The World Hates Us - The Twisted Argument for Isolationism

A friend told me I have to vote for Gary Johnson the Libertarian Candidate if I don't vote for Trump. So, like a good political junkie I go to the Libertarian Party and look at their platform. A lot of it I agree with, but I always stumble when I get to that last plank!

The Libertarian love of isolationism.

Now, my friend tells me that the world hates us and we shouldn't try to be the world's police, because it offends the world and that's why they hate us so much. I always stumble over this one, especially when this same dude tells me immigration is our biggest problem. We need to keep out all those nasty immigrants.

So tell me this, then. If the world hates us so much why are its best and brightest trying so flippin' hard to get here to America. A whole bunch of folks from "the rest of the world" that finds us so offensive, risk life and limb by sneaking over the border. They uproot themselves from their homes and lives and spend years trying to get here? Why would anyone who hates a country so much want to come here so badly.

They don't seem like they hate us all that much.

As to our offending the rest of the world, that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. I don't deny that we offend some people out there in "the rest of the world".  Many of them are offended by our wealth, our freedom, our movies, music and literature. Many of them are offended because we come to their countries to trade and make money and actually take some of the money we make home for ourselves. I get it that we offend some people in "the rest of the world".

So what? 

I'm offended by Muslims lining up Christians and beheading them. That really offends me. I'm offended by Russian troops invading a sovereign nation and taking their territory. I'm offended by Hutus murdering Tutsis. I'm offended by petty African warlords stealing children and forcing them to be soldiers. I'm offended by Islamic terrorists blowing up things and killing innocent people. I was really offended when they destroyed the World Trade Center and tried to destroy the Pentagon and killed hundreds of innocent people in airplanes and thousands on the ground. I'm offended by the international sex slavery trade going on in North Africa. I'm offended by the Chinese annexing an ocean and threatening to stop ships that sail on it in violation of international law. I'm offended by the murder of Christian tribesmen and women in Malaysia by the government. I'm offended by someone who believes we can build a damned wall around our country and let the evil people of the world just have their way out there when I know all we're doing is giving them time to reload and rearm before they come pouring over the borders from their cesspool countries to muck up ours. 

Am I, as a liberty-loving American not entitled to be offended by the awful things done by "the rest of the world?" Why do Libertarians think everyone else should be allowed to be offended by us but that we shouldn't be offended by what happens to ANYONE ELSE except ourselves. I mean, the other libs (liberals as opposed to libertarians) think we shouldn't be allowed to be offended at all. Yeah, sometimes we play cops around the world. That's not a bad thing. Bill Clinton may have been covering his behind for diddling the White House Interns, but intervening to stop the genocide in Yugoslavia was a righteous mission. Too bad he wasn't serious about that mission when he sent an under-armed, under-manned army into Mogadishu. He could have done a lot of good for the people there who were starving and being murdered. Should we be the world's cops?  You bet. Who else is going to do it?  The Russians?  We already know what kind of strings are attached to Russian "help". Vladamir Putin is a former KGB officer for crying out loud.

The only way to slow terrorism and global bullying down is to fight it at the source. George Bush was absolutely right about that. If someone is draining sewerage onto your property, the thing to do is not to sandbag around your house and hope to stay ahead of it. The thing to do, no matter how many sandbags you may have, is to find the pipe and shut off the valve. Eventually, if you don't, you're going to run out of sandbags.

© 2016 by Tom King

Glenn Beck and Ron Paul Say "It's Not Obama's Fault!" - Welcome to the Apocalypse

Apparently Glenn Beck and, now, Rand Paul have decided that all the misery in the Middle East  was probably Bush's fault to for getting into the Iraq War in the first place. If this keeps up, Hillary Clinton will be the next president because conservatives will be fractured into two groups.

The new meme with the Libertarian fringies seems to be "It's NOT Obama's fault!"  Why not? After all, they agree with Obama's foreign policy so long as it conform's to Ron Paul's get-out-of-everywhere isolationist foreign policy. Even more disturbing, I'm hearing a willingness to punish the Israelis from the Paulistas. Not from Glenn, yet, but it does make me wonder and worry.

Are we so focused on guarding our pet pots of money that we're willing to let the world go to hell on the grounds that "After all, people always get the government they deserve and besides it's too expensive to protect the innocent."  I've heard that a lot lately. It's another new propeller-head mantra being used as an excuse for standing by and watching ISIS slaughter its way across Iraq. After all, the theme goes, the Iraqis get the government they deserve!

And now we've got the pope calling for a world government with teeth. Protestant charismatics are lining up to rejoin the Roman church at the pope's invitation after the pontiff declaring "Martin Luther's little protest is over." in a video message to Kenneth Copeland and his bunch. Francis says they finally got the wording right on the whole pesky salvation by grace doctrine so that we Protestants can all come back to Mother Rome now. No word on the other 95 thesis Luther nailed to the door, but Copeland apparently agrees that 1 is enough. Presbyterians are going full progressive socialist this week. They declared that God, in fact, does approve of gay marriage and wants Presbyterians to conduct the rites on his behalf. If Billy Graham were in his grave, he'd be rolling over in it.

We found out early on in the Obama adminstration that all the high churches (Presbyterians included) were receiving sermon suggestions from team Obama. So, now we've got so-called conservatives chiming in with leftists and excusing the president's blundering in the Middle East because it was Bush's fault?

Fringe Libertarians and fringe Liberals are becoming so close politically that now they are finishing each others' sentences.

Welcome to the Apocalypse. I hate to say "I told you so," but........................

© 2014

Failed Obama Middle East Policy and How Ron Paul is Partly to Blame

I'm going to catch H E double hockey sticks for this post, but I'm fed up and I don't care anymore.  I am utterly sick of hearing Paulestinians gloat as thousands of Christians and Jews in Iraq are being slaughtered by the peaceful Islamist armies marching toward Baghdad.  And I am violating my policy of not calling them names like Paulestinians, Paulistas and Paul-bots in this post because they keep calling me a stupid neocon and I'm tired of it.

As Inigo Montoya famously said, "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

If I get one more post from a Paulite gloating about how Ron Paul was right about Iraq and Obama should make him Secretary of State, I'm going to start marking these guys junk mail so I don't have to see it anymore and some of these guys are friends. Of course, they do give me a lot of blog material, which is why I haven't done it yet.

The gloating is completely disgusting. The fringe right is prancing around saying George W. Bush was wrong and this proves that Ron Paul was right. Not a word for the victims of Islam. Not a prayer for the dead or a word of condemnation for the army of Islam - and don't kid yourself, those guys are the armies of Islam. What's even more puzzling, there's been nary a word among my RP loving correspondents condemning Barak Obama's dismal policy failure in the Middle East. This strange support for a clearly disastrous Obama policy only helps encourage more Middle East foolishness by this State Department.

The whole region is going to go up in flames once we come back home to hide. It may tamp down temporarily once either the Sunnis or the Shiites wipe the other side out. When that happens, it will get quiet for a while alright. They'll use the time to rearm, but they WILL turn on us and there won't be a thing we can do about it. They will take Pakistan's nukes and make themselves some more. The top Pakistani nuclear scientist has already said that he wants to donate nukes to all the Islamic nations. Establish an Islamic mega-nation and that's going to be the first thing they acquire. And won't that be fun?

Meanwhile, if we follow the Obama/Paul doctrine, we'll sit back and wait for the attack, believing firmly that no one in their right mind would attack the USA. We're far too strong for that. And besides, we could boost our economy by not having to have such a big military. So let me get this straight. Let's gut our military, withdraw from the rest of the world and people are going to be afraid to attack us. Did you not watch the atomic bomb safety films when you were a kid? Let them attack us first?  Can you say, "Suicide"? I do believe these guys have been smoking rather too much of that marijuana they want to legalize.

And you can be sure that Islam will go first in any war with the West. They are not afraid of the consequences. Allah, their militant wing believes, will protect them. Besides, if Allah gives them a new terror weapon, they believe they must use it. Being terrorists, their militant wing is likely to hold the world hostage for as long as they can to the threat of nuclear war. They've always been able to raise money for the cause that way. It's kind of their favorite fund-raising technique.

I'm not saying all of Islam is evil, but if there is a peaceful wing of Islam, they are sure being terribly quiet about the excesses of their fanatical members. Silence is complicity, guys. When my church had an armed terrorist in our midst, we expelled him. He went elsewhere and wound up getting himself and 82 of his followers killed along with 4 ATF agents. The point is, we kicked him out from our midst once he revealed himself for what he was. If Islam is a religion of peace, it needs to expel their murderous members from their midst.


Every time one of my Paulista friends drops me a note to gloat about how Ron Paul was right, they call me a neocon and use all these talking point phrases over and over ad nauseum. The big killer argument is always that I'm a stupid neocon and can't see the truth (as revealed by Alex Jones, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell) and if I'd just watch a few more Youtube videos, I'd understand and support Ron Paul. I've actually watched some of those videos and they are a hash of unsupported "facts" and wild speculation that works out to be about 90% uninformed speculation based upon ideology rather than an understanding of history as it actually happened.

It make me weary; it really does.  To believe all this "America is evil" crap and to think that peace and love will magically break out across the world if we just hunker down behind our borders and hide is the worst sort of stupid. It's not America's chickens that have come home to roost. It's the vultures created by an evil culture that treats women like cattle and unbelievers like dogs and dogs like vermin. And they are circling, waiting for America to lie down, nice and quiet-like in the sand.

My reaction to the tragedy unfolding in the Middle East is to offer up prayers for the thousands being slaughtered in Iraq. It's genocide and we are supposed to be against that. A Christian woman and her two children are sitting in prison waiting to be stoned because her father was a Muslim and she chose not to be one. Muslim warlords in Africa are suiting up children as soldiers to go and slaughter Christians for Allah.

I'm just about ready to declare war on Islam. It wouldn't take very many carpet bombings of ISIS army formations, SEAL team strikes to eliminate Muslim warlords and a few air strikes on the houses of terrorist leaders before the nations of Islam would decide to take the road to peace.

What Ron Paul, Alex Jones and Lew Rockwell do not understand (and apparently my Paulista buddies don't either) is that the Arab/Islamic culture only understands strength. The culture is a tribal culture. It always has been. Islam draws its DNA from those origins. Over the centuries European diplomats have despaired of making any real progress in Islamic/Western relations. Throughout Arab history a substantial majority of sheiks, caliphs, pashas, bashas, shahs, sultans and kings of Araby were strangled by one of their lieutenants fairly early in their terms of office. Few Arab leaders ever died comfortably in their beds. Any slight show of weakness in a leader virtually demanded that someone stronger kill him and replace him with someone stronger. Politics in places like the Barbary States was a bloody Darwinian business. The Arab cultures to this day see a nation that is hiding at home as being weak and unworthy. Steeped in the belief that strength is the most important thing, Arab/Islamic strong men feel duty bound to Allah to subdue the weak in Mohammed's name.

Modern historians like to pain Muslim culture, particularly where it existed in Spain as benevolent and tolerant.  A 13th century Spanish Grenadan Muslim general wrote, "It is permissible to set fire to the lands of the enemy, his stores of grain, his beasts of burden, if it is not possible for Muslims to take possession of them." This "peaceful and tolerant fellow advised his fellow Muslims to raze cities and do everything in their power to ruin anyone who wasn't a Muslim. So much for the religion of peace.

When the mullahs talk about subduing "the weak" - there talking about us, guys. As seen through Middle Eastern eyes, Bowin' Barak is the epitome of American gutlessness. And Ron Paul looks like a major wimp to the warlords and pashas over there too and not a whit of difference between the two.

More and more, I find that I really do miss Ronald Reagan. If we could only find someone like the Gipper, who wasn't afraid to tell the truth right out where people could hear it - advisors be damned, we might restore peace. Reagan was willing to be strong. He started developing defensive weapons against nukes and then had the stones to walk out on nuclear disarmament talks at Reykjavik. The result?  He got an entire class of the most dangerous nuclear weapons in the world eliminated. He publicly challenged Mikael Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" and down came the Berlin wall. When Mohamar Gaddafi bombed our soldiers and blew up a planeful of people, Reagan bombed his house and wiped out his anti-aircraft capabilities in one shot. Gaddafi was quiet for 30 years after that.

What we don't need is government by wimps. The Paul-bots* are going to get all over me about this, but I think GW was right. Preemptive action was the best way to bring peace to the Middle East. Obama's wimpitude confused them and the noise from the Paulestinians encouraged them. That's not George's fault. He did the best he could with the crowd of colossal wimps he had to work with.

Just my opinion, of course, but I'm right.  Feel free, however, to puff and sputter about the Illuminati, the Bilderbergs and tell me how steel doesn't melt.

© 2014 by Tom King

*That's equals exactly half of the total number of names I've been called by Ron Paul fans in just the last 4 emails I've received. I'll stop now, but don't make me do that again. I have more euphemisms and I'm not afraid to use them.

The Libertarian/Liberal Alliance and the Mistreatment of History

Got another email from a friend of mine today. It was a link to a Lew Rockwell post that was supposed to show me I was a neocon and wrong about Ron Paul and libertarian isolationism. Apparently Robert McNamara was wrong about Vietnam.

Well, duh! 

And that's supposed to convince me that withdrawing from the world militarily and sitting behind our borders, legalizing pot and abolishing the world bank is a good idea? First, I take Lew Rockwell's correspondents with a grain of salt (and a small grain - I have high blood pressure) The Lew Rockwell gang are every bit as adept at twisting history to suit a narrative (isolationism) as McNamara and his ilk ever were. The libertarian/liberal alliance of today is beating the drum for the US to pull out of the world as a miracle cure for national aggression and they never tire of calling you a neocon for not supporting them.

Vietnam was a mistake, not because we were trying to save South Vietnam from North Vietnamese conquest, but because we weren't, no matter what MacNamara said. Vietnam was about ginning up paranoia in order to prolong what was essentially a massive weapons testing spree by the military/industrial complex. There was no thought of winning the war, just keeping it going so they could work out the kinks in all those expensive new weapons they wanted taxpayers to buy. And no article about how China was too poor to overrun Southeast Asia anyway is going to convince me they wouldn't have done it if we'd taken our troops home and not made it too costly for them to extend their "Sphere of Influence". Vietnam was badly handled. We could have ended that war in six weeks if we hadn't handcuffed ourselves before we went into it. 

My foreign policy would be this instead. 

• Rule 1: The United States never fights a holding war. If we go to war it's in, win and gone. We'll even help the people of the miscreant nation clean up and rebuild. We're nice people like that. Ask Japan and Germany.

•  Rule 2: No nation may henceforth march into another nation and conquer it. Period!

George Bush was right in liberating Kuwait and returning its government to its original state. George W was right in going to Afghanistan to root out state-sponsored terrorism. He was right in taking down Saddam for violating the original Gulf War cease fire which saved his fuzzy butt to continue mass murdering his own people. No fly zones were a poor substitute for taking out that madman in the first place.

And we should have got nose to nose with Putin over the Crimea. If the populace wanted to go back to Mother Russia as Putin said, let the UN go in and conduct elections and make it a peaceful transfer. Other than by the will of the people no outside nation should be allowed to change the national borders of another (and yes, even borders in Africa). By acting on principle to stifle aggressor nations we can avoid a whole lot of the kind of bloodshed the libertarian/liberal alliance never seems to get upset over - mass murder by conquerors.

I think both parties have it wrong because both are cowardly. They fear losing power so much that they are afraid to wield it properly when the time comes. I also think the libertarian/liberal alliance is wrong-headed on many levels in its naive belief that the US can bring about peace simply by withdrawing from the world stage and that our trading vessels and commerce will be able to go unmolested about the world.

No matter what Country Joe and the Fish might have to say about it, you can't put down your guns and pick up your hookah and make everything magically okay in the world. There is good and evil. We may have failed in a big way in the past, but that's no excuse to wallow in our guilt and curl up in the fetal position behind our leaky borders with bong to comfort us.

Our guiding principle should be the Arthurian one - "Not Might is right, but Might FOR right." Who decides what is right? Well all we've got is electable and fallable human leaders. I'm not saying trust them without question. I'm saying that as a people we should be telling them what is right and expecting them to do that.

Unfortunately we have a press that's busy trying to convince us that we're on our way to a socialist utopia and a political class that only cares about maintaining its power. Without an unbiased, open and fearless press, we're pretty much screwed. You have ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN singing the liberal anthem. You've got Lew Rockwell and Alex Jones marching the unstable conservatives off the cliff and the country club Republicans trying to beat Democrats at their own political games. Center moderates and mainstream conservatives are left with little more sanity than Fox News and the exhausting struggle to sift through the crap to find the truth.

As Ronald Reagan showed, the American people recognize the truth when they hear it and will get behind it. Unfortunately, we only had 8 years of that kind of principled leadership, then the politicians took it back. They're bad enough. I see no advantage to giving it to the nuts.

And don't ask me about the revisionist history lesson I got last night about the evilness of Israel from a liberal university history professor. History is such a messy business, especially when libs (of both stripes) get hold of it.

© 2014 by Tom King

Shaking Hands with the Devil - The New Far Left/Far Right Alliance

I've been saying that the far right and far left have been merging for a long time. Now folk as politically diverse as Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader are saying it. Liberals and libertarians are seeking to forge an alliance on the issues they share: pro-isolationism, pro-drugs and a curious sort of anti-corporate anti-capitalism that promises to leave us isolated, stoned and economically fractured; a useful state and easy pickings for that big "world government with teeth" the pope, trade unions, eco-activists, progressive socialists, the international communist party and the newly invigorated high church/ecumenical/charismatic "Christian" coalition have been calling for of late.

Such a world government has long been seen as necessary by the Old World, if only to keep the uppity Americans in line and to at last bring them back into submission. Better to end the 2 century long American experiment in human liberty that has for so long impaired the rights and privileges of the world's natural noble classes, than to endure the continued existence of such a place as America. The very existence of a land of liberty and opportunity in the world disturbs the masses and makes them discontented, restless and unwilling to submit to their natural lords and masters. It's little wonder that the "rest of the world" hates us. We make it so hard for the nobles to govern. I am certain they would be very happy for this new liberal/libertarian coalition to succeed.

All they need is for the United States to reject its warlike ways, disarm and isolate itself. Then America can sit on our hands, quietly behind our leaky border fences, till the envious world can build its alliances and military strength, infiltrate, undermine us and finally force us to surrender to the "inevitable". Then they'll loot us and make the world fair (i.e. all the same) - the masses all equally poor and compliant save for the dictators and elitist royalty.

If anybody thinks the far left is going to hold hands and march happily off into the utopian sunset with the far right and forget all about disarming the American populace, reducing them to a contented stupor with sex, drugs and rock n' roll and then ringing down the curtain on our American experiment with liberty, I've got a couple of bridge investments I can sell you. One day the political stoners that make up this bunch is going to wake up in an Orwellian 1984/Brave New World with Big Brother watching, medicating and finally euthanizing us when we aren't "useful" anymore.

The devil has been setting us up for this for centuries, but in the last 150 years, he's been ramping his deceptions up to a fever pitch; sending us Darwin, Marx, Progressivism, Socialism, Communism, Nazism, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam and the Ayatollahs. And he's not done yet. He knows he's running out of time. It's just a matter of watching for the next big thing that calls us to collective sacrifice for the so-called "greater good".

I have little doubt that this exciting new left-right coalition will succeed. It includes all the people I've feared the most and while most of them probably mean well, so do the folks who will use them for their own purposes. After all, they truly believe they are special and should shoulder the terrible burden of deciding what the rest of us should do, how we should live and what we should believe.

The Second Coming is neither a conquest nor an occupation. It's a rescue mission - in, out and gone before the world destroys itself in flames. Before you libs (libertarian/liberals) start gloating about how many are "coming around" to your version of "truth", you probably should take a hard look at what your new partners really want before you sit down at the campfire with them for a chorus of Kum-Ba-Yah and a pull at the hookah!

Tom

That's all I've got to say about that.  - Forrest Gump

© 2014

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

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