6 Degrees of Leftist Separation Anxiety

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.

They Knew! They Lied! People Died!

Now that the Archetypal Self-Hating Jew has funded yet another biased study, and old Dennis the Menace has already tried to use it for grounds for impeachment, our friends at HotAir link to this Inconvenient Video to add some balance to the debate:

The Great Jew Hope!

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.

The Anti-Paul Cabal orchestrate more magic to silence him!

Well, well. Since Ron Paul has so many rEVOLutionary ideas, he's being silenced, some say. Silenced in what way exactly?

Just what anti-Paul genius was able to infiltrate his way into the campaign long enough to help schedule RonPaulapalooza and invite notorious anti-Semitic band Poker Face to headline (and destroy what's left of Ron's integrity)? Brilliant!!

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!

More libertarians say no to Ron Paul

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:

Ron Paul: More Robertson than Goldwater

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/080118-klein-ron-paul.php

Summary

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.

Jon Stewart stumbles over irony, finds fascism nearby

It's very interesting that Jon Stewart argues with Jonah Goldberg about the silliness of his new book, Liberal Fascism, and then edits down the interview to sound bites of him sounding smart. Pot meet kettle...

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.

Follow up to: I voted today! Big deal...

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.

I voted today! Big deal...

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.

Update: After writing this, I ran across this article. Yet another libertarian that comes out against Ron Paul and the crazies he hires. (Hat Tip LGF)

The Shelley Levene of American Politics.

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.

Are you ready for change?

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.