mindlessly following them “O Fortuna” might be a more appropriate set piece.

So they attack our Cult leader with obsessive drivel, and our idiots attack their Cult leader with obsessive drivel.

Meanwhile if we don’t want to look like a bunch of buffoons, want to win the independents, and really want Obama out of office.  Let’s be honest here, Obama has only ever won two elections.  A Senate race against Alan Keyes and a Presidential race against John McCain.  Quite frankly you could have run sock puppets against Keyes and McCain and they would have won.  We’ve got a great candidate this time, let’s not ruin it by sounding like a bunch of dimwitted Democrats more concerned with rumor and conspiracies than with reality and facts.

Focus on the issues.  Focus on the failures of the last 4 years.  Focus on Romney’s superb record of intelligence and leadership.

Focus on those three things and we win.  Focus on birth certificates and ancient friendships and outdated statements and we lose.  I’d like to win this time as we can’t afford another 4 years of this dimwitted jackass.

4 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Atheism, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Death, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Foreign Policy, Gay Rights, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immigration, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Obama Ceasar, People Are Stupid, politics, Rick Santorum, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, War on Terrorism

I agree, America is not and cannot be the Policeman of the world….

But we are a decent people.

I bring this up because I have been getting a lot of people telling me that “The U.S. is not the policeman of the world” in that snide way only a coward can manage.  And again let me say, I agree with you, America is not and cannot be the Policeman of the world….but we are a decent people.

What do I mean by that?

Well think about it this way.  If you are walking down the street and you see a woman getting raped in alley.   Do you just walk past?  I hope not.  I hope you at least scream, although it’s not quite as effective as looking for a piece of rebar and, in the parlance of Pulp Fiction, going medieval on someone’s ass.  You do it not because of some rule or regulation, not because of some obligation, but because you are ethical, we feel empathy and we understand a basic concept of natural rights.  You of course could walk by, but that would mean you are unethical, have no ability to feel empathy or any respect for another person’s natural rights.   But I assume you are a decent person and will stop evil when you see it and are in a position to stop it.  Now what if it wasn’t one person you had to fight off but a large group who caused not a single act of violence but were terrorizing your neighborhood.  I believe a neighborhood watch would solve that issue.  And the larger the problem the larger the group we form to counter that evil (I remember a couple hundred militias being formed to fight the greatest empire on Earth and their lobster-backs).  We as individuals know that we should stop evil when we find it and are in a position to do so.  We don’t do it for a reward or even to secure our own safety, as often ignoring the problem would put us at less risk…yet somehow we know that it is wrong to ignore evil and do nothing.

Yes we have police, country sheriffs, state troopers, and federal special agents…but we don’t say that these people make it ethically acceptable to walk by when we see evil right in front of us, we hire these professionals to be available to protect not just us, but those around us when we can’t be everywhere.  We believe everyone is entitled to be free of the threat of violence, even if we have never met them.

And we would rightly judge anyone who did walk by and ignore evil in front of them morally reprehensible.  Yes we might forgive someone if the problem was too big for them to deal with personally and if they did contact the police, but otherwise there is no ethical excuse.

Now some will say: Isn’t what you’re describing an ethical duty?  Something you claim to hate?  No, no it is not.  A duty is a moral obligation, a concept that you have to do this, not because is good for you, not because it brings you pleasure or makes you feel good, not because to not do it will bring you emotional pain…no a duty is done because that is the rule, that is what you do, and you don’t question it.  (Notice duty, when properly used is often in the context of a military organization, a place where you don’t get to question why, yours is but to do and die.  Improperly duty is often misused in the place of “virtuous.”)  We have a choice we can do something or not.  There is no rule or obligation or duty toward one side or the other.  But to do nothing does not mean we condone, we allow, we support that evil because we did nothing.  And we are thus guilty for doing nothing.   But we do act and stop evil where we find it, because we are a decent people.

But I go back to my original example.  There are times and places where there is no authority, no cop to call upon to stop evil and it falls unto you, the person who sees it and has the power to act.

And as this is true with individuals, and groups of individuals, so it is true of governments.  When a government is a tyranny, it is evil—the worst evil known, which commits as standard operating procedure the worst atrocities on a daily basis.

We as individuals see these evils, and we know our government is not ignorant of them.  There is no police force of the world (if you even thought the U.N. you clearly don’t know how corrupt, evil, and ineffective that organization is) thus there are only individual nations.  Nations which can act, which have the resources to act.  They just lack the will.  The world knew what Hitler was up to, maybe not down to the details of human skin lamp shades, but they knew he was killing people by hundreds of thousands and enforcing slave labor.  That alone should have necessitated attacking Germany, but everyone waited until it was their own country being invaded before it became an issue…and millions of innocents died because no one had the will to challenge what they knew to be evil.  Innocents were sacrificed, no one wanted to be viewed as acting unilaterally or being called the policeman of the world, no one wanted to take responsibility and say “This is wrong and it must stop.”  (At least nowadays.  Back in the old days Jefferson, the most anti-war of the Founding Fathers, would use the cutting down of a flag by the Bey of Tripoli as the justification to invade not just Tripoli, but Algiers and Tunis and bring the Barbary pirates to their knees.  Not because they were a direct threat to U.S. interests, hell might have been cheaper to pay them off…no, because they were engaged in piracy and extortion and they needed to be stopped.  And that was over piracy, nowadays we turn a blind eye to genocide, how distorted a policy is that?)

Nations like individuals have an ethical choice to make.  Do they stop the evil which they know about and have the power to do something about, or do they ignore it and thus condone and agree with it.  This is a choice every nation faces.  When the U.S. acts “unilaterally” as the misnamed “policeman of the world” it’s not because it’s our job, it’s because we recognize evil when we see it and choose not to stand by and willingly let it happen.  (I put unilaterally in quotations because I recall there being about 40 other countries that joined us in Iraq and Afghanistan, other nations that made the correct ethical choice to not sit quietly by and do nothing.)

Should the people in these nations rise up and overthrow their tyrants as the people of other nations have done.  Yes, they should.  But either they haven’t or they’ve been killed when they tried.

Does that mean we shouldn’t first try negotiation and diplomacy?  No. We should because we are the reasonable ones…but don’t expect it to do much.  Please tell me of the last time a dictator reformed when there wasn’t a threat or implication of force but just out the warm fuzziness of their cuddly heart?

Does that mean we should attack and not care about rebuilding?  No.  You do this to help the victims of evil, not because you enjoy beating up people.  That means, unlike the actions of Clinton, Bush and Obama, when you invade a country the first thing you do after you beat them militarily is you rebuild the nation.  Energy production and delivery systems, roads, plumbing, water…all the infrastructure we take for granted.   And creating government.  Notice that the biggest problem with Afghanistan and Iraq was we tried to immediately give control of the government back to the people (both within Bush’s first term).  I love democracy as much as the next sane person, but shoe horning it in before the people have the structural and local infrastructure necessary to support it is insane.  It was 4 years before we returned control of Germany to Germany (and that might have been rushed due to the Cold War) and 7 years before Japan was under self rule after their surrender.  Classical liberal democratic-republics take time and support, they cannot be rushed and that is one of the biggest flaws of our invasion and occupation of these two nations.  Oh, and why do we have a Peace Corp if we don’t use them in nations we’re helping to rebuild?…you know kind of what they’re supposed to be there for.

Now does this mean we should we invade every dictatorship this second?  No, are you out of your mind!  I said what you are aware of AND IN A POSITION TO STOP IT.   Right now we first need to disentangle ourselves from our current exploits abroad which have either been bungled to the point of being irreparable in the immediate future (Afghanistan) or simply it was pointless to be there (Libya, Yemen, Uganda).  I would say personally we should drop a massive amount of ordinance on every Taliban controlled area, carpet bomb (and possibly Dresden-style fire bomb) the hills where they are hiding (yes even in Pakistan), burn every poppy field, and send special forces in to kill every drug lord in the country and the get the hell out of there.  We screwed up Afghanistan so badly I think the best thing we can do is destroy the worst aspects of the evil still left in the country and try to let them find their own way at this point.  Had it been done better at first I would be having a different argument, but the actions of Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama in regards to that country had been so stupidly incompetent we need to disengage from there for a while.  Yes, right now the U.S. and the Western World need to re-embrace capitalism and get their economies straightened out, because then and only then will they be in a position where we can help others, but putting first things first does not mean we are not committed to the goal of stopping evil.

But we can’t act unilaterally, some say.  The hell we can’t.  Just because a group of people can watch a single woman get raped and murdered doesn’t relieve you of the ethical call to be the one person who actually does something.  If the whole group does nothing, then the whole group deserves to be damned.  And if one person chooses to act unilaterally, then they are the only good person among the group and the fact that they went against the will of the crowd does not condemn that one, it condemns the group.  The same applies to nations.  Every free nation on Earth should be doing all they can to end tyranny (granted, a lot aren’t exactly in an economic position to do so right now, that doesn’t exactly excuse the last 70 years of being complacent about evil).

There is no policeman of the world.  There are merely free nations that have a choice.  And because, on occasion, we are a nation made up of decent people who act to end evil rather than condoning it we act in a way that cowards label us as unilateral.  (Again I would like to point out that other nations were with us in the Balkans, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan…so we are not alone in knowing right from wrong, the media just likes to paint it that way.)

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”—attributed to Edmund Burke (he didn’t actually say it, but it is a nice summary of a large point he was making).

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Free Will, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Patriotism, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

How to get your ass FRAGGED in one easy step…

PODCAST VERSION

How to get fraged in one easy step

Remember a week ago when I pointed out that atheists were effectively a religion because their beliefs were based entirely on an article of faith (Unless, in defiance of the very laws of logic they have proven that God doesn’t exist…I’m waiting for that argument).  And then I pointed out that this religion is far more vicious than most in that it not only demands that it be free to practice its religion but that no one has the right to practice any other religion…which ranks them up there with the Puritans and Islam in terms of religious intolerance.  But as you’ll recall I also mentioned that there was an ass in the military who was demanding an atheist chaplain.  I said that as that’s his religion, and he is putting his life on the line he had every right to demand whatever spiritual service he wanted (even if it was one that was meant only to insult everyone else’s beliefs).  Well, as it turns out, I may have to change my opinion on this guy…

Why? you ask.  Because not only does this ass want an atheist chaplain, which may be his right under the First Amendment (the first amendment does guarantee your right to be a complete asshole, I only suggest you not exercise it to that extent), he wants to stop other soldiers from praying.  This (please insert the expletive of your choice) actually believes that because he doesn’t believe in God, in defiance  of a huge pile of circumstantial evidence and reason, gives him the right to forbid other soldiers from praying to God before putting their lives in jeopardy.  This man, Jason Torpy, whose face will soon likely and justifiably be next to the definition of the military term FUBAR , believes he has the right to tell other people how to live their lives because of his beliefs.  He complains that he was excluded and it was wrong for the men to take time out of a military mission to engage in prayer.  To think that you’d pray before going into combat.  How terrible!  When someone ends up fraging this excuse for an officer, I’m not going to shed a single tear…I’m not saying that his men should debase themselves by stooping to such a level (which is still a few levels above Torpy), it’s just likely that it’s going to happen to someone who cares so little for his men (and I would suspect that this level of disdain for him men probably extends to all of his command decisions).

Do I hate this guy because of his beliefs about God?  No, I hate him because while he leads an organization laughably called “Military Atheists and FreeThinkers” which supports all free thought that marches in perfect goose step with their rigid beliefs and decries anything that is not pure atheistic belief, (yeah real free thinkers there)– he’s a hypocrite that will not defend anyone else’s free thoughts; I hate him because he is a terrible commander and he will get his men killed if he is allowed to stay in the field.  Someone who doesn’t realize the psychological benefit to prayer before a situation where you could die and pettily states “It was a critical time that could have better spent focused on other areas”  has no business being given command over soldiers. Yeah because the psychological well-being of your men has nothing to do with the good of a mission.  I can only image how good awfully horrible an officer this man is given that he has no understanding of how to keep morale up and how to deal with him men.

Again I would like to warn this idiot that the men under his command are probably familiar with the term frag, and I would like to remind this Captain’s superiors that Private is probably a much more fitting rank for someone who has so little respect for the beliefs and rights of the men under his command.  Perhaps he should enlist in the Chinese army, they’d let him shoot religious people there.

Also, as is all too typical of atheists he keeps saying that this was a Christian prayer and an expression of Christian beliefs.  You know there are lots of religions, and I would bet almost all of them are represented in the armed services, and probably almost all of them find comfort in praying to God before a stressful situation.  But this shows that atheists are not only full of bigotry and viciousness in trying to force their religious beliefs on others, but it shows the typical ignorance of atheists.  Every atheist I have ever met only knows how to tear down Christians and nothing else because they’re not so much atheists as they are Anti-Christians (which really suggests that this is some Freudian problems with their growing up if nothing else).

An officer who disrespects the beliefs of the men under him so blatantly does not deserve to be an officer, and a soldier who is so viciously opposed to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution does not deserve the honor of the uniform or the company of the people who do fight for our right to believe or not to believe.  And a man so petty should be decried by atheists as being their version of the Westboro Baptists.  If he doesn’t get fragged, which I would consider a miracle, he deserves to be dishonorably discharged.

1 Comment

Filed under Atheism, Constitution, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, First Amendment, God, People Are Stupid, politics, Prayer, War on Terrorism

Democrats are just as crazy as their leader…

I usually don’t talk about  the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) (primarily because my mother taught me it was wrong to make fun of people with a severe mental handicap)…but I couldn’t resist this one.

Today, on CNN she made the following statement…

“These are a field of Republican candidates so obsessed with one job, Barack Obama’s, rather than American jobs, that they even refused to acknowledge that it’s President Obama who planned and executed the attack on al Qaeda that killed Osama Bin Laden.”

Damn Right! He didn’t just sign a piece of paper giving approval, this man personally planned the approach and how the members of SEAL Team 6 would hit the compound, then he personally, personally I tell you, got on a chopper, went with the SEALs, calling every single shot, and fired the kill shot himself. “planned and executed the attack”

And he didn’t sign a piece of paper with a plan already pre-made by the generals and experts which it would have political suicide to not sign…no this is the man who told the CIA to start tracking this terrorist, because before him they were doing nothing, this is the man  who trained the seals, who executed the surveillance, who led the brave soldiers into battle and who rid the world of evil.   “it’s President Obama who planned and executed the attack on al Qaeda that killed Osama Bin Laden.”

And how dare those goddamned Republicans not give him credit.  The way they’re acting you’d think all he did was make a no brainer political call that anyone in his position (okay, maybe not Ron Paul or Jimmy Carter) would have done and then just sat and watched it on the big screen TV with only slightly more interest than he paid to Game Seven of the World Series.  How dare you!

“PLANNED AND EXECUTED THE ATTACK!”

How dare you treat this man as anything short of Jesus Christ, George Washington, Superman and Jack Bauer rolled into one.  Shame on you Republicans.

It’s kind of telling that the point she goes to as his shinning achievement which he should be given credit for is one that must have taken immense character and courage to make such a unpopular choice.

Oh, and what is it with liberals and blinking (go on, click the link above and watch the video)…When we used to always go to Pelosi she would blink only when she would be making bad calls on the stock market (it’s amazing how well that woman can pick stocks…it’s like she had insider information or something)…but now we have this dingbat who blinks about 30 times a second.

2 Comments

Filed under Congress, GOP, Humor, Michele Bachmann, politics, War on Terrorism

Why I support Bachmann

So the other day a friend of mine posted the following insightful comment on facebook:

Why is everyone so upset about candidates trying to do away with the Department of Education?

It was an intelligent comment as it is a worthless federal department. But it strangely got this response:

maybe because that’s what Bachmann supports and so the perfectly reasonable [sic] people in this country know immediately it’s a bad idea…

Now I’ll grant that this second comment came from someone who has always struck me as having the I.Q. of turnip, but it does seem that this a widely held belief that Bachmann is a moron. But what is this based on? (Besides the fact that there is misogynistic hatred of women in this country which I have already talked about at length.)

Well we have two odd pop culture gaffes. The kind of flubs we all make where we reach for one name and our brain pulls out another, or where we associate one place with something entirely unrelated. These flubs had nothing to do with policy and in fact any person who talks all day without a script probably makes a dozen of these a day (or if you’re Obama you just stand there going uh, uh, uh, until someone brings the teleprompter out).

Then there is her religion. Yes she went to a religious school for her J.D. and passed the bar…oh and then she got another Masters Degree from William and Mary…you try getting into William and Mary see how easy it is (all this while raising children).

But she’s religious! Yeah, so are a lot of people. Is she wrong in her opinion on the nature of homosexuality? Of course she is. But you’ll notice that unlike lunatics like Perry or Santorum she doesn’t feel the need to legislate it. In fact she said:

In New York State, they have passed the law at the legislative level, and, under the 10th Amendment, the states have the right to set the laws that they want to set. […]
That is up to the people of New York. I think that it’s best to allow the people to decide this issue. I think it’s best if there is an amendment on the ballot, where the people can weigh in.

Yes, she has said that there should be a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage…but you’ll notice that she only mentions that when she’s directly questioned, all she wants to talk about, given the choice, is the economy and national defense…and really do you think she’s so stupid as to think that such an amendment has a snowball’s chance in hell of passing? I doubt it. Listen to what she says, it’s a throw away line to keep the base happy, she doesn’t seem to put major energy into promoting it…not like the amount of energy the media puts into keeping this issue alive.  And keep in mind I have very little reason to support a highly religious candidate (being a Pagan and all), so if I’m not worried about her religious beliefs, you shouldn’t be either.

And yes her husband is nuts. But we’re electing a President not their spouse…if we judged presidents by their spouses…uh…well that might not be best the policy…and don’t just think of first ladies for the last century…think of the spouses of some of the people who lost. If we choose presidents by how likeable and honorable their spouses were, we’d have President John Edwards right now. I want you to think about that.

But let’s see here what has she said that’s made sense:

Well there was:

“I believe absolutely every American benefits by this magnificent country. Absolutely every American should pay something, even if it’s a dollar.”

Yes, not caring about “fair share” but actual justice, what a concept.

“I also want to completely abolish the tax code. I want to flatten the tax for all of Americans, simplify that tax for all of Americans. And that creates job growth, which is exactly what we need to have.”

“Because to be able to fuel the fire for this economy, again, it is the tax code, but it doesn’t end with the tax code. It’s the regulatory burden that costs us $1.8 trillion every year, but it’s more than that cost. It’s jobs that are lost. “

“ So we need to repeal “Obama-care,” repeal the jobs and housing destruction act known as Dodd-Frank. President Obama’s plan has been a plan for destruction of this economy and failure. “

Clear understanding of classical liberal economic policies…much better than any of the other candidates with maybe the exception of Newt.

“I will build it on the entire border, and I’ll tell you why. Every year, it costs this country $113 billion in the costs that we put out to pay for illegal aliens. It costs the state and local government of that amount $82 billion. For every household of an American citizen, it costs us $1,000 a year. We are robbing the household of Americans who can’t afford that.

“ I will build the fence. I will enforce English as the official language of the United States government. “
“And every — every person who comes into this country will have to agree that they will not receive taxpayer-subsidized benefits of any American citizen…

No tap dancing and a clear understanding what it needed to fix the problem.

She is also the only candidate who seems to understand the difference between what the President does and what Congress does. Other candidates make claims about what Congress will pass, they give specifics on legislation they will have no control over, this leads to some of her statements being a little vague, but only because unlike the rest of these losers she seems to understand the President is not a law unto himself (or herself). And she seems to understand what the Constitution says and what can be legislated and what can’t without first getting an Amendment.

She understands that Israel is our “greatest ally” and that the President of Iran is a “genocidal maniac.” Something the current occupant of the White House has no clue about.

Now I’ll admit that I have a bit of an issue rooting for underdogs. I wanted Giuliani because I found him to be the perfect mix of conservative economics, moderate social policy, and neoconservative foreign policy. But I can’t get that so what choices do I have left:

Conservative Economics Neo Conservative Foreign policy Moderate Social Policy
Romney Theory yes, practice ? Yes No
Perry No No No
Santorum Yes No Hell No
Cain Yes He doesn’t even know what foreign policy is No
Huntsman No No ?
Paul Yes Hell No Nothing about this man is moderate
Newt Yes—kind of Yes—kind of Kind of, I guess
Bachman Yes Yes Not really, but it doesn’t seem to be her main thrust

And as Meatloaf said, “two out of three ain’t bad.” So I will continue to support Michele until I can’t.

But the fact that she wants to flatten the tax code ( I can’t trust Romney in this), remove regulations, overturn ObamaCare, abolish the Department of Education, drill for oil, close the border (I certainly can’t trust Perry for this), change anchor baby status, blow up the bad guys (Cain would screw things up, Huntsman would bow down to his Chinese overlords, and Paul would support starting up Auschwitz again), reform Social Security, and stay within the actual boundaries of the Constitution (I can’t trust Santorum for this). Michele is my candidate.

But please, if you think I’m stupid give me a reason.  Show me why I as a fiscal conservative and foreign policy neoconservative should support any other candidate on ethical and policy reasons.  I don’t want to hear about the fact that she can’t be elected, because she could be if people dropped the she can’t be elected argument.  And I suspect that in terms of policy you have nothing but misogyny.  But please prove me wrong.  I dare you.

5 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Gay Rights, GOP, Individualism, Michele Bachmann, Patriotism, politics, Rudy Giuliani, Unjust legislation, War on Terrorism

A video that reminds me why I love this country, and why we’re better than everyone else.

Take a moment and watch this video…

Yes, if you have even a shred of a brain and a shred of conscience you probably would love to see a sequel to this video where someone punches this girl so hard that she loses several teeth and is permanently disfigured. Sadly there is no such video of someone making her external appearance match the sick black hole that passes for her soul. But once the rage has passed let me remind you that a moment like this should be cherished for the many reasons it reminds us of why America is so great…

Let the cognitive dissonance pass, and let me explain.

First I’d like to point out something about her courage. She says what many liberals think but are afraid to say, and she should be commended for that. Granted she doesn’t have the stones that her hippie forefathers had to actually go up to a soldier spit right in their face and call them a baby-killer, but we must give the devil his due. She is leagues ahead of many of her liberal colleagues. But why is this one of the reasons why America is great? Well just imagine if she had tried this in one of those countries which, according to her, are not our enemies. Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, Libya (pre and post Kaddafi), Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (again, pre and post), Pakistan, China, North Korea, Tunisia, and Russia (yes even still to this day). Well first, half of those countries as a woman she would never have even been allowed near a computer and even if she had posted a video about how great Allah was (while wearing her legally required burqa) she still would have been stoned to death. If she had said the same things about any of those countries’ soldiers as she said about her own country’s she would likely have been kidnapped in the night, probably raped and tortured before being killed herself. If she was lucky she would have a show trial. And in China they’d charge her family the cost of the bullet used to shoot her. But not here in America. This is a country where you can literally go up and spit in a soldier’s face and at most face a misdemeanor assault charge.

What other country lives so fully the ideal of “I will defend your right to say things I find morally abhorrent to the death” as the United States. Granted we’re not too hot on libel, slander, fraud, inciting violence that present a clear and present danger, obscenity (which is rather haphazardly enforced) and…and…I think that’s about it. What other country does that. Even most of the other nations of the Western world have some limitations on free speech, usually in the areas of racism and hatred against religions…but only one has to look at how such P.C. speech codes protect the truly violent and vicious from being attacked and cause true and civil discussion to be gagged. What other country does that?

And what other country can trust its soldiers to control themselves well enough that they don’t immediately rip out the throat of wretches like this girl with all of that deadly force we have trained them to have. Few and far between.

Now granted, she is right to point out that there has been some atrocious behavior committed by members of armed services.  But two things should be noticed. One we don’t go to the lengths other governments do to cover these things up (destroying documents, threatening news outlets, etc.). UN troops (read not US) have a history of raping and murdering the population they’re supposed to be protecting. (also see Eric Shawn’s the UN Exposed if you want to know how corrupt this organization is). The difference is that while our military has a few bad apples (show me any group of over a 100,000 people who are all saints) other governments actually dedicate themselves to butchering others. The difference is that we know about all of our atrocities (which are few and far between compared to other countries) because we don’t go to great unethical lengths to hide them (yes there’s always some idiot in the government doing a half-assed job, but it’s nothing compared to the evil of other governments). And we’re one of the few governments that prosecute those who defile the uniform of our military—and last time I checked military prisons were not pleasant places. Again you don’t see a lot of that in most of the world. The fact is that even in many countries that profess free speech, this girl would be dead. But not in America.

Still on the freedom of speech side you have to love the fact that you can make wildly inaccurate statements and not have the government coming for you and throwing you in prison. You have the right to be wrong in this country. For instance she says we’ve killed millions in Iraq, it’s closer to a hundred thousand or so …but liberals were never very good with numbers. She is right that it’s offensive with what we pay over half of every tax dollar on. But actually we don’t spend 51% of the government’s money on the military (that’s about 20% of the budget) we spend over half the budget on inefficient, evil and destructive socialist programs. But when did liberals ever let little things like facts get in the way.  Oh and her statement that the troops are dumb, as I pointed out in Republicans and Reincarnation, the average person in the military actually scores higher on every test of intelligence than their civilian counterparts. As to evil, yes it’s so horrendous wanting to defend people like her so you have the liberty to smear the people who make you safe at night. As for morally compromised, show me one reservist who is making more money being in the military, show me one person who signs up for a second tour who couldn’t find a better paying job with their highly trained skills. To find someone dumb and evil I would suggest this girl buys a mirror, to find morally compromised I would suggest she goes to a DNC meeting where people say they support the troops and then create policy that does the opposite (not that Bush not having a plan for occupation was particularly great either). But only in a country like this, where people have near unlimited freedom of speech, do we know that someone like this is a vile excuse for a human as she really is. In no other country would there be such a wonderful sign for all other human beings to ostracize someone like this or the Westboro Baptists. How would we know if they weren’t allowed to express their filth.

And because of this freedom to express evil and ignorance we know when people are stupid and horrendous, only in America, which is why I support this dimwit’s right to not support the troops, and why this is a great nation.

5 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Budget, China, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Declaration, Evils of Liberalism, First Amendment, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Libya, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

Laws for the GOP to pass…rework the entire bureaucracy…and by rework I mean fire just about everyone

We’re winding down weekly law blogs.  Next week will be the last one that will be published every week…not that I won’t have any more law blogs but they just won’t be on a weekly basis.

So what am I going to suggest this week?  Well I have suggested a few departments be disbanded.  Now if you noticed the theme, I would argue that most of the departments should just be disbanded, with their few useful functions either handed to the remaining departments, given to the states, or simply privatized.  Now we’ve covered Transportation , Education , HUD , the Post Office , the TSA and the USDA.

But that still doesn’t cover a lot.  Why doesn’t it cover a lot?  Well take a look at the current U.S. Executive Branch.

This would be the definition of madness.  And technically one man controls all of that.  I don’t care it if it’s Obama, Bush or George Washington risen from the grave.  No one can possibly lead all of that or should be trusted with all of that.

So I suggest we just get rid of most of it.  The federal government should be there to protect our Constitutional rights, police crimes that cross borders, defend the national borders, resolves conflicts between states and a few other things that are too big for individual states to do.  Most of what’s on that list does not fall into the area of things states can’t be trusted to do.

In fact Congress should make it its job to make this look more like this:

You’ll notice that only the Departments of State, Defense, Treasury, Justice and Homeland are left.  And quite frankly if I had my way Justice would be all the legal ins and out and Homeland would have the FBI and all other federal police forces (ATF, DEA, ICE, etc) all rolled into that large FBI–it frightens me that numerous organizations are out there with the same purpose to catch criminals which results in numerous overlaps, wasteful spending and of course turf wars.  Also can we please change the name of Homeland Security?  It’s the dumbest name ever.  It’s sounds like Fatherland or Motherland (remind me which two countries referred to their nations that way).  How about Department of Internal Security.  That way you have a federal police force (Internal Security) and a federal prosecutor (Justice) without the two being the same department (you know how every city, county and state does it).

But as to the Departments I will be getting rid of, I will be brief (If you would like a full justification of why just about everything in that Department needs to be destroyed, I will be more than happy to write a whole blog for each request).

Scrap the Department of Transportation: Last week I had a blog saying infrastructure needs to be handed over to the state, that’s most of the Department there…the only thing that’s left and of value is the FFA and that can be regulated by Internal Security but mainly it just needs to be privatized

The Department of Energy serves no useful federal function other the fact that they hold all the nuclear stuff.  Defense and Internal Security can handle those.

The Department of Commerce is entirely unconstitutional right now, but the commerce clause needs to be clarified so even a liberal can understand it only applies to commerce that crosses state borders.  Its only useful parts are the Census Bureau and Patent Office (which can just be operated as independent federal offices), and NOAA which can be privatized.

Health and Human Services is not the concern of the federal government (FDA can be privatized, CDC over to the Department of Internal Defense)

Department of Interior…utterly useless…especially Indian Affairs.  The states can clearly handle all of this.

Department of sucking up to unions…I mean the Dept of Labor…does nothing relevant, kill it.

The Department of Veterans Affairs can be rolled back into Defense.  I think people in the Pentagon will care a hell of a lot more for veterans than bureaucrats in an office.

And then of course there are a lot of independent agencies I’m getting rid of.  I’m not going into all of them but here are a few highlights.

  • Kill the Peace Corp…if we didn’t send them all to Iraq and Afghanistan to help rebuild those places why the hell do we have them?  They serve no legitimate function.
  • Kill NASA and let the private sector take over.  We’ll be on Mars before the next generation if we let the private sector take over…we’ll never get anywhere if we let government continue to handle this.
  • Kill the African Development Foundation…really, does it look like we know what we’re doing with this?
  • Kill the Foundation on the arts and humanities…again this is a private concern.
  • Privatize Amtrak
  • Kill the National Science Foundation…again this should be a private concern.  Not to mention that this thing has become a liberal propaganda wing.
  • Kill OSHA…Two or three times just to be safe, and burn the buildings…I think all the employees should be put in jail (solitary for life) just to be safe, and probably have the bodies burned after they die to make sure they don’t come back.  No government office is as harmful to business, worker happiness and safety as this office which had to have been imagined in the 10th level of hell.
  • Office of Government Ethics…Huh?  Try not laugh when reading that.
  • Selective Service System…yeah we have a volunteer system now…and if it wasn’t too hard to set up in WWII it won’t be too difficult to set up again if we need it.
  • Small Business Administration…you know how best to help Small Businesses?  Stop having an administration that constantly gets in their way. Kill this thing too.
  • Social Security…I think I’ve been clear that we need to phase that out completely.
  • Why is the TVA still around?
  • US Commission on Civil Rights…if there is a real civil rights violation then that’s the domain of the Justice Department so you don’t need this redundant excuse.
  • Office of Drug Control Policy…uh-huh, and that’s worked so well…

Yes there are legitimate functions of the federal government.  But right now it is overstepping those functions, usually at the price of those functions.  The states and the private sector can handle a lot of these things more efficiently, cheaper, with less corruption, less paperwork and at a greater benefit to the public.

2 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Environmentalism, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Individualism, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, War on Terrorism, Welfare