Tag Archives: Ron Paul

The Red Car of Apocalypse

Well, Leonidas is teething… 20120604-180531.jpg…… Anyway, the constant interruption of sleep must have something to do with this new strange thing my mind is doing… everything seems to be related. I mean like everything. These obscure news stories, and these little-known facts, they are all part of a massive scheme, a web of lies. Lets start here: someone blew up something in Latakia last week. It was probably the Israelis. ‘the SMC’s [Supreme Military Command] office, which thinks “everything is Israel,’. You know, that might just be true too!

Look at this story, I’;ll explain how everything fits together in a minute, this looks like a jump, but its connected.

According to police, 22-year-old Reginald Davis fled a bail bondsman at a motel in Woodbridge on Wednesday, slamming into several vehicles in the parking lot, forcing him to flee on foot into a nearby wooded area, where an officer took chase accompanied by a police dog named Titan that was quickly attacked and bitten by a potentially rabid groundhog, thus forcing the officer to shoot and kill the groundhog, before he and Titan continued the search for Davis who had scaled a jersey wall and stumbled onto I-95 where he was struck by a passing motorist and subsequently taken to a hospital and then booked into a local jail on multiple charges, including malicious wounding and felony hit-and-run….allegedly.

This man knew something. Thats the only explanation. He knew something important, so he has to be ‘crazy’. And you see this next headline, and you know for sure that these people just want to literally watch the world burn:

Fifty-nine percent of Americans support banning abortions past 20 weeks (five months), including 41 percent who strongly favor doing so, according to a survey conducted for the Huffington Post. Just 30 percent of respondents oppose such a law, with 21 percent strongly opposing.

I mean, dont they know that overpopulation is leading to the extinction of everything??! do they want us to fry the earth in our vain quest to reproduce ourselves?

I think, in fact, they do! they want a large pool of people to choose the genetically best for breeding stock to save in their apocalypse bunkers. You see, they have built them all over the world, but the headquarters is hidden in plain sight:imagesThats right, Denver International Airport. They probably would have put it in Jerusalem, but too many people would have noticed. In Denver, only a few people who see things clearly know what is going on.

Do you really think it is any coincidence that the whole middle east, and soon to be the whole world is in chaos??? Iraq has increasing violence, why its not called a war is purely political manipulations. Even Luxemburg is undergoing problems… did anyone even know Luxembourg even had a prime minister??? I think the one thing that ties this all together is this little story here… Israel is looking to rebuild the Temple, on the Temple mount: Israel Seeks to Build Holy Temple Instead of Al-Aqsa!!!

I am pretty sure that the end is near, that the secret masters of this world will soon retreat to their luxurious bunkers around the world and then they will unleash plauge and earthquakes and nuke us all… and I think the clinching piece of evedence was seen last night on the SyFy channel:sharknado

And that, that was today’s Apocalyptic red car799px-Red_Corvette_Stingray_pic1

Perfect Candidates

One of my many issues with Ron Paul is that he is treated by his supporters as the exactly right leader for the exactly right time. However, believing as the founders did that men are not angels, I do not believe that the perfect leader exists. To think this way is to philosophically cede the political argument to statists before the debate even begins. This topic is so well dealt with over at PJ Media that I will let you read it there. This is the conclusion which summarizes how I think about Romney, and I think every non-statist should think about every candidate they support. Ultimately, we cannot abdicate our authority to rule ourselves no matter how effective or good the candidate is.

Is he perfect? Oh, goodness, no. Is he exactly what we need? Probably not. Who is? Do you know the trouble we’ve got ourselves into by trusting presidents for this long? It’s a big hole. No one man can get us out of it. Only we can. And it will take time.

But that’s fine. He won’t be anointed by any gods. There will be no halos and no Greek columns. Instead, he’ll be the elected by the people and the people — the sovereign people of this free land — who are now awake will stand ready to make sure he knows it.

Perhaps we will once more save our democratic republic for another generation. Perhaps we’ll turn the tiller and start the long way back from deep blue statism.

In the end, as someone said, perhaps we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for. No hero will ride to the rescue — we will.

We’re Americans. We don’t need emperors. (If that’s what you want, to quote Romney, “you must vote for the other guy.”) We don’t want lords and masters. We’re free and at last aware that we must work to stay that way.

Problems with Libertarians

I was going to always avoid politics here, but its too late. I have been thinking about libertarians in general and Ron Paul in specific and organizing my thoughts against him. However, I do not intend to write much about politics, as fiction and philosophy are so interesting to me. However, philosophy frequently overlaps politics, and this is an election year….

The major issues I have with Ron Paul libertarianism (as I heard it in the presidential debates, and experienced it talking to his supporters) are three. First, the apparent abandonment of the principal by which laws are justified, secondly, the curious insistence that Ron Paul is the ultimate expression of constitutionalism and the embodiment of the American founding, and lastly, his followers seem to frequently think and behave like cult followers.

First Point: I believe that the law is always founded upon someone’s idea of what is moral. If you remove all moral thinking you actually remove all basis for law. The result is generally anarchy which in turn usually breeds tyranny. Without founding laws upon someone’s morals, (if it is one person’s morals, then it is a monarchy, if several persons, an oligarchy, if it is based on the majority opinion of a people who rule themselves, it is a democracy) how can the law say that murder is wrong, or that selling national secrets is wrong, or that rape is wrong? Every argument against these things starts with a form of morality whether the person making the argument uses that word or not. For instance, rape is wrong because it forces one persons will upon another person. The morality here is fairly obvious, just not stated explicitly. It is: “Anything that takes something without consent from someone else is wrong. Anything that does not affect someone else is acceptable.” This seems to me to be the basic morality of the libertarian position. I tend to think it is not comprehensive enough, but that is not my point. It seems to me that a Ron Paul libertarian would, if given their way, make it so that communities who have a different, more extensive, set of morals (like believing that drugs should be illegal) cannot enforce them, while at the same time denying that their laws are based on morality.  I believe that this is an untenable position. It is better to admit that laws are based on what society thinks is moral and then to constantly debate what is moral and immoral and should therefore be legal or illegal.

Second point: This point actually meshes with the last point. It seems to me that somehow, through machinations unknown, a man who has sat in congress for years, who has had no applicable effect on the thinking of his colleagues or the execution of laws, who indulged in the egregious habit of earmarks just like everyone else in congress somehow claims to be ideologically pure, for small government, and a good choice for a leader. He is supposedly a pure conservative, when in fact his actions, regardless of excuses, have been almost identical to the behavior of his colleagues.

Third Point: At some point when a man’s supporters behave like followers of cult leader, speak like followers of a cult lead, and insult anyone who criticizes their leader, it seems to me to be fairly safe to think many of them are cult members. To prove me wrong, any Ron Paul supporters who reads this, I challenge you: in the comments below, describe one moderate to major flaw in your candidate: one thing that makes him less than 95% perfect for the presidency whether from personal life or legislative career. (Of course you can also make the case why he is good for the presidency.) No excuses unless the excuse leaves you at least moderately uncomfortable.

I will start. (I only support Mitt Romney because he is the republican, and I think on the presidential scale that’s the best you can do. I think America needs reforming on the local scale by people like Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal, and on the federal scale we pick the least bad of two for now.) However, I do now support Mitt Romney. I will probably volunteer for his campaign and at some point I may even send him some of my hard earned money.  However, it deeply disturbs me that although I agree with most things he has said since 2008, he has no political record that matches with these beliefs. I understand the excuse that people change their positions and that he had to deal with a very, very, leftist state, but these excuses make me still feel uncomfortable, and I deal with it while wishing that he was better. I also realize that every politician is going to have done things I don’t like, and I support the ones who do things the most like what I believe. Someone who follows a politician without knowing and dealing with their human shortcomings is remarkably similar to a cult member.

I just found this article, another longer discussion of the problems of Libertarianism (as opposed to my rant).

Amoral Society

No, I will not be discussing the fact that large numbers of Americans feel morally ok with things like abortion, nor is this about anything else that is usually discussed when people talk about amoral societies. This is for one simple reason. I think that people who believe that killing an infant before it is born (or as it is born) is morally acceptable usually tend to be people suffering not from a lack of morals but from moral inversion. Thus, smoking cigarettes, and eating animals (or kosher slaughter in which the animal is not unconscious) is evil and wrong, while abominations like abortion are acceptable. This seems to be not a lack of morals, but an inversion of them. I do think that this moral inversion is a product of the actual amoral society, and so they are connected, but an amoral society is one that does not make decisions based on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. (Leftists usually use different words, but it amounts to the same thing.) A society that makes decisions based on what it (or a majority, or even a reigning minority) thinks is right and wrong is fundamentally based on morality. Of course that is not the same as a righteous society, which is a moral society based on true morals.

Unfortunately, what I think best describes much of the world is the amoral society. Let me illustrate with the example that got me starting thinking about this. A few months ago, I was listening to the radio (890 WLS out of Chicago) and I caught a little bit of a debate about putting a strip club next to a convent, and naturally the nuns were trying to keep that from happening. (I am a little fuzzy on the details.) The argument of the man being interviewed basically boiled down to this:  ‘The nuns have no right to object to this because the strip club will pay taxes and the convent does not.’ That is amoral, and it is a direct result of over sized overspending government which encourages people to think, not in terms of what they believe is right, but in terms of what can be taxed.

This argument is also frequently used by Ron Paul fans when advocating legalized drugs. ‘The government could then tax and regulate them, so it is a good idea!’ Unfortunately, being the brokest nation in history, being epically broke, and living in a world where it seems like every other government is also in debt, (strangely to each other… like the US is in debt to Japan… how does that work?) encourages everyone to think in terms of how they can collect money instead of what they believe is good and right. The deep flaw here is obvious, if it is something people are paying money for, you can justify anything. Imagine an important looking man in a suit on CNN telling you that child pornography and prostitution should be legal because then this state or that could collect x millions of dollars in taxes, which it needs because otherwise firefighters will have to be laid off… Yes, every disgusting thing that immoral people will pay for (which is anything…) can be legitimized this way.

The solution to this, I think, is fiscal sanity. Only in a fiscally sane world can people converse about what they think is right and wrong without the incessant distractions and threats of closing government which does provide necessary and useful services that individuals cannot (or should not) do. That is why a social conservative who spends like a socialist should not be tolerated even though his stance on things like abortion is sound. A society based on mercenary decisions, an inevitable effect of the welfare state, is a society that ultimately must tolerate any perversion, even the most despicable.

Instead, I think a local community should be able to say what kind of businesses they think are morally wrong and not allowed in that community. That is the glory of localized self-rule. If the people think it is indecent to have a strip-club next to a convent, they should be able to keep that from happening. If all the people in the area think it is acceptable to have a strip club anywhere, that is their decision, and we don’t have to move there. But if we do, we should be able to try to convince those around us that is it improper and immoral, instead of constantly be lectured on the monetary value of the institutions.