I'm a Somebody

With Apologies to Emily Dickinson.....

I'm a Marxist, who are you?
Are you a Marxist too?
Then that makes two of us, do tell.
We're a majority of two.

How dreary to be a capitalist
And work the whole day long.
When you could be looking down your nose
At an admiring throng.

Adam Kokesh Suckers the Ron Paul Fringe

 

 

Do NOT free Adam Kokesh!

• The man is a pro-leftist plant, whose purpose appears to be to spread disruption, confusion and chaos in the ranks of conservatives.

• He has a long history of working with leftist groups, but gets a pass from the fringe right because he "organized" Veterans for Ron Paul and he's pro-pot. 

• He deliberately provoked cops at a pot-rally recently and did a Lewinsky/Yugoslavia shuffle to get himself "arrested" to distract from the growing awareness among conservatives of his progressive socialist roots. Now the Paulistas have started a "Free Adam Kokesh" movement on the web.

• Kokesh uses classic Alinsky/Leninist tactics - tell the lie, shout down anyone who objects, belittle opponents, repeat the lie.

• He is organizing the insane armed march on Washington in July in covert cooperation with Marxist groups like Code Pink for the express purpose (in my opinion) of getting enough people killed to provoke massive gun control legislation.

I say, "Keep Adam Kokesh Locked UP!"

Share with 25 people if you love Ronald Reagan  ;-)

Oh Those Crazy Libs.....

(c) 2013 by Tom King

This man thinks you're all stupid
and ought to be gassed. George Bernard Shaw
Irish playwright & socialist

Libertarians are now getting the same treatment that Tea Party Conservatives have been getting since they first got themselves semi-organized.  Deliberate efforts are underway to infiltrate and discredit the "low information" folk within our ranks and to encourage them to support things that, if proposed by a liberal would elicit cries of opposition from conservatives.  Instead we have holier-than-thou right wing radicals haranguing us with ideas that fall right into the progressive socialism strategy and making us feel downright unrighteousness for not really believing what they blithely call THE TRUTH.

The radical is spending a lot of time these days, apparently fighting for causes once associated with the hippie left of the 60s using the same tactics - pot-fueled protests, getting themselves arrested, calling for resistance to "the man" and yet their message bears a striking congruity to the methods suggested by the evil and arrogant little progressive socialist in the picture above.  Some of the things needed to bring about the true liberation of man proposed by Shaw, HG Wells and their ilk, are embedded in the new radical conservatism of the Ron Paul libertarian crowd.  Not all of these ideas are strictly Dr. Paul's ideas. Many have been duct taped onto the Ron Paul message by passing lunatics. The good doctor has avoided disavowing them so for sake of argument, I will assume that a good share of the RP wing agrees with these messages.

For instance:

1. Pro-drug legalization - Couched in phrases like "the government has no right to..." and "Think of the boost to the economy...." and "....a waste of taxpayer money", this issue opens the door for one of the techniques that large elitist governments use for crowd control. The Romans called it "bread and circuses". Aldous Huxley, in his dystopian fantasy "Brave New World", described the drugging of troublesome populations with "Soma" a pacifying recreational drug used to keep "the people" happy and oblivious. The Egyptians gave the slaves who worked on the pyramids beer for lunch and in place of water, trading a small loss in efficiency for better compliance from the beer-soaked rock-draggers. Drug-soaked citizens are much less likely to rebel.  The Ron Paul wing has taken up the cry to end the drug war and decriminalize recreational drugs. Can you say, "Baaaaaaaaah?"
2. Anti-modern medicine -  I've been assaulted lately with anti "Big Pharma", anti-physician posts that
   basically accuse drug companies, doctors and all of our American healthcare system of poisoning us for profit.  It's couched in conspiracy theory phraseology and encourages distrust of free market medicine.  It basically undermines any confidence in the free market system  What is ironic is that this is exactly what the Obamacare supporters want you to believe - capitalism is inevitably bad, all the while doing their best to diddle with capitalism to the point that it's not capitalism anymore.  When it falls, capitalism will get the blame. Meanwhile, supposedly pro-free market capitalism conservatives blame evil corporations and greedy doctors for high healthcare costs and say that profit-makers can't be trusted with your healthcare.  So who then?  The government is currently hiring legions of kindly government bureaucrats to take care of your health care for you.  "Can you say, Death Panels?"
3. Isolationism - The idea that the imperialistic policies of the United States were the entire cause behind the "fact" that people of the world do not love us was actively put forward by Ron Paul and his

   

   Dr. Paul seems reluctant to distance
   himself even from the wilder conspiracy
   theories his followers espouse.

   libertarianish followers in the last presidential campaign.  Thinly disguised isolationist ideas called for the US to abandon the outside world, shrink our forces and take shelter behind our borders where nobody would be crazy enough to attack us.  This step would be the first thing progressive socialists would absolutely have to pull off in order to shift world power into the hands of an international governing body.  The US would go "turtle" till such time as the remainder of the world could organize and arm itself to subdue what was once the last superpower on Earth. Meanwhile people are crawling over out borders to get here.  Tell me America isn't loved. America may be hated by the elitist folk who lead collapsing socialist countries and dictatorships, but regular folk who want freedom and liberty love the very idea of America and will do anything to get here and join up.
4. Conspiracy Theories - The radical right libertarians show a remarkable propensity for swallowing

   

   Adam Kokesh - Liberal plant

   conspiracy theories whole hog without any apparent skepticism for the theories and "information" that surprisingly, exactly fit their increasingly goofy worldview. The more outlandish the latest "plot" the better.  Their own political allies are in no wise safe from their holier-than-thou barbs. It is said that Satan defeats the children of God by sewing confusion in their ranks, turning one against the other and drawing their attention away from their sacred purpose. The technique seems to have been borrowed.  Lenin used it. Goebbels used it. Stalin used it. Mao used it. All the great leaders of the past century who brought "hope and change" to their people used confusion as a way to weaken their opposition - just before turning them into slaves.
5. End the Federal Reserve -  Now here's one the progressives are going to really find a lot they can agree with the Paulistas.  Progressives don't mind if you abolish the Federal Reserve System.  After all, when you are trying to collapse capitalism, you must first administer a nasty shock to the system. And who needs some pesky monetary system anyway when what you're really working toward is collapsing the whole free market system and going full monty socialist. It'll be a lot easier to do without the Fed getting in the way of the Obomanists.
6. The Tone of the Elitist -  Finally notice the tone of these kinds of missives.  They possess a conscious sense of superiority. They don't bother to discuss issues with you.  If you disagree they hurl abuse at you, bombard you with cut and paste stuff that they all pass around to reassure themselves that they are smarter than you.  If you don't go, "Yeah, man, you are so right!" it's because you are a stupid sheep.  Which is kind of confusing because if I was a sheep, wouldn't I just immediately agree with what they are telling me and not bother to check out the information they just took the trouble to cut and paste into my comments box?  Progressive socialism arose out of a need by the would-be ruling elites of the late 19th century who had just lost their power with the rise of the United States, whose Declaration of Independence had the audacity to suggest that all men were created equal. Fortunately, Darwin came along to lend credibility to the idea that some men were by birth better and smarter than others and they invented the idea of eugenics and population management by an elite leader class and "Bob's your uncle" they were back on the road to reestablishing the nobility.  And now they've duped the radical right into supporting that idea, if not the people who stand most to gain from the idea.  There's where there's going to be a rude awakening.

But it's the whole idea that there are groups of really smart people that can manage to orchestrate plans on such a vast scale as the supposed 9/11 truther conspiracy, that the libs (libertarian and liberal) want sold to conservatives.  It's a central tenant of progressive socialism that a special group of people can be smart enough to fix things so that everyone is made contented and is fed properly and kept safe. The Ron Paul libertarians have been systematically led to think they ARE that special group. If the premise is true, then a secret cabal of smart guys CAN, in fact, run the whole world and do so effectively.  Once this idea is settled as the "well-everybody-knows" kind of truth, then the contest becomes one of "Which group of smart guys do you want running things?"  Never mind that the whole premise behind the ruling elite brand of socialism is false.

The genius of what the left is doing is that while getting the radical right to sell their big ideas, they are also making them look like a bunch of nut cases.  Then, when the public chooses what smart guys it wants to lead them, they'll naturally turn away from the nutcases and embrace the kindly progressive socialists.  Game. Set. Match.

At least that's what I think the left is hoping for. Watch the posts from these guys - you know who they are.  Ask yourself, "How could the big-government, progressive socialists use this to prepare us all for the coming of Big Brother?  It'll send chills up your spine to realize just how many socialist ideas you already have accepted as truth without really realizing it.

So crank up the hookah, grab you some of that free health care and watch a nation weakened and surrounded overwhelmed by a world united and determined to rule us, that hates us still even though we left them alone to their own devices.  Once we are safely ruled by people who (we truly believe) think just like us, then who needs liberty.  We have pot!

Baaaaah,

Tom King (c) 2013

Voyage of the Damned II...Obama Denies Asylum to German Home-School Family

(c) 2013 by Tom King

It's 2013 and people are STILL fleeing Nazi persecution and STILL being turned away by Democrat presidents.

FDR in 1939 turned away 939 Jewish refugees on the SS St. Louis. Nearly a third of those eventually were captured by the Nazis and died in Auschwitz and its sister death camps.

Barak Obama in 2013 is trying to deport a German family fleeing Germany to keep their children from being taken away under a 1938 Nazi era law prohibiting home-schooling.

If you don't know about the St. Louis, here's what happened.  In 1939 Hitler decided in a bold public relations stunt to prove that nobody else wanted the Jews either.  He loaded nearly a thousand Jews onto a ship with tourist visas and sent them sailing about the Atlantic looking for refuge status. Cuba, their original destination took a few and sent them away.  FDR rejected them under threat from Southern Democrats to withdraw their support from him in the 1940 election.  Canada turned them away as did Britain.  They finally landed in places like France, Belgium and Holland where fully a third of them were captured and murdered in the Nazi death camps.

Fast forward to 2013.  The Romeike Case is about the Romeikes, a German family who fled Germany because of persecution by the government over home-schooling their children.  Home-schooling is illegal in Germany under a 1938 law that prohibits the practice.  Yes, you read that right. The law dates back to Hitler's Germany and was enacted to insure that the government had full control over what children were taught.  The Hitler Youth sprung up as the fruits of this law. 

The Obama administration fails to see any irony in backing the German law (written by the way by a government that notoriously compared Jews and blacks to monkeys, murdered one group and banned the music of the other as being corruptive of German youth.

What is particularly revelatory is the way the Democrat government that is so concerned with being fair and merciful to illegal immigrants who sneaked across the border illegally, can turn around and be completely unsympathetic with a family who came here legally, were originally granted asylum and who are supporting themselves and paying taxes. The Obama Administration has all the latitude it needs to grant the Romeikes asylum.  Instead they are burning up tax dollars to prosecute this family and to drive them back into the arms of a German government determined to either force them to send their kids to public school or to take their children from them.  They let known terrorists like the Boston Marathon bombers not only enter the country, but also to sign up for nearly a hundred thousand dollars in cumulative welfare and they want to turn out a family that needs no welfare, costs the school system nothing and actually pay their taxes. It's mind boggling.

In revoking their asylum, the administration makes two arguments:

1. They argue that because the Romeike's have the choice to simple obey the German law and send their kids to public school.  Therefore, according to the Obama administration, they are not being persecuted. One supposes they make that determination under the "your children don't belong to you"/"It takes a village" principal.
2. They also argue that because the Romeike's are not a member of any recognized persecuted group (Muslims, blacks or..........well, Muslims) that they have no right to asylum.

In other words they aren't the right race or religion to receive protection. The argument seems to be that if you're white and Christian, you don't need any protection from persecution - ever!

This would be shocking except that this ruling is from an administration that has always lumped people into groups by race, creed, color and voting blocks.

To find out more about the Romeike case click on this link and follow the links to sign the petition on Whitehouse.gov. 

I hope we get 20 million signatures.

Just sayin'

Tom

Is Anybody Really Surprised the IRS Targets People for Political Purposes?

http://www.breitbart.com

The American public isn't really shocked by the Congressional hearings regarding the IRS targeting conservative groups. We've all suspected that the IRS has been targeting people for a long time. It's not even surprising the White House is involved What's the real surprise is that they got caught at it.  Who would have thought that anyone would have guts enough to actually stand up to the IRS and cry "Foul!"?

I guess that's what happens when you go after people who already hate the IRS, then you waste their time, burn up their resources, cost them money, give their political opponents preferential treatment, cover it up till after the election.......

.............AND STICK THEM WITH FOUR MORE YEARS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA!

Straw that broke the camel's back. Coulda' seen that coming.

Tom King - (c) 2013

Supporting the Real Conspiracy

How Conspiracy Theorists Have Made Themselves Tools of the Progressive Statists
by Tom King (c) 2013

Once again, give it up with the conspiracy theories, people!  Yes, I do believe people conspire like Al-Quaeda and Timothy McVeigh and other terrorists.  I also realize Japan conducted a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and that could be considered a conspiracy.  So conspiracies do exist.  That has nothing to do with truther, birther and Illuminati believer conspiracies.  There are just two kinds of conspiracies - at least two kinds that actually work.

1.  The first kind is the small group conspiracy working against a perceived common enemy such as Al Quaeda does regularly and very small group conspiracies such as the Oklahoma City Bombing.

2.  The second kind is the national conspiracy conducted against a neighboring country. These are never quite so secretive as one would have you believe. Thousands of people in Japan knew about Pearl Harbor, but they had a common interest in keeping it a secret. They were soldiers and had very publicly been convinced that America was evil (rather like the Al Quaeda terrorists only on a much larger scale. Hitler's depradations was hardly a conspiracy. WWII was a "surprise" only because people deluded themselves into believing that the Axis nations really were peace-loving like we were - an artifact of using tit for tat or mirroring diplomatic methods. They ignored obvious signs for years because the signs didn't fit their diplomatic model. Japan's attack wasn't all that big a surprise. FDR had already started rebuilding the military years before Pearl Harbor.

What the whole Illuminati type conspiracy asks us to believe is that pretty much everything is manipulated by an evil cabal of evil industrialists, Jews, priests, progressive socialists, communists (whatever the flavor of the month happens to be). Do people conspire to cover up things?  Sure. But it only succeeds if the knowledge of the coverup is limited to a very small group who share the same interests. Nixon couldn't pull it off and down he came.

My criticism of the conspiracy theories is that they suppose the existence of vast numbers of evil minions who refuse to talk.  A successful conspiracy like the supposed 9/11 plot by George Bush and that a media, notorious for jumping on scandals even when the subject is someone they like a lot, will remain silent about the conspiracy. Obama is going to find out soon what happens to your media "puppets" when there's real blood in the water. They'll shred him to ribbons for ratings.

The 9/11 conspiracy was a conspiracy funded by a wealthy Saudi involving a relatively small group of terrorists, most of whom would become martyrs. Those sorts of evil minions are in relatively limited supply or else we'd have seen a lot more of these kinds of attacks.

Conspiracy theorists jump on every single event and start nosing around for supposed anomalies that prove (whoop there it is) that there is a conspiracy going on, usually involving their favorite bunch - the Illuminati. They swallow whole hog made up nonsense like the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" that Hitler used to justify the Jewish genocide, the Zinoviev Letter that brought down the British Labor government and the forged Donation of Constantine used in the 18th century by the Roman Catholic Church to justify it's assumption of rule over the Western Roman Empire.  The Internet is rife with screeds and rants against imaginary bugbears by uncritical researchers who sound like Sgt. Schulz going ,"Hmmmmmm. Verrry interesting."

There are lots of attempts to manipulate things and conspiracies do happen.  Even those conspiracies with relatively few conspirators tend to be found out eventually. Nixon's attempts to cover up his campaign committee's shenanigans cost him his presidency in short order.   Vast conspiracies, on the other hand, never last long. Right now tens of thousands of Americans are working toward a common goal - the change of the American government from a limited power, free market capitalist republic to a huge, powerful behemoth of a socialist state. This is not so much a conspiracy as it is a confluence of like interests. These kinds of movements operate rather like war in their mechanisms, with committed true believer attackers slugging it out wherever opportunity presents itself with committed defenders of the current system.

Fortunately, this type of "conspiracy" is not well organized, difficult to control and everybody knows about it. A high level of plot and secrecy is not possible until the plotters have unlimited power and even then the "plot" is always generally known. Every Russian in the Soviet Union knew they were being lied to by their government. They knew people were disappearing into the gulags for pointing that out.  

Viktor Belenko, a MIG 25 pilot who defected to the US with his plane during the 1970s was blown away the first time he went to an American grocery store. He thought for a time he was being shown a staged setup to convince him American stores were really so full of food. He told this great story about his own experience with the great communist experiment in collectivism.

"Growing up in the Soviet Union," Belenko related," There was no milk to be found anywhere. The official radio station, though, was constantly bragging that milk production was up from last year. So when people heard this they started saying sarcastically, 'If you want milk, take your pail to the radio.'"  No matter how powerful the Soviet Government became, it could not prevent it's vast conspiracy to lie to the Russian people from becoming a public joke.

The US government is so far, not nearly powerful enough to convince thousands of evil minions to set up 3000 of their innocent fellow Americans to be killed and not talk about it.  Not one single person who supposedly set the "demolition charges" in the twin towers come forward and admit it and there would have had to have been hundreds to have pulled it off.

These kinds of wild-haired conspiracy theories are being used by the progressive left to discredit conservative constitutionalists that stand in the way of their idea of how things ought to be. Are there elitists who are trying to bring this about? You bet. They've been working on re-establishing the old idea of a more or less permanent American nobility - a special ruling class that has a "right" to rule because of their superior genetics.

My objections to the uncareful consumption of conspiracy theory material is that most of this stuff is based on heresay and guesswork, disseminated by too many people with obvious mental disorders.  It accomplishes little more than to get us all looking in the wrong direction while the real "plot" happens right in front of our eyes.

An example is the "Veterans for Ron Paul" organizer Adam Kokesh who's trying to organize pro-second amendment supporters into an armed march on Washington on the 4th of July. The guy advertises himself as a "Tea Partier" (sic), but has a long history of working with Marxist groups like Code Pink. That's a conspiracy all right, but like most real conspiracies that involve large groups, it's easy to document from legitimate sources like I did in this blog.

Be wise, Grasshopper.

(c) 2013 by Tom King

  

Picking on Rubio

Why Conservatives Can Be Their Own Worst Enemies.

(c) 2013 by Tom King

Rubio offers a solution - let the paranoia begin!

The redneck right has turned on Marco Rubio.  Let's not confuse these guys with Tea Party conservatives.  They come to the events, but these guys occupy the seamier corners of the Tea Party movement and once in a while we have to show them the gate to get their attention.

Their latest target is Tea Party supported Senator Marco Rubio.  His efforts to create a workable immigration bill have put him in the dog house with the wingnut libertarian/conservative far right crowd - you know the ones that skirt the edges of racism in public. "Some of my best friends are......" some of them say when I know for a fact that they have not one friend who sits across or even astride the racial divide and that privately they use colorful descriptive words when referring to anyone outside their narrow slice of the culture.

The problem is that these guys draw too many well-meaning conservatives into their web of conspiracy theories, paranoia and pseudo-patriotism.  They've turned on Rubio because he has dared to suggest a tough, but fair path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the states.

This isn't like the one the Democrats created back in the 80s that promised, but never delivered, border control and merely served as a magnet for attracting more illegals to come to America to work on farms and in factories belonging to Democrat (and even Republican) campaign donors.  The Rubio plan makes it tough to win citizenship for anyone who came here illegally.  They have to learn English, work, pay taxes, pass the citizenship exam and wait a couple of decades to get their papers.  This all comes after the border gets slammed shut and hard.

The redneck right (and I can call them that since I possess my own deeply redneck roots) has freaked out because there is ANY citizenship provision at all.  Their solution is a giant roundup with train loads of shivering women and children being shipped wholesale to the Mexican border and pushed across it back into a country festering with crime, drug wars, disease and poverty.  It's pretty cold-blooded if you ask me and it has not a prayer of being supported by a single practicing Christian in a nation whose principles were built on the Golden Rule.  This is something communists would do, not Southern Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians and Adventists. Anyone who says he is a Christian and supports a modern-day "Trail of Tears" that would result from mass deportations is a Christian In Name Only (CINO).  I think that's what I'll call them from now on - CINOs.  It's a good description.

They are exaggerating the issue first of all. The crap going around about it being cheaper to deport all illegals is just that. We'd lose a workforce we can't afford to lose, leaving gaps we don't have workers enough to fill. If I'd ever heard one of these self-righteous prigs complain because he couldn't get a job plucking chickens in the Tyson's plant or picking the thorns off roses in 105 degree heat and 100%  humidity under an East Texas sun, I'd be a bit more sympathetic. It all smacks of self-righteousness and "good Meskin" style racism to me.

If you turn on Marco Rubio, the man leading the charge in the senate against creeping socialism, for offering to allow people already here to become citizens after a whole lot more hard work than most of the people bitching about it are willing to do, then maybe the whole thing does have something of a racist element to it.  I never expected it of some of my conservative friends, but there it is.  People did the same thing to the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Vietnamese, the Poles and virtually every immigrant group that's ever fled their miserable countries and come to America.  There have always been some Americans who were terrified of strangers and were responsible for a lot of shameful chapters in our history.  The attitude this time is even worse because the immigrants live just across our borders.  We've seized on the whole "ship 'em back" idea this time and it has been as much a part of the mess as has the government's protection of their cronies' source of cheap labor. 

Because we haven't dealt with it, we've created tens of millions of slaves who can be treated badly, housed in company colonias, paid starvation wages denied any ability to escape their poverty. Too many politicians have protected this vile trade in human flesh in exchange for campaign contributions.  It's time conservatives said "ENOUGH"! 

The Republican party is the party of emancipation.  We've finally sent a senator to Washington who is an emancipator and as conservatives, we should be foursquare behind him.  Period. Americans at large are not a people capable of mass cruelty.  We have some who would gladly drive the deportation trains to the border, oblivious to the human suffering that would cause.  Most Americans will never support uprooting people who have become their neighbors and friends and tossing them back into poverty and the middle of a massive drug war. The thing is most of us don't blame them for swimming the Rio Grande to get away from Mexico. You wouldn't catch me going down there for any reason.

Rubios plan gets some justice going and gets taxes into the system and prevents liberal industrialists from making defacto slaves out of illegals that they lured here in the first place. And it closes the border hard - and does it before anything else. If the border isn't closed, none of the rest of it happens.

You want to deport somebody, how about deporting the guys who hate being Americans and want to turn our nation into some European socialist/Marxist worker's paradise. How about let's deport THEM to Mexico and keep the hard-working Mexicans who risked their lives trying to get here. Them we can use! We share a lot of values with the immigrants who came here from Central and South America. They believe in hard work, family values and they're pro-life to boot. 

What are we complaining about? If we bring them out in the open, then they will start working legally, make a decent living, start businesses and become Republicans! I've never met an illegal immigrant that expected a handout. That all happened to keep the compliant so they couldn't escape from their slave jobs.
I think it's about time we lifted us up some huddled masses yearning to be free and once again raised that lamp "beside the golden shore."  Heck, we've stolen the smartest, most hard-working people from every civilized and uncivilized nation on the planet that way.  A few more won't kill us and if we make them citizens, the welfare sugar-daddies will quickly lose their power over a people from a culture that prizes family, hard work and faith.  They're already half Republican.

I think Rubio's plan is scathingly brilliant, myself.  If we did it right and started recruiting former illegals into the Republican party, the threat of 40 to 50 million new conservatives would send the Dems running pell-mell for the border to slam it shut so hard you'd hear the thud all the way up here in Puyallup.

I'm just saying.

Tom King

It's Okay to Vote for a Non-Democrat Now

Quotes from the great Democrat presidents: (Anyone notice a trend)

• Franklin Delano Roosevelt: We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
• Harry S. Truman: "The Buck Stops Here"
• John Fitzgerald Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
• Lyndon B. Johnson: "If you've got 'em by the balls, their heart and mind will follow."
• James Earl Carter: "I've looked on many women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times. God knows I will do this and forgives me."
• William Jefferson Clinton: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
• Barak Hussein Obama: "There's no there there."

 
To the surviving members of the "Greatest Generation" and their families.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is long dead people. He didn't really help with the depression and now they're saying he only extended it. WWII is over. A succession of Democrat presidents have attempted to eviscerate the military. Social Security is a wreck. We have socialized medicine. Democrats are now using the IRS to go after and punish conservatives and Jews. I think you can safely say you no longer owe FDR anything.

It is now officially okay to vote for a non-Democrat.

Tom King
(c) 2013

The Insane March on Washington (With Loaded Guns)

Veterans for Ron Paul Activist Leads Suicidal False Flag March on Washington

Tea Party my foot..... This man's a troll
squatting under the bridge squeezing
tolls out of others using fear tactics

You may have heard about a protest scheduled for July 4 in which thousands of armed Americans plan to march across the Memorial Bridge into Washington.  The idea is to carry loaded weapons into downtown Washington, march around the Capitol, the White House and a bunch of other government buildings and then supposedly march back out the way they came.  Of course, this won't happen the way it's planned.  Of course there will be a huge military and police presence and of course there will be lots of arrests.  The prison terms could be extensive and the fines could destroy anyone arrested. If they are not careful, some fok could be shot and even killed.  Not only that, but the man leading the march is a fake with a long history as a liberal Marxist radical working with liberal Marxist groups.  He's even asked President Obama to support the march. Talk about a false flag operation, this one is the mother of all false flag ops.

Michelle Malkin published a piece on Adam Kokesh the self-proclaimed "libertarian anarchist" who is organizing the march.  Even his Wikipedia entry gives you some insight into his activities with Marxist groups and the Wikipedia entry has been white-washed as much as Adam and his supporters could manage. The Washington Post says Code Pink will be at the bridge to offer "hugs" to protestors o "counter the pro-gun message of the marchers. Interesting action by Code Pink since they have a history of working with Adam Kokesh in the past.   Kokesh also helped organize the radical Iraq Veterans Against the War group and (insert Claud Rains quote here - "I'm shocked, shocked!") he helped organize "Veterans for Ron Paul".  That poor man never had a chance at the presidency.  He attracts lunatics like a magnet attracts iron filings.

This "March" is nothing more than an attempt to discredit pro-second amendment Americans. The man's a troll on steroids. Marching on Washington with loaded guns is an incredibly bad idea. If you really WANT a gun ban, the thing you do is you show up at the Capitol where the lawmakers sit with several thousand lunatics with loaded guns.  Want to really protest.  Show up on the far side of the bridge with signs that say - "We are the Tea Party - You don't represent us".

Personally I support a gun ban in Washington, DC. The city has the highest concentration of Democrats of anywhere in the country. I maintain that, with all those liberals packed together in one place, they should not be allowed to carry or even possess firearms. 

They'll shoot their eyes out!

Tom King (c) 2013

To My Well-Meaning Lib Friends

 (Libertarian and Liberal)

Prohibition did not make gangsters. They were already there long before prohibition. They were called outlaws and they just shot you in the face and took your money instead of selling you something illegal. Bad guys always find something to do that's illegal - alcohol, drugs, gambling, banks.  If poodles were illegal and expensive, crooks would be running black market poodle smuggling rings. There are always going to be crooks. Nobody makes them be crooks. They choose to be crooks. Crooks always find something to be crooked about. And actually the stuff about Prohibition being a failure is not true.  It's common knowledge that is simply false. Prohibition helped our culture reset. Before prohibition, heavy alcohol use was widely accepted in our culture. It took a generation of children being raised without a whiskey bottle on the breakfast table to break the self-destructive cycle of alcohol abuse.

And yes, Al Quaeda is run by Muslim fanatics, not by the CIA.  The CIA isn't that well-organized.

And if it's our right to smoke pot, take drugs and consume whatever we want to as you say, then will you people please shut up about aspartame, McDonald's hamburgers, statin drugs, pain pills and anything else you keep sending me to "reveal the truth" to me about whatever it is you think is poisoning us!

If you can smoke pot, I should be able to dang well drink a diet soda in peace!

(c) 2013

War on Drugs/War on Terror - A Waste of Time?

If the War on Drugs created more drug users, then will the War on Terror create more terrorists?

That's one proposition being posted all over the web lately by the usual libs (liberals and libertarians).

It's flawed logic.  It's the classic propaganda ploy.  Start with a "truth" that isn't true and then extrapolate a false logic conclusion from it.  In this case, if the War on Drugs created fewer drug users, the premise would fall flat.  And there's no evidence that the war on drugs "created" any more drug users.

Reducing the supply of anything, even drugs makes that thing more expensive.  Nothing will get rid of drug use or people willing to supply drugs.  That's true, But let's look at the current administration's relentless efforts to reduce the price of oil and gas in order to raise the price and force us to reduce our consumption.  It follows that if that works, then if you deliberately reduce the supply of drugs and the price will go up and people will have to either quit or use less. 

Making it all okay and safe to peddle drugs as liberals and libertarians suggest only makes for more drug users we have to take care of in the end.  Besides, contrary to the mythology, Prohibition actually worked.  A recent article in the American Journal of Public Health argues that Prohibition actually was a success in many ways and only failed politically.  Prohibition changed the larger culture from one in which alcohol was pervasive to one in which the majority of the Prohibition-era children were raised in alcohol free homes.  It took years for alcohol consumption to rise and again become pervasive in the culture.  We're only now seeing alcoholism rising again and we will bear the health care costs that go with it if we don't continue to insist upon temperance efforts like the prohibition on advertising addictive substances like alcohol and cigarettes.  If we hope to stem the tide, history shows you have to build levees and dikes. 

Repeal was caused by political failures, the Depression and false promises of greatly increased tax revenues.  It passed, sort or, even though prohibition was still widely supported.  The rate of alcoholism remained low for some years after Repeal because many states and counties kept prohibition laws in place and alcohol had been dislodged from its once ubiquitous place in American homes.  I lived in two counties in Texas that are still "dry", 80 plus years after Prohibition. If you drink, you have to really, really want to drink in Smith and Johnson Counties. The nearest liquor store is in the next county.

Legalization didn't reduce either crime or alcoholism.  The criminals simply found other criminal activities to take up.  It became easier for folk who were already alcoholics to get booze.  But the culture that once surrounded alcohol consumption had been taken out of the mainstream in a big way.  Repeal brought some alcohol use back into the culture, but the experience of Prohibition forever attached a stigma to drinking.

In the same way repealing drug laws will only serve to make drugs more "acceptable" in American culture and make it easier for people to become drug addicts. Prohibition it turns out, did a lot of good and actually helped stem a rising tide of alcoholism in the United States that would soon have done irreparable damage to our economy and culture.  Do we really want to see the rates of alcoholism in our nation rivaled by rates of drug addiction?

With addictive substances, you can be certain that the more of it that's out there, the more addicts these substances will create.  Studies showed, for instance, that rhesus monkeys given unlimited access to cocaine, took so much they laid down, quit eating and died. That's a problem with availability. The monkeys didn't take more coke because it was denied to them.  The forbidden fruit theory only works so far as the fruit doesn't become too costly.

With terrorism, taking out the supply caches and leadership makes it harder and more expensive to conduct acts of terror.  The 9/11 operation cost Al Quaeda a good deal of money and manpower to pull off.  Without the money, the operations get tougher to do, so you get fewer terrorist attacks no matter how badly they want to carry them out.  When President Bush was pounding Al Quaeda strongholds and taking out Al Quaeda operatives, there were fewer terror attacks on Americans.  So they started blowing each other up because it was more convenient and attacking American soldiers who shoot back with deadly accuracy. 

Since Obama has let up on the war on terror, terror attacks have only increased and come home to an America perceived as weak once more.  

How many more attacks will America have to endure before the President decides we've all been punished enough for America's "sins" and starts doing something serious about it instead of merely excusing terrorism and blaming it on some video no one ever saw.

I'm just sayin'

Tom King (c) 2013

If God Created Us, Then Who Created God?

A friend described that question as a problem in circular logic?

If one thinks of God as a creature who exists in our three dimensional world delimited by the boundaries of time, then there is a circular logic problem as he says.  If something must be created, then there must be a creator, but then if the creator exists, mustn't He also have a creator and so on and so on?

If, however, you believe, as I do, that God exists in a dimension that is outside of time, then the question as to who created God is meaningless. This problem arises because we are three dimensional creatures.  We experience life as a moving event, traveling along a stretch of time, experiencing one moment after another in linear fashion. We can neither go backward nor leap forward.  We assume, therefore, that everything in the universe experiences things in the same manner.

I don't believe that is true.  I believe, with some support from physics, that there are other dimensions beyond three dimensional space-time.  I believe that God exists in this higher dimension or "spiritual plane" as Scripture indicates.  I believe God occupies today, tomorrow and yesterday all at once.  That's kind of mind-boggling, but not necessarily impossible to get your head around.

I don't mean that God moves back and forth in time as Scripture seems to hint that angels do. I mean, rather, that God is always there a thousand years ago, today, tomorrow - all at the same "time" for want of a better word for an idea that transcends time itself.  So a "beginning" for God is a meaningless concept.   He is as Revelation says, the alpha and the Omega - the beginning and end all at once.  We have a hard time comprehending how that can be so. 

Physicists believe that there may be multiple dimensions beyond our own which encompass ours, but which we cannot touch nor comprehend in the same way that a two dimensional being who lived on a flat piece of paper could not comprehend the idea of depth, his body limited only to having length and width without any idea of "thickness".  He could not see us except where we placed our hands against the flat world and then he would only see the place where we touched his world and not us as we truly are.


In the same way we cannot truly see God.  When Moses asked to see God, God could only show him his "back parts".  For us to see God in any meaningful way, he had to create an image of Himself that was limited to our 3 dimensional world - in other words he had to create Christ who was in that sense God's son and yet Himself.

The idea that a powerful creative intelligence might exist in some higher dimension is not beyond the realms of science at all.  If anything at all, it should not be at all surprising that such a dimension might organize itself into a vast "intelligence" given it had infinite space and time to work with.  Why should we be surprised that there is someone there?

It may be that at some higher dimension than ours, only one creature may inhabit that dimension. Of course He would be exactly like God and I believe that He is God. No beginning, no end, the self existent one.  In the Old Testament he even calls Himself "I Am".   In that higher dimension, our time and space, the entire history of our world would seem like a rope to be twisted and created in one act - the beginning and end created at the same time.  It is we, the created who live out our lives along the strands one day after another.  For an intelligence to exist in a higher plane of existence, He would simply be there or not - either through the whole of time at once or not at all.

Based on the things I have seen and experienced, I think it's a very good bet that God is there.  I think He made this world like a cook makes a stew, placing all the ingredients here to insure that what comes out at the end of the process is the greatest good for all creation - a people who can be trusted with the keeping of the universe.

Tom King (c) 2013

Like We Need Another "Ist"....

The man who sits in the oval office is a progressivist, a socialist and a collectivist. He is a Marxist, an elitist and a unilateralist. The only ist he "istn't" is a free market capitalist. For the foundation principle behind the great wealth and security we enjoy today, he has mostly contempt. save for his profound appreciation for the fruits of that principle.  He looks upon the wealth of America with the same gleam in his eye that mythical dragons had for gold and treasure just waiting to be plundered.  He and his fellow dragons have set themselves the task of looting our children's future in order to change America into a pale shadow of a failed ideology that angry leftists cling to as a child clings to candy and sweets all the while rejecting the whole idea of learning to eat their vegetables. (And he throws like a girl).

 Tom King  (c) 2013

Racism Rears MY Ugly Head???

I have stepped on the racism land mine.  The client who accepted my proposal to write a grant for her more than a week ago, spent a week "renegotiating" the contract so that my hourly fee was cut by 10%, my agents fees were going to be paid by me and my up front retainer which covered 10 hours of work and a written report I submitted was being eliminated altogether.  We had a Skype conversation in which the client blocked her camera so I could not see her face, but she could see me.  After I turned in the grant review, she canceled the contract, slandered me and told my agent she felt like I had delayed the work and didn't want to work with her because of her race.

This is ludicrous.  I don't want to work with her because she's unethical, not because she belongs to whatever unnamed race she belongs to. You don't accept a proposal with clearly defined terms and then try to weasel a bunch of free work out of the person even before the contract starts.  I saw it coming and I still acted in good faith despite my concerns, giving my client the benefit of the doubt that she would pay as she promised.

The problem is not race, it's penury, incompetence and lack of ethics. The grant proposal reminded me of one a reviewer once described as "two unemployed liberal social workers looking to create for themselves jobs which don't require any real work or have to show any real results".  That problem has nothing to do with race.  That problem is all about blaming the inadequacy of your own efforts on anything and everyone but yourself. She didn't want to hear that she wasn't ready to do the grant. She wanted me to make the grant happen anyway.  And had they not done their part of the grant, they could have blamed me and refused to pay me.  Not only that, but if the information in the grant was discovered by grant monitors to turn out to be not strictly true, then I could be held responsible and the feds will hurt you for lying on a grant.

Bet I know which party my client belongs to.

And now I've wasted another hour answering this slander to my agency.  If you don't want to do the grant with me, then don't, but skip the nasty pot shots on the way out the door, okay? 

Moving on.....

Tom King
(c) 2013

The Paradox of Major General Butler

Progressives and Ron Paul Libertarians love to post quotations by two-time Medal of Honor winning Marine General Smedley Darlington Butler an outspoken critic of U.S. military adventurism, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. They always quote the part where he accuses US "capitalists"of using the military to clean up messy countries so our companies can go in and make money in those places.  Then they attempt to make the correlation between these evil war-mongering capitalists and conservative Republicans of today.  What they don't tell you is that Major General Butler was a REPUBLICAN!

And what he said was true. General Butler's service was during a time when corporate corruption was at its height under the Robber Barons.  The military WAS being misused in support of American business interests.  Here's the passage from a speech by the General that is most widely quoted.

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Butler's quote was first published in a socialist magazine during the 30s. The socialists embraced Butler for his supposed "pacifism". He supported the Bonus Army march on Washington and turned against Hoover for his treatment of WWI veterans and supported Roosevelt.  Unfortunately for Roosevelt, Butler also opposed the new president's policies and got in trouble with the socialists over his negative comments about Benito Mussolini (the then darling of the socialists who were busily carving statues of him in East Coast parks.
Butler accused several wealthy Americans including JP Morgan and a retired Army general as well as a cabal of Jewish bankers of fomenting a plot  against the government, which they invited him to lead.

The Democrat controlled congress did hearings, slapped some hands and buried the names of those involved. The Democrat press branded the whole thing a hoax and General Butler a tool. 

History is a funny thing.  If you'll look for the name of the presidents who tried to break up the power of the Robber Barons around the time of General Butler's service, you'll find Teddy Roosevelt (Republican) leading the charge.  The Democrat Party was up to their eyeballs in efforts to use the military to benefit their wealthy friends.  Later, it was Dwight Eisenhower who warned us AGAINST the military-industrial complex.  He was a REPUBLICAN too. 

A recent study found that some 80% of those surveyed who were classified as RICH supported the Democrat Party and President Obama financially.  Yet the progressive apologists would have us believe that it is Republicans who support the greedy capitalists and vice versa.

What do you suppose that those greedy capitalists know that we don't that would cause them to invest that much money into the Democrat Party?

"Oh, but that all changed after Abraham Lincoln," the progressives will tell you.  "The Democrats have switched roles with the Republicans."

Progressives maintain that the Democrat leopard, author of the Jim Crow laws, segregation, poll taxes and supporter of the robber baron monopolies has change its spots.  Well, folks, I don't buy it.  Leopards cannot change their spots, except, of course, for the so-called black panther which is really a leopard without visible spots unless you look close.  The panther hides his spots and in the process turns almost completely black in one of natures more interesting parables.  Whatever the liberal progressive Democrat coalition may say, history says different.

• Democrats say Roosevelt saved the country during the Depression.  History says he lengthened it and made it worse.
• Democrats say Republicans start wars.  History shows that in the past hundred years, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam were all started under Democrat presidents. And before you point out Grenada and Panama and the two Gulf Wars, let me remind you about the debacle in the desert under Carter, the Yugolsavian distraction under Clinton and the Libyan Adventure under Obama.  
• Democrats say Republicans fight wars to support business interests.  History says American troops helped stabilize the governments where we intervened and the increased trade improved standards of living for the citizens of those "Banana Republics" AND we didn't occupy them, we helped them set up governments and left.
• Democrats say Republicans are rich, greedy capitalists, yet the majority of actual greedy capitalists support Democrats heavily.
• Democrats say they are the party of the "working man".  History shows that the working man of the heartland votes conservative by and large.
• Democrats say that government is sneaky and evil AND that more government is the solution to the problem!

Okay, I still don't get that one. I'm verklempt.

Talk amongst yourself.

(c) 2013 by Tom King