I was sleeping on my floor mattress in Clairemont, CA (San Diego) less than a mile from the apartment and Mosque where two of the hijackers lived and "worshiped". Our cable was supposed to be installed that day and my roommate Doug was awakened by the cable guy who said, "Have you turned your TV on yet?" Doug woke me up and told me that the WTC was attacked, the Pentagon was attacked, and that planes were being hijacked. I thought he was joking and tried to go back to sleep in my pre-911 invincible American attitude. When I doubted him but looked at the TV, I was mortified. The second tower had just been hit and I was watching replay after replay and crying like a little bitch. All of the sudden, I started thinking about all of my friends and family in New York, including a few of them who worked in the WTC or right nearby. I figured if these Islamic terrorist animals figured out how to accomplish this mayhem, that they had to have more coming.
I was calling my parents and sister and finally got through to her. She was balling and said, "How am I going to explain to my children that there are such evil people in the world?" I finally made it through to my dad, and I was surprised that he wasn't. My father grew up very aware of what Islamic terrorists were capable of and never put something like this past them. He confirmed that he had reached our Aunt and cousins and that everyone was alright. I found out that Tracy, my brother-in-law's brother-in-law, had decided to go to work late that day, and was on his way to work in the WTC when the attacks were happening. Many people weren't so lucky.
I guess you can call me a 9-11 Democrat, because in the following weeks, not only did I lose my naivete, but I lost my idiotic liberal beliefs. I learned right away, that true evil does exist, that not all cultures are created equal, and that criminals and our enemies only deserve death. Since then, I learned why the country I had taken for granted all of my immigrant life, was the best country on earth, with the best people on earth, and for those first few weeks after 9-11, I saw how tragedy could bring people of all stripes together. How sad that the human psyche can only remember for so long, perhaps it's to keep us sane, but it has allowed many in America to forget whom our real enemies are. So today, like every year, I honor the memories of the people who passed, by jarring my own, watching every possible video, listening to every audio clip, and forcing myself to image their horror. Most of all, I get to see the best of Americans and see the bravery & humility shown that day.
No picture could better foreshadow an Obama presidency than this one from Zombie, whom is liveblogging from the DNC in its unique fashion. Honestly, it's a little bizarre, aside from the faux Airforce One and Greek Temple of Oneness from which his holiness spoke.
If people are this forgiving - having to wait in a 2 mile plus line to see their Messiah speak and make promises with no track record to back up his claims - then why not expect that they won't mind facing lines at the pump, in the ER, in a government building, or anywhere else affected by Barack's many suggested limits, rations, and mandates.
There's a funny scene in one of my favorite movies, Moscow on the Hudson, where Robin Williams' character Vladimir sees a line forming around the block of a store in Moscow and asks someone rushing to get into it, "what product do they have?" The lady laughs and says, "Who cares?" Whatever it was, was out of the ordinary, something there was never enough of, and considered a luxury. It could have been toilet paper or paperclips but for them, it was something their neighbor didn't have.
I've heard nearly every speaker at the DNC dropping choice socialist jargon like "level the playing field", "for the common good", "evil corporations", "fair, fairness, fair", etc. On their face, they sound like righteous goals, but when you put bureaucrats in charge of legislating those ideals, "the people" suffer, that is, the people who didn't consider themselves victims before the legislation was proposed.
Another Penn and Teller Bullsh!t episode that deals with the politicizing of the Green Movement and the brainwashing that occurs at our universities. Thank g-d my nieces are of above average intelligence. :)
Watch it! The latest of Penn and Teller's Bullsh!t Showtime series that I can only watch online. I don't get Weeds either. This one takes on the "Green Movement", Al Gore, and guilt driven suckers in general. Although I don't agree with them on all their shows, this one is fully endorsed. I challenge my green friends to sit through this entire episode and in return, I will watch an entire broadcast of Keith Olbermann. What you say?
I was trying to take a respite from posting for a while to catch up with some work and travel, but I could not resist posting this ridiculous incident from the recent BET Awards for all of my liberal friends who consider the Messiah as the next best thing since Disposable Wipes.
As I may have said publicly or written before, I'm less concerned by Obama himself, given his history of throwing every person, position, and idea he held dear under the bus as soon as it proved politically expedient. (So much for the "New Type of Politics" I guess.) No, I'm more concerned with his legions of ignorant, irresponsible, and in many cases, hateful followers, for whom the idea of an inexperienced, BUT Black President, is of utmost importance, above say, a viable energy policy, success in Iraq, or even a lessening of the polarization that this country has experienced in the last decade.
Case in point: P Diddy, Puffy, or Sean Combs at the BET Awards, altering his original illogical motto of "Vote or Die!" into "Obama or Die!". Seriously P, tell us how you really feel!
And while we're on the subject of open-minded, objective, and well informed celebrities who know what real patriotism is and what's good for us "little people", here's Will Smith showing the love to our European friends, of whom we desperately need nothing more than to be liked:
Update: I was wondering why the chant sounded so familiar: "Mugabe or Die!" Oh, the bitter-sweet irony!
Also: Forgot to mention the Hat-tip to Hotair.com where they link to the South Park episode that fits in real well with today's motto...
Haha! I've seen this site, and it's many alternates like www.stuff[*]peoplelike.com, but this critique on white people's love for free health care was awesome! It reminded me a lot of this article on identity politics.
Today's "Quote of the Day" comes from the woman whom has never been proud of her country until her husband was running for POTUS, and who seems to have him by the short and curlies, as we would say if we lived in Texas. And no, I'm not talking about Hillary, but the other socialist:
Head over to the link to see a full deconstruction of why "universal health scare" is a crock, just like most government run programs. Man, do I hate socialists with a vengeance. And yet, these are the same people who scream at people about excersizing choice over their bodies. Sure, you can choose to have an abortion, but you won't be able to pick the doctor and you'll get stuck with some government subsidized and educated hack who couldn't make it in the "real world" nicknamed Dr. Hook. By all means, keep the state out of one decision and give them the power over the rest. Brilliant.
Everyday I'm on the road, I listen to the archaic car radio and always catch a news cycle from National Public Radio. Known to have a very liberal slant, I have always listened intently from the days of my own college liberalism, all the way through my move towards the center, and slightly past into conservatism/libertarianism. I listen to the local Christian radio station as well if the topic is good and I think both are equally amusing and at opposite ends of the political spectrum. I find I agree with some of the opinions of both, but definitely not all, and I'll find myself laughing out loud most of the time at both. However, I'm always left thinking about the vast difference in their target audience's perceptions of the future, which brings me to a topic I have been wanting to write about, but was beaten to the punch by two great posts from HotAir.com, one of my daily reads.
My main hypothesis has been that liberals are way more pessimistic than conservatives, but I hadn't had a chance to get down in the gritty analysis of why this is. Just listening to the depressing state of our economy, country, culture, war, etc. over at NPR and jumping over to Christian radio to hear about how simple faith and prayer will solve all of the world's problems and bring about paradise is one example, but mainly based on the differences between atheists and true believers. Since I'm neither, I consider myself generally happy, but I'm tired of hearing bad news and overly unrealistic, blissful news at the same time. Lucky for me, the Economist had a great article about this topic that focused more on political perspectives and was featured as the Quote of the Day at HotAir.
This is old, but the first time I have seen it. It's a great example of people doing jobs they are unqualified for and a statement on today's extremely opinionated entertainers that assume people respect them equally for their political opinions as their talents.
There's probably a saying somewhere that goes, "If you want to clean up a city, start with it's dirty leaders" but I think it's pretty self-explanatory for (metro-)Detroiters by now. Well, after years of shady business, affairs, corruption, strong armed tactics, cronyism, unsolved murders, etc., the Hip Hop Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, "was charged Monday with perjury and other counts after sexually explicit text messages surfaced that appear to contradict his sworn denials of an affair with a top aide". For many of us, it's about damned time. Some will argue that Kwame finalized the casino deals and cleaned up the downtown waterfront, but hey, even Mussolini made the trains run on time. Detroit needs a lot of things, but bad PR is not one, so for that I say, good riddance.
I've been saying there is a lot of hypocrisy in the Obama campaign for a while now. I can't understand how a person who surrounds himself with so many people that believe America is evil, wants to lead that same country. And while I've been away, some right wing radio host put up a new Youtube sensation that calls Obama out with his own words:
I've been out of the news cycle recently, and while trying to catch up with my RSS feeds, I came across this blog post about the CFL or compact fluorescent lightbulb that environmentalists have bandied about and used as a carrot for the average Joe like me to "do my part" to save the world, and myself a little money after a hefty initial investment of course. I don't know about you, but I'm sticking with my old fashioned, energy guzzling 99 cent lightbulbs. Just wow. What's next? That the globe may not be warming after all?
I love this guy on HBO's Flight of the Conchords, I complain about Google's politics though I use all of their apps, and I'm working on a search project at work, so this was perfect to stumble upon while staying up late working:
This is Part 1 of 2 interviews. I will post the second one when it comes out. The topic is similar, but different, as the president talks about why there are more Marxist (idiots) in Berkeley, California than in the entire country of the Czech Republic. It has to do with experiencing the horrors of Communism and the pathetic nature of Socialism that people disassociate themselves from it, while in the US, the counter-culture believes in the idealistic, Utopian view of forms of government that have been proven as failures. Poor naive fools. That's why I always say, go live in a place that has nationalized health care first before believing the liars like Michael Moore and the ignorant like Hillary and Obama.
In this interview, he explains why the Global Warming Alarmists are the new socialists, trying to hamper democracy, freedom, productivity, capitalism, and overall, human progress. The 60's are over. The "revolution" failed, and now they need some other way of sticking it to "the man".
I've always had an interest, admiration, and empathy for Czechs since reading a lot of Milan Kundera, but this guy is my new hero:
Since I never have time to post, but want to keep this blog dynamic, I'll be adding a few quotes and/or headlines with links to them every now and then. Today I ran across this one at HotAir.com which I could not resist posting in it's entirety:
You may remember this idiot from his interview or shall I say, intellectual ass kicking, at the hands of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, back when he had a very tiny show on the CBC that eventually was canceled, well, because it sucked. Since he hasn't had a job mommy or daddy could find for him in socialist Canada, he took the one that has been vacant for quite some time, or at least since Benny Morris rejected it; token Jew propagandist for Al Jazeera English Edition. Avi is a great example of why I can't possibly be an ethnocentrist, no mater how hard I try.
Asked if Al Jazeera Arabic’s reputation for airing terrorist propaganda played into his decision, Mr. Lewis said the question is “absolutely hilarious.”
“What’s the allegation? That Al Jazeera aired [Osama] bin Laden videos? So did CNN, FOX and everybody else,” he said. “I know that Al Jazeera is a favourite target of nationalist right-wingers in the United States, but as a journalist, I like to judge things on the evidence.”
Journalist. Yeah. As much as Al Gore is a Scientist, I'm sure.
Jewlicious has an interesting post about whom your favorite novelists are supporting for president. Even if I had money to burn, I could think of a million other things to spend it on other than someone's campaign, but I digress.
So, we know that something like 9 in 10 journalists donated to Democrats (which bodes well for "fair" coverage), and we know that most Hollywood types are and have always been in the tank for Democrats/socialists/communists. I'm interested in seeing who the producers (as in, the industrialists, innovators, business leaders, inventors, scientists, economists, etc.), you know, the people who we are all really dependent on for the future of this great country donate to.
I happen to believe most people who operate in the "classical" doctrines as opposed to the "romanticists" would vote more rationally, as their lives are based on facts and truths and not just emotions like swooning journalists and feeling actors happen to live off of. I know that most looters, lazy unionists, entitlement seekers, and generations of lazy intellectuals vote liberally, as in the big government, hand-out promising, even the playing-field type party. Sheesh, I did myself in 2000. Of course, at that time, I believed I was entitled a job when I graduated from college. I also believed that just because you were born, other people should provide you with free health care. Thank g-d those days are gone! I'm more interested in knowing whom the people most vital to the future of this country and the world I may add, are donating to. Screw the "people", tell me about the ones who really make a difference.
Well, this Jew, for one, dislikes Jon Stewart. I think he is one of our worst examples of our people. He's somewhat funny as a comic, but his foray into politics and his choice to hide behind his comic status when pressed on his politics are pathetic. Either stand by your political convictions or just be a comic. Cutting most of Jonah Goldberg's interview when he's schooling you on his book and on politics, and using your audience to boo everything you disagree with is weak. And par for the course with Jon Stewart and half-jew, and complete idiot, Bill Maher.
Good. I [expletive deleted :)] hate communists more than scurvy. Especially, rich, talentless hacks who want to be socialists while buying and owning more property than the entire Cuban population could pool together to afford, generating more free-market based income than most socialist states' GDP combined, and speaking out against the government as if it's a nightly ritual. Move to Cuba. Move to Venezuela. Move to North Korea. Move to China (well, kind of). Just move away and take your collectivist nonsense and your stupid Che T-shirts with you. Let the substandard physicians re-use needles and IVs on you after waiting in line for four days. [expletive deleted :)].
I choose to live in America. I am free to leave at any time. I am free to move to Canada, Europe, back to Russia, or any other country, for that matter. When my parents fled the FSU to come to America, it wasn't because they flipped a coin, rolled the dice, or played roshambo and the US just happened to come up. They/we moved here because this was the freest country in the world; a capitalist system, a system and people that valued hard work, individuality, and fought for other's freedom because it was the right thing to do. Sure, it had its blemishes, turmoiled history, and it wasn't perfect, but there wasn't and still isn't another place like it in the world today.
I'll save you my theory about the world's best and brightest coming to America, leaving their former depraved, backward, and/or mediocre societies for a better life for their family and a chance to pursue the American Dream in all its glory. I won't go into anymore detail, but I believe it, and it doesn't surprise me that the US has been the strongest, richest nation for all these years. But all along, from its creation, the US has had a plethora of ideas and idealists, many naive idealists with the best intentions for "the greater good" [ick], who have lived here all of their lives with disdain for America's greatness, who worship the weak, the incompetent, and worst off, who care more about people half way around the globe, more than the future and well being of their own children.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present for the record, yet another move towards the socialization of America, by none other than Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., future Democratic presidential nominee. It's called the Global Poverty Act, and yes, it's OUR responsibility to solve he world's ills, which is hard to do when you are creating them, at least according to his friends in the UN.
It seems when he's not strong arming businesses into losing money, voting the most liberally in all of the senate, or receiving support from confused communists, he's out trying to force the US to give more handouts and entitlements to the undeserved and allow the UN to penalize the US financially for not accepting global legislation designed to weaken this country in the first place. Please remind me again, is he running for president or head of the UN?
"32. We solemnly reaffirm, on this historic occasion, that the United Nations is the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development. We therefore pledge our unstinting support for these common objectives and our determination to achieve them."
In a desperate ploy to build a track record of his own, Barack Obama is co-sponsoring a bill (S.1945) also known as the Patriot Corporation Act. Based on the subjective opinions of some bureaucrats, unions, and other partisan NGOs, corporations can be deemed patriotic or unpatriotic if they follow the "advice" set forth by this committee.
Apparently, Obama is already trying to strong arm businesses into taking his advice. In the case of Tesco, the parent company of a chain of grocery stores, Obama and his committee are mandating that this chain open stores in low income neighborhoods. Excuse me if I need to remind everyone in what country we live. As far as I know, to this day, businesses in the US are in business to make money, not to provide services to the people for the sake of the "greater good". I suggest Obama visit a couple of failed communist states to see where this path leads.
What's funny, is that this is yet another eerily familiar sign of the degradation of America that Ayn Rand alludes to in Atlas Shrugged back in the 50s when she wrote it. Not to spoil the book for my friends that sadly haven't read it yet, but when government mandates business, everyone suffers. Businesses are forced to operate at a loss, (as in why many larger chains moved out of low income neighborhoods in the first place), and eventually, they can not operate at a loss any longer, and go out of business.
It's not Obama's nor anyone else in the government's choice or authority to mandate where businesses should operate and it's only the market and the business whom hold the keys to their destiny. It's bad enough the US has the highest corporate taxes in the world, and now this? And this dictator is running for president? Sheesh. Yep, get ready for change alright. As in socialism. As in do you have change for this food stamp?
Excellent! I guess you are known by the company you keep. In this case, it's not just your run of the mill, died in the wool, communist loving idiot preaching about the great joys of the People's Revolution. Nah, here we have Obama volunteers at a Houston Campaign office with a Cuban flag adorned with the man who introduced the joys of modern Cuban life: terrorist mass murderer and symbol of American collegiate activist naivette, Che Guevara. Lovely.
I'll leave you with one of my favorite film quotes and a favorite photo:
"I kill a communist for fun, but for a green card, I gonna carve him up real nice." - Tony Montana
OK, so Obama is (half) black and is a great orator, or at least has great speechwriters. He talks all about "Change!", though he never really explains what that means. And some people are filled with hope that he is a fresh face in our government, currently plagued by insiders, multi-term good old boys, and lifelong political hacks out of touch with the people and bent on keeping their jobs at all costs.
As Americans, we're told not to play identity politics, but to select the best person for the job. In the past, we were told not to listen to what a politician said, but to judge them on their track record and most importantly, voting record. Well, I think in Obama's case, most people are interested in listening to his fiery speeches and less concerned with his accomplishments.
A few weeks ago, we were presented with a focus group full of Obama supporters and they were asked a simple question, "What is Obama's greatest accomplishment?", to which most were left dumbstruck.
This week, we are presented with a new group of Obama supporters. You would think that they may have done their due diligence this time around. You would think...
Update: Worried that his supporters keep getting stumped everywhere, Obama quickly finds another way to demonstrate why he has been ranked as the most liberal Congressman in Washington, and shows us the future of our great socialist society!
This article is almost 2 years old, but as pertinent as ever now that the election season is upon us.
Hamburg - Eric Clapton, 60, has criticised politically inspired concerts such as Live 8 and said he had "mixed feelings" towards the initiators Bono and Bob Geldof, according to a German magazine.
"I ask myself if musicians ought to act like politicians," said the guitarist, as quoted in the interview in the weekly Stern.
"They're only musicians," he said, questioning where they gained the authority to give speeches. He said that Bono was spending a large amount of his time telling world politicians they were wrong.
Clapton was quoted saying he had not liked Geldof telling the prime minister of Canada to stay away from a concert because he had not been following policies Geldof favoured.
If you are a musician, actor, painter, poet, artist, etc., I am not interested in your political opinion. I'm happy you have one, albeit, probably filtered through the echo chamber you exist in, but I don't value it and would rather you performed your art without telling me to go vote, go green, or to go get bent.
It seems my wish will never come true, so in that case, we need to make the most of it and enjoy the brilliance as it is released. So why stop now, when 50 Cent would like to shower us with genius:
Did you hear that? "I'm not sure that America is ready for a black president, THEY might kill him." Surely he means the Clintons. It's not like they haven't snuffed out people before. That's a very long list. Is Snopes positive they're all false? Either way, probability would say that even if you are associated with them, you have a pretty good chance of getting shot.
Someone over at the James Randi forums has posted a great sign for all of the Paulbots out there whose rEVOLution hasn't exactly materialized (hat tip to HotAir.com and Screwloosechange.com):
And if you think I'm being spiteful or vindictive to the people who honestly thought Ron Paul had a chance or even a sensible platform, you are absolutely right, I am, and I'm enjoying it. Clear, rational heads prevailed, and Ron only received support from a tiny minority of Americans, and some might say mostly our typical fringe-group losers.
Discover the Networks has a cool Java Applet tool that documents the Left's inter-relations with each other. See if you can guess and find how many degrees of separation between Bruce Springsteen and Nation of Islam there are. Or between the terrorist Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the world's most famous terrorist, Osama Bin Laden.
If someone can find me a similar tool for the Right, I'll be more than happy to post it here and examine the degrees of separation between Dennis Miller and some abortion clinic bombing pro-life group.
This one is for my father and brother-in-law. Both are huge fans of boxing, both have had to learn to box in the FSU to keep their local anti-Semites in place, and I have a feeling both will find a lot of hope in Dmitriy Salita's boxing career. My brother-in-law also comes from Odessa, Salita's hometown, so it's all the more relative to him, and he's got a Stalone-styled broken nose from all the fighting he did as a youth. People from Odessa, love Odessa. People from Baku, where I'm from, hmmm, not so much...
I got this scoop from Jewlicious and you can find more commentary about the film there.
Damn, and all this time, here I am on my little blog trying to silence Ron Paul while all the while, we've got people on the inside doing much, much better work!
Another day, another libertarian comes out against Ron Paul and brings up all of the same issues I have been blogging about. My friend Computer Ninja thinks I have a man-crush on Ron Paul since I write about him so much, but really, I do this because I can not understand how some of my intelligent friends and so many other rational thinkers still support the guy. Do they conveniently ignore his indiscresions or do they really believe there is a movement out there led by some cabal to tarnish Old Ron's rep?
If you don't have time to read the article I've linked to, I'm providing the summary from the artcle here:
While Paul talks the talk at times for libertarianism and pro-liberty, I don’t think he walks the walk. He is on the side of liberty on many issues and should be praised for that.
However, when it comes to many of the most important issues, including many issues most influenced by a president — such as immigration and trade — he is usually on the side of anti-liberty forces.
On social and culture issues, such as religious freedom, homosexuality, and reproductive rights, he is a traditional religious conservative and sounds nothing like a libertarian.
Most worrisome, Paul advocates dangerous and irresponsible foreign policy views.
When he claims he only supports legislation expressly authorized by the Constitution, Paul is at worse a hypocrite and at best inconsistent and superficial. Legislation that he has sponsored and touted on his own web site belies this view.
He does not speak out, on his web site, against clearly un-constitutional proposals, such as nationalizing health care. Nor does he speak out against already established, yet not constitutionally authorized, programs and agencies such as the FDA, Medicare, and Social Security.
I do not see a principled defense or advocacy of liberty here. I see a man using the ideas of liberty to protect his view of America as a white, Christian country. That is not good for liberty, libertarianism, or America.
Maybe Jon should start wearing a hat that represents when he is a serious political commentator and another for when he is the poor comic that doesn't understand what's being said to him.
This post is a follow up to my post from the day before yesterday. The gentleman I quoted spent a great deal of time commenting on my post in the comments section of this very under-read blog, so I thought that he deserved equal billing for his rational and calm refutations of my points. I would like to answer his points with more of my own:
Thank you for referring to me as a "gentleman." I see that you are not privy to dole out compliments, so I must say I appreciate it.
I also know that being a super-savvy 32-year-old politico, you are not one to appreciate "lessons" as you put it , so let me just say I would like to respond with some "insight" or "clarifications" for Dr. Paul's positions that I didn't expound upon profusely in my initial email...
I appreciate that you took the time to respond. I can already say that I like your swagger and think we most likely have more in common than our differences. As I've clarified a number of times, I like some of the things Ron Paul has to say. If you look around, you'll see that I am a fan of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I've seen the interview with Paul commenting on her as well. Since I consider myself a neo-conservative libertarian leaning capitalist, I agree with Paul on some issues such as gun control, personal freedoms, and small government, however, many other libertarians and libertarian organizations such as the Cato Institute and Club for Growth have distanced themselves from him. I linked to yet another article as an update to my previous post in which this feeling is echoed again. What I am saying is that I would love to see a true libertarian candidate for president, just as I would like to see a black or female president in our future. But like with Obama and Hillary, I think many people are voting for the ideal rather than for the person, and I think the Ron Paul phenomenon is another example of this. IMO, Ron's just not the guy. It's a step in the right direction, but he's not the one. He is definitely not The Only Man Whom Can Save America.
First point: The taxes collected that pay for our infrastructure that you listed are from STATE revenue, not federal income taxes. Taxes on commerce, property and state taxes would still be collected. Saving a trillion or so dollars every year in military expense would be a nice savings that the IRS money typically pays for.
Yes, you are right that the examples I mentioned are from state taxes. Thanks for pointing that out. However, the exact platform point you sent me was: "Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS and allow every citizen to keep every cent they earn." If I'm still paying state taxes, I'm not exactly keeping every cent I earn, am I?
Even if we go by the common belief that if all federal taxes pay for are national parks and the military (which aren't the only things of course), I still don't agree with you. First of all, I like national parks, I'm happy some of the most wonderful places on earth are protected by the government and kept up with my tax dollars. Second, there is a reason we spend so much on our military and I fully agree with it. We defeated the Soviets during the Cold War by outspending on military might, and rightly so. Furthermore, our large and strong military acts as a deterrent to our enemies, which is a large reason we have enjoyed relative peace at home, and enabled us to extend the freedoms we enjoy throughout the world, especially to Europeans, for whom without NATO, would have potentially seen Communism spread past the Berlin Wall and west into the rest of Europe. I'd venture to say that because of our large military, we were able to defeat Communism, spread Democracy, and free countless people from oppression. Could Canada have done the same?
It's no surprise why the US is the world's only Super Power and my goal is to keep it that way. I don't know if you have ever lived in another country outside the first world, but most people are not like Americans. (I was lucky to be 4 years old when we fled the FSU, but many in my community can vouch for how depraved, cruel, unjust, and oppressive the place was, and it was actually closer to a fair society than most of the Third World). I often see an attitude amongst native Americans that can only be described as narrow minded and naive. I see and hear people including Ron Paul state "If we can talk to them, we can reach compromise or work things out". These same people believe that because in America rational heads prevail, that because people have consciences and can empathise with others, that "of course" others are just like us. Sorry, but that is not the case. Most of the world's people and governments aren't as fair, open-minded, rational, transparent, etc., as the US, its people and its government. When Ahmadinejad says he'll wipe Israel off the map, that is exactly what he means. When people in the Muslim World say "Death to America", they mean it exactly as it sounds, not as some empty chant or slogan to which there is no meaning. When we start to take these people serious, it's very easy to understand why we spend so much money on our military and why we should continue to.
People don't hate America because we have a strong military and police the world. People hate America because we are the most just, free, and most advanced country in the world that many can't ever reach nor even aspire to become, and people know as Ayn said, that even the worst off have it better here than anywhere else. Show me someone who hates America, then show them a green card, then you'll see someone who loves America. It's always lonely on top. Just ask Hillary. :)
Second point: Before the DEA, drug enforcement was the authority of the commerce department. It was illegal because money was exchanged without sales tax paid. The commerce department oversees all financial transactions between states and would remain. If the DEA is abolished, it returns to enforcement by the commerce department. That means possession is decriminalized, the sale is still illegal. Electing Ron Paul as President does not mean you will be able to buy weed at your local 7-11.
Damn! Too bad! Actually, I'm all for decriminalization, not legalization. Why should a person be forced to buy FDA approved, watered down drugs from a corporation when they can grow it like basil or any other herb in their garden. I agree, it's totally silly. Still, we've seen the difficulties in policing issues that happen across multiple states without a centralized policing body. If a Hezbollah drug ring goes through 2 or more states, it is much harder to track and break than having one organization that can transcend state laws and boundaries to disrupt these types of activities. I know Ron Paul is all for state's rights, but we're a union, and as crappy as that word sounds, we have to make some decisions together. Why, in an interview or debate recently, Paul was asked how we would respond if Canada was attacking us but through Minnesota. Paul said "Minnesota could handle them, and if needed, they could ask for federal assistance"! Are you serious? So if Illegal Immigration becomes a problem for Texas only, a Texas militia is able to start a war with Mexico without the consent of the federal government? I believe Ron and his fans need to go back in history and see why a federal government was so critical to our union, mainly to avoid incidents like the ones I just mentioned.
Next point:
Ron Paul's "isolationist theory" is strictly military. It has nothing to do with commerce or any other world relations. His idea is that we stop policing the world, installing governments and financially backing secret kus to eventually overthrow said government when they eventually turn against us with the money we gave them. (i.e., Saddam, al-Queda, Northern Alliance, Kosovars?)
Yes, America has made some bad decisions in the past, however, it has also made some good ones that have made the world a better and more just place. First of all, as a byproduct of survivors of the Holocaust, I thank my lucky stars every day for America's involvement in World War II. Sure, it can be argued that America went into the war for its own interests and that ending the Holocaust was simply a byproduct of winning the war, but no one can honestly say that if America did not invade Nazi occupied Europe, the Holocaust would have ended by the Brits and Russians alone. And funny you should mention Kosovo/Bosnia/Serbia. Again, here we have a case where Europeans (specifically Balkans) were murdering each other in the streets, just 100 miles from the nearest "civilized" country and no one, no one raised a finger to protect human rights and stop a genocide from occurring right under their noses. It's thanks to the goodwill and ethics of the American people that we stopped the bloodshed there. Sure, you can also argue that we waited too long on Rwanda and are doing nothing about Darfur, but I think overall, America has always been a force for good rather than bad, and as you know, when someone commits a crime and you know about it, but don't do anything, you may not ab AS guilty as the perpetrator, but guilty nonetheless. See, America will always be doomed if we do, and doomed if we don't. If we do involve ourselves in hot spots in the world, we get accused of policing the world, but when we don't, we're accused of ignoring bloodshed, murder, despair. I suggest to all Americans and our government to keep doing what we know is right, and ignore the world's opinion, which has historically always been against us, with the exception of a few years after each major and successful war, and usually always based on feelings, not rationale.
Also, all of the points you made about threats being located outside of our borders cannot be solved with military force anyway, so that is an absurd point. Are we to assume that you are making the point that a military occupation in Nigeria is in order to fight those pesky 409 scams? Maybe you should know that ever since Al Gore invented the internet, we can connect to it and police it from here. It is because we are so stretched thin across the planet that we have gaps in our own security here that we somehow miss the clues about people training in our own country to fly planes into our own buildings from flights that originated in our own country.
I'd imagine that if a hijacked flight was coming across the Atlantic to initiate a kamikazi, we'd figure it out soon enough...
I take great issue with your sentence "It is because we are so stretched thin across the planet that we have gaps in our own security here that we somehow miss the clues about people training in our own country to fly planes into our own buildings from flights that originated in our own country.". First of all, we're not "stretched thin across the planet". If we are, you can thank Mr. Clinton for downsizing our military budgets, yet taking us to war regardless. Every war, like every web site, has a support element and when we go somewhere to quell violence, we generally have to leave servicemen there. That makes it awfully hard to do with a smaller budget. Secondly, the breakdowns in our intelligence community before 911 has absolutely nothing to do with our military staffing at home. The breakdowns were specific in agencies and state governments' refusal to or lack of communication between each other. I hardly see how having Camp Pendelton staffed to the brim with marines would have more easily made the flight school instructors report a jihadee pilot-to-be asking about takeoffs only. I don't see how having more guys with guns in the airport make an idiot airport security agent who is frisking a 70 year nun notice a Muslim male traveling one way on a plane with 4 other guys doing the same. I think you are trying to draw connections that aren't there.
Also, if you feel so strongly that we should be overthrowing countries in the middle east to protect a Haliburton pipeline from Uzbekistan to the Persian Gulf who intend to sell 100% of the oil to China, then I think you should ponder the idea that capitalism works best when US companies who flee to Dubai to avoid paying corporate taxes into our economy should use those savings to pay for their own security (just a thought!)
They flee to Dubai because America has the highest corporate tax than anywhere in the world. Let's start with fixing that problem first. As far as Haliburton, would you have rather had a German or French company get the bids to work in the country we spilled our blood liberating? No, I don't feel strongly about overthrowing countries for purely business interests, no. I only think military action should be used against a country that is a threat to our interests. At the time, the intelligence from Iraq showed that it was. We were wrong for the most part, but not about everything. Saddam did support and provide safe haven for terrorists and he was oppressing his people. Currently, Iran is sabre rattling, openly building nukes with which they plan on attacking Israel and the Great Satan, and are threatening our interests on an almost monthly basis. At some point, we will most likely see military action against Iran, and I will most definitely support it.
Also, to address your allegation that Ron Paul said "because they actually never attacked us in the first place, as he alluded to in the debates the other night" was a gross misinterpretation that was more than clarified by Congressman Paul in that very debate. Guiliani made a smug comment about how we were justified in attacking any country that attacked us [by flying our own planes into our own buildings originating from destinations... well, you know the rest...]
I'm sure you are aware that Ron Paul is a regular on Alex Jones' radio show right? I'm sure you know that Lew Rockwell of all people wrote Ron's racist newsletters? Both of these people are anti-Semitic and are 911 Truthers who believe that our government was either directly and/or indirectly involved in 911 or had prior knowledge the attacks were going to happen and withheld them from the people. Why would Ron hire a guy and frequently appear on an other's radio show if he disagreed with their views? Why did it take Ron almost a full year to distance himself from the Truther movement? Why has Ron never given back or given to charity the donations he received from members of Stormfront? Maybe he's either an idiot or just another cold and calculating politician who only cares about raising money, no matter how dirty, for his agenda?
Furthermore, Ron said that a few speed boats are no match for our mighty navy and were no threat. Really? Can you please inform me as to what the type of warship that crashed into the USS Cole was again? I mean really... I can't resist but to put up his pathetic answer from the debates:
Dr. Paul argued that a "country" did not attack us on 9/11. Are you saying that the current million-plus civilian death count in Afghanistan and Iraq is justifiable to avenge our loss by a few terrorists? I am trying to see what your rational argument is here... That we police every corner of this "flat world" because we are so a-scared that everyone is out to get us?
Million-plus civilian death count? Please, I hope you are not using the discredited Lancet Journal numbers that are off by millions are you? Just that statement alone shows me, and I mean no disrespect, that you either are ignorant of the real figures or you are just being intellectually dishonest to hype emotion over substance. Please source your million-plus civilian death count. And while you do that, please also separate the numbers of combatant deaths, and also separate auto accidents, random street violence, domestic violence, normal disease rates, etc., as I'm positive the Lancet didn't do.
Last point:
Your argument, "Had we known that if these conversations were tapped before 911 that the tragedy may have been prevented" really shows that you missed a lot of news coverage (and, quite possibly, the 9/11 Report). There was plenty of evidence that was collected and reported by our government about these individuals well before 9/11. This was before the Patriot Act was passed. There were plenty of warnings and reports but our government locked the keys in the car while the radio was on, the motor was running and the windshield wipers were going back and forth.
Yes, I know that. And the Patriot Act is yet another method of gathering that intelligence so that there is more evidence collected ahead of time, and more chance to stop terrorists long before they're boarding planes. Just because mistakes were made doesn't mean we didn't learn from them. I think the Patriot Act is a step in that direction at this point. Maybe in the future I may feel differently about that. But right now, I support it.
And the idea that our government is transparent is completely laughable! You are aware of the repeated subpoenas by Congress to the Bush Administration for alleged criminal conduct that they have denied to testify about under oath, right?
Why are you, your boy Ron Paul, and most of his supporters such Blame America Firsters? Yes, our government is not perfect, not even by a long shot, but it's still the best government and system in the world. How about all of the Clinton Clan corruption that has been suppressed. I'm as equally disgusted by that as I am by Bush kissing Saudi Ass, as he's been doing for the last week. Yes, we have corruption. What country doesn't? Can and should it be fixed? Absolutely. We also have the freest press in the world that salivates at uncovering this stuff, and they do regularly.
So, I wonder, who was your least objectionable candidate? I missed Undeclared's concession speech. How did it go?
Actually, if you are interested in my current candidate interest level, it goes like this:
(Would vote for) Giuliani - R Thompson - R
(Could tolerate in office) Romney - R McCain - R Bidden - D
(Can't stand, yet ranked least objectionable first) Obama - D Clinton - D Huckabee - R Edwards - D Paul - R Kucinich - D
There. Now you know where I stand, and I appreciate the debate. However, it may be a while that I respond to any comments of this thread as I have a ton of work to do and I need to be less verbose in all of my endeavours. Thanks for your interest in my ideas.
Well, I went and voted for the least objectionable candidate in the Michgan Primaries today, even though I know he won't win and even though I am registered as an independent (or at least not registered as a Republican nor Democrat). As you may have guessed, I didn't vote for Ron Paul. In fact, let me restate that I voted today, against Ron Paul and against Huckabee. Nope, no populists, rEVOLutionaries, nor social-cons deserve my vote. Really, I went to vote because I believe it is my only duty as a citizen in this great country. That and paying taxes unfortunately.
I must hand it to the Paulians out there. They sure are devoted. I had a complete stranger (a real person, not just some spammer), find me through a state search on myspace and private message me to go vote, along with the usual Ron Paul propaganda about how he'll turn the government on it's head and such. I've posted the gentleman's point below and responded to each one:
-Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS and allow every citizen to keep every cent they earn.
Yeah! That would be great! I just said I hate paying taxes! Hmmm, I also like the fact that the voting precinct today was staffed with equipment, supplies, and people. I like that the roads I drive on are occasionally repaired. I like that the police, fire, EMS are on duty and ready to save my life in case that broken road causes me to get into an accident. I like that when I drive through the majority of the US, it doesn't look like Mexico nor any other Third World Country, and this is mainly because our infrastructure is supported by our taxes. Hey, I'd like to cut government jobs and entitlement programs as much as the next hard working guy, but there are a few I take for granted and I have a feeling they would be affected by this sweeping change. Maybe I missed it, but how exactly would Ron go about doing this and what would he put into place to keep those basic necessities functioning?
-Ron Paul wants to abolish the DEA because he believes that the right to make personal decisions is the choice of the individual, NOT the government.
Sure, I can agree with that... but to a point. Sure, a person wants to smoke weed without the DEA crashing through the door. I can understand that. But what about cases where the DEA broke a drug ring that was funneling money to Hezbollah? Under Ron, these types of black market activities would surely add to the terrorist threats against our country. Does he have a plan to counter this?
-Ron Paul not only believes we should pull all of our troops out of Iraq, but he also believes that we should bring ALL of our troops home from all over the world and be most concerned with our security here in the US.
Great. So where we have troops in place to prevent larger conflicts and where the host countries foot most of the bill and specifically ask us to stay such as in South Korea, what do we do? Just leave and hope for the best? Ron, with his brand of nutroots should know and understand that the world is a flat world and that Isolationism is a dead theory. It simply doesn't work. Foreign hackers can devastate our economy. Jihadees can board plains from other countries to fly into American buildings. Others can rise up against our transnational corporations' foreign headquarters. On and on... How does Ron plan to act against these threats to our interests, which happen to exist outside of our borders? And what do we do with all of these soldiers we bring home, who no longer have jobs that were cut abroad, such as from Germany or Saudi Arabia? Will Ron find them sandbags to fill? What will he do with all of the specially trained technicians? I have a feeling with no work, there will be no jobs, and with no jobs for these soldiers; an even smaller military. Then what happens when we are attacked again? Ron gets on the news and claims that our tiny and underfunded military will not go after those who attacked us, well, because they actually never attacked us in the first place, as he alluded to in the debates the other night?
-Ron Paul opposes the "Patriot Act" and illegal wiretapping on American citizens and believes that our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution have been compromised.
I don't know about you, but if a US Citizen is talking to Islamists overseas about murdering Americans via phone conversations, I'm pretty sure we should revoke their citizenship. See, I'm not concerned that my phones are being tapped. What reason would the NSA have to tap my phone calls for? I suspect that if I hated this country and was planning attacks against it, I'd be a little upset as well if my phone was being tapped. Otherwise, go for it. My cable network already tracks what I watch, my employer checks on what sites I visit, and Google collects practically every other piece of information on me. Am I worried? Not in the least. Why? Because, for the most part, our government is transparent. We have enough traitorous scum throughout its ranks and a media bent on leaking any secret information that I need not worry about why or who's listening in on my phone conversations. Had we known that if these conversations were tapped before 911 that the tragedy may have been prevented, I would have been the first in line to give up that freedom. The bottom line is, whatever medium you use, email, phone, skype, SMS, etc., it's built, owned, and/or hosted by a provider or company of sorts. And I don't trust them anymore than I trust our government. You want completely private conversations? Then go back to Carrier Pigeons and/or pay someone to deliver the message in person. Other than that, whether it's the government or some AT&T desk jockey listening in, I'm not worried, as I'm not breaking any laws. If you are communicating with someone over the phone about some seditious act, then I hope you are caught and locked up for life.
In other news across the isle, Dennis Kucinich's ads have been flooding our TV screens here in Michigan for the last couple of days. Does this Prototypical Beta Male really think he can win over the majority of Michiganders with his wimpy little socialist screed coming out of that tiny little contrarian head of his? Every time I see his smarmy little smirk, I think of the communist minder sent along with the Moscow Circus to New York in Moscow on the Hudson.
I watched the Republican debate in South Carolina last night (don't ask me why) and I was set to give Crazy Uncle (and somewhat hard of hearing, I noticed) Ron Paul props for finally, after nearly a year of campaigning, denouncing and separating himself from the idiot 911 Truther community. Of course, the Fox News moderators let him pass on his Racist Newsletter Debacle, but it was amusing to say the least, to see Ron questioned why he was all irate and bent out of shape with regards to the rest of the candidates, when they all agreed that the recent near standoff with Iranian gunboats in the Straits of Hormuz was handled properly and with passively by our Navy officers. First of all, he was asked what he was objecting to exactly, but seeing the looks of the others when Ron went off on his completely ignorant and baseless rant about the 5 or 6 small gunboats that "were no threat to our mighty Navy" (USS Cole anyone?) was priceless.
The more I ponder it, the notion that my friend passed along and that I addressed in yesterday's post - "Well your blogger buddys have accomplished there mission. No more RonPaul. " - rings hollow with every passing day, and every new skeleton pulled from Ron's closet. The point is, my friend is suggesting that Ron is actually never judged on his record, words, deeds, nor supporters, but that there is some sort of conspiracy theory or cabal "out to get" Ron because he is so anti-establishmentarian and most likely, because he is The Only Man Whom Can Save America!
Well, I'd like to suggest that this line of thought implies that Americans are too stupid to use their own brains to come to a rational decision on Ron Paul. And these bloggers? What did they do exactly? Quote him? Post his voting record? Post his many crazy rants to questionable fringe groups? Publish his past writings (or at least those of his crazy staffers, written under his name, that he was unaware of while they were working for him)? I'd like to believe that a man running for president should feel comfortable with people researching his record, writings, speeches, connections, etc. After all, isn't that the free society that Ron preaches about?
I can honestly believe that Ron is probably a really nice guy with good intentions and a few good ideas. I can believe that other racists, anti-Semites, and homophobes could have possibly tarnished his name and hurt his cause as he alluded to during last night's interrogation on stage. But you have to wonder what draws so many weirdos, fringe groups, dirtballs, conspiracy theorists, and generally speaking, idiots, to his campaign. Even if everything else about Ron was valid and honest, I'd shower for days to wipe the stench of some of his supporters from my affiliation with them.
To believe in conspiracy theories is for the weak minded, as it requires the suspension of belief of what is actually real, documented, proven, and what exists, and requires a person to forgo those beliefs for hearsay, rumors, myths, faulty suppositions, lies, poor/pseudo science, and the word of some old crank who still lives in his parents' basement, but who has the TRUTH!! For what? To believe that life is actually fair? To feel cozy in the feeling that there is a master plan to life, and that bad things only happen to good people? To know there must be a system and that you will always be an outsider lookin in? I tend to think that believing in a conspiracy not only requires you to believe that others are stupid, but that you are no better, for being so sheepishly fooled along with them. Yeah, no thanks. I'll stick to this simple theory:
Ron Paul says stupid and controversial things which may sound exciting ideologically but are wholly impractical in the modern and may I add, real, world. Beliefs that the majority of Americans don't buy. And when you don't buy from a salesman, you don't need nor want them to continue selling to you. And usually what happens from there, is that that salesman is left selling to the only buyers left, the suckers. IMO, Ron Paul is the Shelley Levene of American Politics.
This post is actually an email response to my friend and in-law, with whom I've had many intelligent debates regarding one Ron Paul, The Only Man Whom Can Save America!
His email is below and my response follows. Names have been removed to protect the un-indited co-conspirators:
Well your blogger buddys have accomplished there mission. No more Ron Paul. Wow we don't even get to here his name in the news. Love this process. Say something different and wow, people try and silence you. Novel concept. Obama is kicking Ass! I love it. Change is coming. Are you ready?
As my favorite author, and a true Libertarian, Ayn Rand, once said something to the effect of: "The First Amendment wasn't created as a right for you to walk around saying stupid things".
Do you ever think it had less to do with others and more to do with the dumb things Ron Paul said? I tend to give people more credit than that. I think it has a lot less to do with conspiracies and a lot more to do with people listening to him and his ideas and deciding that he wasn't a realistic candidate. Sure he has a right to believe that overnight, we should do away with every institution or department the government ever created (some of which should actually be removed), or he has a right to believe that Iran has no army, navy, nor air-force, and he certainly has a right to accept blood money from racists and anti-Semites, but what right is it exactly, that a candidate with less than 10% of the popular vote in polling, has to have equal billing and equal time to talk as people who are legitimate contenders and whom the majority of people (viewers of a publically owned news business I may add, unlike most nationalized propaganda rags in these other backward countries some envy) would rather listen to - since their ideas, albeit non-contrarian, lame, and trite - are what will most likely determine whom the next president of this country will be...
Ron Paul has every right to run for president and spout unrealistic, misinformed, and in most cases, completely ignorant ideas, just as Fox News or CNN has every right not to invite him to waste other's and my time. I get it. I've heard him speak. It left me underimpressed and worried; mostly because I think about all of the people out there that actually buy his crap. Please don't tell me that libertarians out there actually think the government should mandate his right to be broadcast?
And yes, I'm ready for "change", whatever that means. Things are always changing, every 2 years in our country, at least in government. I watch the markets too, and those change every few seconds. There is no stagnation in this country, except in our media and with all of our political rhetoric. Besides, I can't stand bumper sticker prophesies nor people's people. Obama, with his inexperience, nanny state advocacy, and unrealistic talking points will surely change this country. He'll first start by upping my income tax, my capital gains tax, my business taxes, and anywhere else he can find money to take from the thinkers and doers and give to the un-entitled and undeserving. Yeah, no thanks. I like to keep what I earn and choose my own health providers when and as I choose. And no, I don't think there is anything greater than the pursuit of my own happiness with my own morality as a virtue. When this country turns into the Peoples State of America like every other failed socialist system in Europe, I'll be ready for change: change of location to start a new America, away from the dump Obama, Hillary, Paul, Huckabee, etc., envision.
This country wasn't built by messianic politicians nor populists, nor artists, nor the "people" or "society", whomever that means. It was built by thinkers, innovators, inventors, industrialists, and legal immigrants who didn't escape their country looking for a handout, but a free system where government and comrades stayed out of their way long enough for them to achieve their dreams and goals, and as a byproduct, they made life easier for all of the undeserving huddled masses, including me. Did they owe it to "us"? Did having intelligence and the wherewithal to create greatness exact upon them the responsibility to provide for the lazy, intransigent, uneducated, and weak? Or did the greatness of a free market make these inventions available for those that wished to pursue and trade their earned income for? I tend to think the latter myself, and I know this is why my family lives here today, rather than all of the other countries on Earth. If you want to know why and how America became the best and strongest country in the world, it's because we made our own way and forged a path away from Europe, not because we tried to become more like the places we left or felt guilty that they didn't like us for achieving success and greatness that they could never have. Am I ready for change? Sure. Onward and forward, not backward please.
I was sleeping on my floor mattress in Clairemont, CA (San Diego) less than a mile from the apartment and Mosque where two of the hijackers lived and "worshiped". Our cable was supposed to be installed that day and my roommate Doug was awakened by the cable guy who said, "Have you turned your TV on yet?" Doug woke me up and told me that the WTC was attacked, the Pentagon was attacked, and that planes were being hijacked. I thought he was joking and tried to go back to sleep in my pre-911 invincible American attitude. When I doubted him but looked at the TV, I was mortified. The second tower had just been hit and I was watching replay after replay and crying like a little bitch. All of the sudden, I started thinking about all of my friends and family in New York, including a few of them who worked in the WTC or right nearby. I figured if these Islamic terrorist animals figured out how to accomplish this mayhem, that they had to have more coming.
