Friday, July 13, 2007

Ron Paul is an ass-clown, part 4

For those of you who don't follow politics as obsessively as most bloggers Ron Paul (the ass-clown) used to be a member of the Libertarian Party (as I was). He finally decided that since there was no realistic possibility of a Libertarian getting elected to any office more important than the municipal water board in Nebo (think Rio Linda) that he would join the Republican Party. That way he could have some real influence.

For all their differences the Republicans generally come much closer to the Libertarian ideal of limited government than the Democrats (whose secret ambition is to recreate Stalinist Russia).

However Paul has not given up his Libertarian ideas and the primary motivating force behind Libertarians is a deep seated borderline irrational (and is some cases completely irrational) fear of government. Or I should say the United States government. This innate loathing of the US government has manifested itself in a phenomena which has been termed "anti-tribalism".

As the tribalist tends to see the world as a stark black and white tableaux in which his tribe is "white" and everyone else is "black" the anti-tribalist reverses that worldview and sees his own nation/culture as always wrong and everyone else as always right. Libertarians take Randolph Bourne's dictum that war is the health of the state and turn it into a kind of fetish.

In Libertarian thinking there is such a thing as a justified defensive war, however as a practical matter they raise the bar on what justifies war so high that no war since the American Revolution can meet it. Even the War of 1812 cannot pass their test because the motives of some in Washington DC were not simon pure enough for them. Which means, I suppose, that Andy Jackson should have surrendered to the British at the Battle of New Orleans.

To the Libertarians even the US participation in the Second World War was unjustified because we "forced" the Japanese to attack us by refusing to sell them the raw materials which they were using to build the war machine which they were using to commit atrocities like the Rape of Nanking.

To Libertarians no Red Dawn type foreign invasion no justification for military force (and I'm not sure they wouldn't rationalize rolling over for that either).

And as for the European theater, we had no business there either because Hitler never attacked us. The fact that either Nazi Germany would have won and scoured the continent clean of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and anyone else they didn't think was Aryan enough was none of our business. And if the Soviets won and turned everything from the North Sea to the Mediterranean into a Gulag, well so what. After all either side would have needed stuff that we could sell them and would have manufactured stuff that we could have bought at a good price (slaves work for peanuts after all) so business would have gone on as usual.

If you doubt me about my contention that Libertarians don't have any problem with slavery (as long as they're not the slaves themselves) go over and check out and what they have to say about trade with China.

Which brings me to why I am having so much fun tweaking the pod-people supporters of ass-clown Ron Paul. The man and his supporters simply offend me. Libertarians like Paul are the same as the residents of some big city who hear a woman crying rape and respond by closing the window and turning up the TV. In Iraq Saddam Hussein's sons were going into elementary schools to pick out girls to take to their "rape room" after which their bodies would be thrown into a mass grave out by the city dump. And that is typical of what life in Iraq was like before we put a stop to it.

And this doesn't even get into the fact that the Islamofascists wouldn't leave us alone even if we surrendered the Middle East to them. Open up a Koran and actually read the damn thing. Mohamed promised them the world and not in some future millennial era, but right now. All they have to do is go out and take it - by force, like Mohamed did.

This is how they operated until a revitalized West was able to stop them and put them into retreat. But then the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and got their asses kicked and the Muslim world convinced itself that it was they who brought down the USSR. That, not US "meddling" in the Middle East, is what has inspired the renewed jihadist movement. They believe their time has come. They believe that because the US cut and ran from Vietnam and Somalia and Lebanon and because we treated the first bombing of the World Trade Center as a criminal offense rather than an act of war that we are ready to fall into their hands like the proverbial overripe fruit.

The Democrat leadership in congress and their mainstream media propaganda organs are doing everything in their power to feed that belief on the part of the Islamists and Ron Paul and his pod-people are joining in to help. One of the commenters said that the moonbat who wanted Paul to investigate whether 9/11 was an "inside job" was a traitor. Well I'm afraid that traitor was not the correct world for that moonbat. You see the crime of treason is defined by Article III, section 3 of the constitution this way, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

By this standard believing something really stupid and reprehensible about the government isn't treason but legislators making a very public show of how they want us to surrender to the enemy while our military forces are locked in battle with him could very well fall under the definition of treason, at least in a moral sense.

After all what could give the enemy more comfort that to know that if they can just hang on a little bit longer and run up the US death toll a little bit more that come November 2008 they will be handed everything they have been fighting for?