My Blog List

Monday, January 23, 2012

Setting The Record Straight

I have long said that the Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin.  Regardless of who is in office, government grows, freedom recedes, tyranny expands.  The only difference between the two is, usually, the programs they support to advance their agenda.

I say "usually" because somehow, both Dems and Repubs were able to find common ground and vote that the  the NDAA - and its provisions stripping citizens of their due process and habeas corpus rights - was a splendid idea.  Way to go, guys!

The Democrats believe all of us little people are unable to care for ourselves.  Only the government has the wisdom and ability to keep us and our families fed, housed, clothed and educated.  We're children in need of guidance from our betters, especially if you're from one of the myriad "protected classes".

The Republicans also believe all of us little people are unable to care for ourselves.  For instance, without their gracious intervention via the War On Drugs, we would be nothing more than a country of drooling, strung-out dope fiends.

Both parties are big fans of control.  Dems want to control guns, and tax anything that moves.  Repubs want to control freedom of movement, and believe there's a terrorist behind every corner.  Boo!

Both admonish us that these usurpation of our personal freedoms are, "for your own good."  They dismiss us like a preoccupied parent telling us, "Now, go play until dinner's ready."

In my last post, an anonymous commenter posted that Ron Paul was, "certifiable, looney, unfit for office. You focus in on a few things he says supporting our constitution and ignore the vast majority of what he says that is unsupportable."

I offered Anon the chance to give me three things Ron Paul has said that would meet his(?) "certifiable" criteria, and I'd comment on them.  He took me up, and actually provided 4 items (wow, an over-achiever!).

Sadly, he provided the same old unsupported scare tactics the Elites have hauled out of the basement whenever Paul is discussed.
His anti-Jewish racism.

His anti-military "loser" syndrome" that will surely cause ww III

His desire to turn all our children into crackheads.

His inability to understand international politics.
Here goes:

His anti-Jewish racism.

Paul has made it clear he does not support financial aid to ANY other country, including Israel.  He believes they are sovereign nations that need to make their own decisions.  When you support one country, you tacitly oppose another.  Supporting Israel, means we oppose their mortal enemies, the Islamic countries, in this case.

This non-interventionist viewpoint is taken and twisted by some of the pro-Israeli crowd as being anti-Israeli ("If you're not for us, you're against us!").  For good measure, they throw in the "racist" card as part of their baseless ad hominen attack.  So far, this smear campaign has been very successful.  When the faithful begin to waiver, they bring up Chamberlin and his coddling of Hitler.

For the record, I don't fully agree with Paul's stance on this subject.  I think we should support our friends, and our friends alone.  At the first instance of you acting in a manner that is counter to America's best interest, the dollars stop flowing.

But to suggest Paul is an anti-Semitic racist is about as absurd as it gets.  Gimme some proof - not supposition  by people that disagree with his stance.

His anti-military "loser" syndrome" that will surely cause ww III

You're going to have to give some examples of his "loser syndrome" and how those examples would lead to WWIII.

If you're talking about his insistence that America be in danger before deploying troops and weaponry, and that these deployments be preceded by a declaration of war (ala that pesky Constitution), I'm afraid I'll have to side with the good doctor.

A leader acting outside of the Constitution is a dictator, regardless of how much you approve of his actions.  Don't like the Constitution?  Change it.

His desire to turn all our children into crackheads.

That statement would almost be funny if it weren't so pathetic.  It is at the core of the Big Government Elites:  You pukes can't run your own life, so we'll run it for you.

As I've noted on numerous occasions, the Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to control what citizens may put into their bodies.  Since that authority was never granted, the tenth amendment dictates who DOES have that authority:  The states or the individual.

Anon, let me ask you:  If all drugs were re-legalized tomorrow, would you take up, say, meth?  No?  Me neither.  Neither would the folks that don't take drugs now.  I trust the judgement of the average America over the judgement of a government wonk.

It's for the children!  Bullshit.  Any kid who wants any illegal drug can get it inside of a day.

The War On Drugs is identical to Prohibition:  It pushes a formerly legal substance underground.  Criminal element latches on to that, and the violence and corruption begins.  To combat the newly created criminal element, you must expand the police.  If you expand the police, you must expand the prison system.

It's become a self-perpetuating industry.

Actually, Prohibition was different.  It was done Constitutionally.  After the disastrous results, it was undone the same way.

Before drugs were made illegal, America wasn't a nation of drug addicts.  As is true now, certain people are unable to personally manage their addictions, and they go off the deep end.  Whether crack, heroin or meth are legal or not, that portion of society will always abuse substances.

But you don't punish - and tax - the many for the sins of the few.  That's not how we're supposed to act in America.

You and your ilk have clearly taken the coursework at, The Reverends Sharpton, Jackson and Wright School of Fear and Intimidation For Profit.  Their boogie man is that there's a racist behind every tree, and if we don't fix this, there will be lynchings every day like clockwork.  Your boogie man is our babies will be chopping lines of coke or meth on their Play Skool tray unless this scourge is stopped.

The sad thing is, your and the Reverend's plans are working to perfection.

His inability to understand international politics.

Way too broad of a statement.  Gimme some specifics and I'll respond.  I'd really like to hear what he misunderstands after all his time on earth and in DC.

If you're talking about his foreign policy stance on not giving money to dictators, sign me up!

Copyright 2012 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates.


Crustyrusty said...

Personally, regarding Israel, if we left them alone, they'd have already bombed the living &%(# out of Iran, Syria, etc, and done it a whole lot more efficiently than we tend to do.

Maybe Paul is right in that regard. We don't treat our "friends" very well, anyway.

Anonymous said...

one point of correction:
"Actually, Prohibition was different. It was done Constitutionally. "

Prohibition was not constitutional. There is no enumerated power to regulate any substance whatsoever.

Next, regarding foreign aid to Israel - ANYONE supporting this Must Recognize that we spend FAR MORE on foreign aid to Israel's enemies:

ending foreign aid to Israel ends foreign aid to her enemies - shouldn't be too hard to understand.


Oblio13 said...

The Israelis couldn't handle tiny Lebanon right next door. What makes anyone think they're a match for Iran, 1,000 miles away and with 75 million people?

Long-term if not short-term, Israel is the losing side. If nothing else, they're being out bred. They can't exist indefinitely, and without us they can't exist at all.

Whatever, the USS Abraham Lincoln and it's battle group are in the Persian Gulf as of today, and who knows how many Los Angeles class subs. Stay tuned for exciting developments.

Chief Instructor said...

Crusty, indeed. Being of friend of ours doesn't seem to carry as much weight as it once did.

itor, Prohibition was indeed Constitutional - made so with the 18th amendment, repealed with the 21st.

Oblio, I'm personally a fan of Israel. Tough, resilient people, and one of our longest, most loyal allies.

I've heard a lot said about Israel, but not being a power in the region was never one of them. Why don't you think they couldn't wipe Lebanon off the map, and produce some serious damage to Iran?

Oblio13 said...

Israel is a declining power, as are we. They lost most of their military mystique when they invaded Lebanon and lost in 2006. I was as disappointed by that as anyone, but there it is. They have an outstanding air force, and the best armor and infantry in the region, but they just couldn't beat irregulars on their own turf. Sort of like us in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq and pretty soon Afghanistan. Don't think our enemies haven't noticed this and aren't feeling pretty cocky.

Now look at the relative size and population of Iran, and the distances involved, assuming that all the targets can even be located. Israel doesn't have an air-to-air refueling capability. They simply can't even think about this without us.

The US has a few fair-weather allies in the region (Qatar, Oman, UAE), but Israel doesn't. Do you think those countries will allow us to use our bases on their soil on Israel's behalf? Do you think we could assure them that we could protect them from Iranian retaliation? Do you think Hamas and Hezbollah will leave Israel alone as Iran is attacked? How long can we keep a carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf? Power projection is not as simple as people think.

Last but not least, Google the populations, age structures and birth rates of the Israelis and the Palestinians. It isn't going to take long for them to be a small minority in their own country.

Israel still has the nuclear trump card, of course, but the world is changing.

Our Community Organizer might be thinking that he has to choose between Israel and oil. Which way does it look like he's leaning already?

Sorry this is so long, it's probably more than you wanted to wade through.

Anonymous said...

Is their any constitutional ability for the government to regualte prescription drugs, pollution, speed limits, the weight of trucks, gambling, sex with minors, number of spouses, education, SS, income, minimum wage, explosives, fishing & hunting, our borders, etc.??

As for prohibition being constitutional you clearly don't understand the constitution. Once the amendment passed by definition it was constitutional.

Anonymous said...

Ok, constitution 101:
Article 1, Sec 8
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings..."
Obviously, if federal authority preempts state or local then federal authority becomes de facto exclusive - which is not permitted EXCEPT in those places naamed above.


10th amendment:
mendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Please, do show where the ability to regulate any substance is granted in the constitution - I'll wait.

States MAY enact such laws regarding "prescription drugs, pollution, speed limits, the weight of trucks, gambling, sex with minors, number of spouses, education, SS, income, minimum wage, explosives, fishing & hunting," however none of those are permitted the federal gummint under the constitution.

"As for prohibition being constitutional you clearly don't understand the constitution. Once the amendment passed by definition it was constitutional."
Umm, nope my understanding & comprehension are more than adequate- are you saying that if an amendment were passed allowing the murder of anyone over 50 it would be constitutional, and therefore legal?


Chief Instructor said...

Oblio, point well taken on the "irregulars". When the fight becomes mano a mano, the odds even up.

I was thinking more on the level of a traditional war - military vs military. But, as we've seen all around the world, that kind of conflict is happening less and less.

Chief Instructor said...


are you saying that if an amendment were passed allowing the murder of anyone over 50 it would be constitutional, and therefore legal?

An obviously ludicrous example. That being said, if the Amendment process were followed as per the Constitution, yes, it would be constitutional.

Anonymous said...

Ok, constitution 201:

Pretty much whatever amendment is ratified is by definition constitutional. See Article 5.

Anonymous said...

I agree w/ Ron Paul on most issues except I don't mind helping friendly countries. Who those are is what I don't know anymore. I do not agree with his stance on it being OK for Iran to have nukes. THAT is a deal breaker for me. There is too much water under the bridge for us to hope if we leave them alone, thay will leav eus alone. Perhaps if our government had not meddled so much over the past 50 years we wouldn't have so many hating us now, but the fact is that is where we are now and we can't go back.
I do agree with pulling out of the UN and letting Europe take care of themselves. I also agree with a formal Declaration of War and then go win it and get home. the fact of the matter is assymetrical warfare is practically impossible to win. How can you be successful when you hav eto fight with rules and the enemy does not. War is ugly. Adding rules does not make it any prettier. If the enemy hides behind civilians, deny them this tactic. Yes, innocents will die, but they will also grow to resent being used as a shield and may turn on those using them. If you don't have the will to do that, then you don't have the will to win.
I agree with RP's domestic policies as far as I can see. I don't agree that he is an isolationist. That is dismissive and shows ignorance or dishonesty of those asserting that position. That fact is you can't be an isolationist and support free trade. I fsomeone could convince him and or his ardent followers that the wreckage of our countires past cannot just be ignored, hoping that all that hate us will simply forgive and forget, I would vote for him. To dismiss those who have sworn to destroy us is both reckless and dangerous and I won't support that.