Operation Charlie Sheen

The NeoConsevative nexus (e.g. where the GOP and the Democrats always agree) that collectively are the “War Party” should call their interventionist agenda in the Middle East “Operation Sheen”.

That’s “Sheen”, as in “Charlie Sheen”.

Because just like the actor at the prime of his melt-down, in the face of complete an utter evidence that what the War Party doing is 1) self-destructive, 2) counterproductive, and 3) creating increasingly worse problems than when they started in 1991, they still think they’re “Winning!” with their Mid East policy and want to pile on more.

  • Destroyed liberty at home? “Winning!”
  • Destabilized Mid East? “Winning!”
  • Radicalized Iraq? “Winning!”
  • Arab Spring? “Winning!”
  • More Israelis Settlements in disputed territory? “Winning!”
  • Thousands of Christians and Jews displaced from their century-old homelands throughout the mid east thanks to the instability? Many Christian churches burned and Christians massacred? “Winning!”
  • Secular Mid East governments toppled and replaced with more radical governments? “Winning!”
  • Moderate and Western friendly Islam massacred? “Winning!”
  • Trillions of debt at home hanging around the necks of our kids and grand-kids amid a stagnating economy? “Winning!”
  • Blow-back terrorism at home?  “Winning!”
  • etc.?   “Winning!”

It is true that you can apply the Charlie Sheen principal to most all U.S. foreign policy initiatives, and even domestic policy.

There is much Irony that so many among the Tea-Party War-hawk proletariat (who I call the “Patriot Wing” of the Tea Party) are able to identify this “Winning!” failure-principal very clearly within most of the progressive agenda. They are quick to criticize a progressive push to expand government stupidity when it’s from Dem’s, and are relentless in harassing the GOP’s dramatic acquiescence to those demands — a.k.a, calling them out as RHINOs.   But they fail to see the hypocrisy in that the Patriot Wing is as enamored as any RHINO politician with implementing their own busy-body agenda.

Indeed, there is much to criticize with what they are criticizing from the RHINO progressives:   The backpedaling cuckservative support of the failed entitlement state, where the GOP is as much to blame for allowing the government to confiscate wealth from the functioning economy so that it may run a highly-politicized, no-strings-attached form of charity, with government unions planting themselves as middlemen who entitled to their above-market wages and benefits; a well-feathered nest so heavily conflicted with self-interest, any sober bystander is left to question if the failures / growth of poverty is not merely a well-crafted business growth plan.

While the RHINOs may not have been the original architects, they fall all over themselves to appear friendly to the worst of the poverty-pimp politicians, all in a desperate attempt to capture some of the influence-peddling benefits gained by handouts.  The Patriot Wing sees it’s financed by We The People’s confiscated liberty and wealth in exchange for votes, and their is little doubt among Tea Partiers of where RHINO  priorities lie.

These are endless and obvious failures, yet the progressive drumbeat is always for more intervention — each new policy at the expense of other Americans as they rob Peter’s economy to subsidize Paul’s.

To resurrect the Meme:  The War on Poverty?  Failures?   Corruption?  Endless calls for larger and larger expenditures, etc.??   “Winning!”

And yet, although the Patriot Wing and many other hawkish GOP supporters identify this folly, they seem to go blind when it comes to foreign intervention.   When confronted about the failures of the Mid East policy they support, you’ll see a reflex of denial.  You’ll find excuses or claims to non-existant victory.  And you’ll hear demands for throwing more good money after bad, no different than Bernie Sanders calling for more socialism to fix what the socialism we already have has broken.

 

U.S. Foreign policy supported by the Tea Party Patriots?  Winning!  They are more like Hillary than Ron Paul who functionally seeded the concept of the Tea Party.

Exposed, U.S. foreign policy leaders remain in denial of the warnings given 25-years ago by well-reasoned analysts on the folly of the Neoconservative policy agenda as outlined by prominent NeoCons well before Iraq 1, the infamous Project for the New American Century , 9/11.  supported by the usual suspects — Kagen, Kristol, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Cheny, Rumsfeld, etc.  It is in denial of the warnings they gave about destabilizing, sanctioning, and then toppling the secular regime of Saddam Hussein.  It remains in denial of every warning since.

If you don’t see this, it’s time to take off the rose colored glasses.

Debunking common progressive claims of greatness

Again, another conversation with a progressive. This one claiming all sorts of credit for the wonderful things done by Progressives, while asserting that conservatives have done nothing.

I’m no conservative on most issues. On the other hand, I have no love for Progressives arguing about how they’re so great, and others just stupid. So here are his comments in block quote, and my replies between.

Liberals broke us free from the conservative British monarchy.

Classical liberals, only. The ones who believed in LIBERTY, not the present ones who call themselves “progressive”, whose methods are fundamentally authoritarian / trample liberty.

Then they forced the slavery issue…

Abolitionists were a wide range of folks, from classic “liberals” who felt it was immoral for liberty to be violated, to conservative Christians who felt it was unChristian, to those who wanted to eliminate slavery as labor competition — but still embraced racist work laws – as a way to improve white labor conditions. Lincoln was among those.

For Lincoln, Slavery didn’t show up in his Civil War speeches until after a few hundred thousand U.S. soldiers (both sides) were dead over the issue of lobbyists, tariffs, New England corporatism, and secession. Not so glamorous, so he pimped onto slavery… And the U.S. became the only Slave nation to required a civil war / hundreds of thousands of lives to end.

They gave us meat inspection standards…

They codified what legitimate businesses were already doing. Laws passed were political actions promoted as solutions to what was functionally a non-existent problem: contaminated meat. The Act of 1891 was a political action in an environment of massive change in the meat industry – motivated by those who were economically hurt by the massive supply increase of cattle vs. demand, but who further blamed the cost advantages of those who used refrigeration, efficient low cost transportation, and easy distribution. Primarily in Chicago. They demanded Anti Trust action amid false accusations about poor meat quality. Hence, Anti Turst 1890 Sherman Act and the 1891 Meat Inspection Act are tied, and were demanded by CONSERVATIVES AGAINST CHANGE in the meat industry.

As for the 1906 Act, this was partially a political reflex to a populist wave in response to Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle which, which was exposed to be BS, and intended to inspire a socialist workers movement in the U.S. He never witnessed any of the horrors, or

Leave Ethnicity Out of It. Authoritarianism is the Problem

I don’t get the whole racism thing.   Scouring comment sections on articles about the politics of the day, invariably you find a moronic comment.  Granted,  I’m always keeping in mind that I may not be reading an actual racist, but rather a “progressive planter” who is following Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals model for undermining the authority of your political enemy, whereby you keep your followers from sympathizing with the enemy by painting your enemy as a racist unworthy of receiving even two-seconds of your time.

That aside, there are no doubt legit rants about “the Jews”, blacks, legal immigrants, Muslims, illegals, etc.   Half the time they mix it in with socialism or communism, etc.   Always it’s a “they are killing this country” type of thing.

What ignorance when it comes to the universal hate on ethnicity.  And as for commie and socialist?   All of it is distractions from the core point:

I sort ’em all out by one factor: Do they believe in individual liberty? Or are they fundamentally authoritarian with the methods they choose? What do I care if they are Jewish or black?   Besides, some of the biggest defenders of individual liberty I have ever met or read were Jewish, gay [Lessons of “Bridgegate”], etc.

On the other hand, if you believe you and your group of voters are more important than another persons’ individual liberty, and your chosen methods and policies demonstrate absolutely no respect, whatsoever,  for others’ innate right to consent… And your resort to violence or threats thereof to achieve your goals?   Well… Simply — you are an authoritarian of some form or another.

Let’s do a quick walk on authoritarian behavior vs. liberty.  It is one word:  Consent.

Difference between rape and making love = Consent or not.

Murder and suicide = consent or not.

Theft and charity = consent. Laundering it through an election does not make it right.

You get it?

That said, you racist types — Why not attack the behavior and define those individuals for what they truly are?  But leave the rest of the Jews, blacks, and gays out of it. I’ve met plenty of good people, and some of the greatest liberty defenders you’ll find mixed in.

Now, some authoritarian folks don’t known any better and stoop to authoritarian policies without even understanding that’s what they’re voting for.  They wouldn’t know individual liberty if it beat them over the head due to an government school education that serves like an indoctrination of the virtues of government interventionism and the required violations of individual liberty.   You know who these people are — they are a ton of [fill in your ethnicity here].  Meanwhile, plenty of [fill in your ethnicity here] are authoritarians outright — commies, progressives… or right-wing anti liberty types.

That in mind, I’ll take a liberty-defending “illegal” any day over some sit-on-his-but “I’m entitled ’cause I’m ‘Merican Citizen” type who thinks he’s owed something from his hard working neighbors. Or some NeoConn – let’s use your tax dollars to remodel the world for “democracy” (not liberty, mind you….) type.

As for those darned Jews:

“It is curious that people tend to regard government as a quasi-divine, selfless, Santa Claus organization. Government was constructed neither for ability nor for the exercise of loving care; government was built for the use of force and for necessarily demagogic appeals for votes. If individuals do not know their own interests in many cases, they are free to turn to private experts for guidance. It is absurd to say that they will be served better by a coercive, demagogic apparatus.” — Murray Rothbard

Liberty — either your for it or against it. There is no in between.

 

JFK’s “Ask Not” used to enable big government and liberty violations

With all the JFK hubbub in the wake of the 50th anniversary of his assassination, I keep seeing, hearing, etc. the famous soundbite from his Inaugural Address:

…And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

I’d feel a lot better about that JFK speech if he’d not hung out in the gray area of what the Democrats now clearly promote at their Conventions: “We all belong to our Government”.

In other words, I’d have preferred something more along the lines “ask not what your government can do for you. Ask what you can do for your fellow man and the economy so there’s no excuse for politicians to try to make every little thing the job of the government.” Not a great soundbite, and I’m in too much of a hurry to edit, but I think the point is there: The JFK soundbite has been used to make noble the idea that we should give up our liberty and wealth, rights, etc. for the “good of the country”, which implies, by Government Means and authority. e.g. — give up your liberty.

The speech mentions the “L” word only once:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Indeed. Including engaging Vietnam, in which his VP cum President forced young men into a war in Vietnam regardless of their views on the subject, liberty, etc.  “… do for your country” or else, is what it came to, and is what we’re always presented with election after election.