People call me an absolutist; they say I refuse to see both sides of an issue. But that isn’t the case. I’m actually a very moderate and pragmatic guy. Here, I’ll show you:
Take the issue of gun violence, for instance. In light of all of these recent tragic shootings, the debate over how to deal with gun toting bad guys has intensified. One side says we need more gun control, the other side says we need less. Me, I see the merits on both ends of the spectrum. In fact, BOTH strategies could work.
We could realistically stop violence by imposing more gun control, IF we can figure out a way to eradicate all guns everywhere from everyone, and get rid of all other forms of weaponry, and abolish the malice in the hearts of men, and effectively outlaw hate, anger, greed and mental disorders, and require all people to be peaceful, kind and trustworthy. We merely have to establish a Disney fairy tale Utopia on Earth and all of a sudden the gun control argument becomes really quite cogent.
But some might raise a couple of objections to this proposal: 1) It sounds expensive. 2) As a secondary issue, it’s also completely insane.
If the naysayers are correct, then that leaves us with the other alternative. We can try to curtail gun violence by permitting and encouraging radical concepts like “self defense.” We can stop requiring folks to be helpless victims. We can give the potential prey a choice other than hiding under the desk and, as a last resort, defending themselves with a manila folder and a pencil. We can end the reckless, dangerous, and — I’m beginning to see it this way more and more every day — morally corrupt practice of pretending that we would somehow be in greater danger if we had the ability to fire back, rather than cower in a corner. I wonder if the maniacs who make this claim would also jump out of an airplane without a parachute because parachutes malfunction sometimes. “I might use this and still get myself killed, so I’ll just not use it and definitely get myself killed.”
See? I’ve considered both ideas and then come down on the only side that even attempts to make a modicum of sense.
Monday’s shooting at the Naval Yard in DC has coaxed the gun controllers to the surface like worms after a rainstorm. They’ve already begun their usual tactic of reporting false information until it sets into the public conscience, regardless of reality. That’s why Pierce Morgan went on an AR15 rant last night, despite the apparently irrelevant fact that an AR15 wasn’t used in the massacre. The killer carried out his evil deed with two pistols and a shotgun.
But these are left wing Statists we’re dealing with; they’ve never allowed “truth” and “what actually happened” to stand in the way of their poisonous political ideology. So they’ve attempted to snatch up this incident for their gun control arsenal, even though DC has strict gun control laws, and military installations have even stricter gun control laws. This shooting happened inside a gun free zone, which was inside another gun free zone, which was protected by walls, fences, check points, security guards, locks, regulations, background checks, and policies. It was gun control layered on top of gun control, covered in barbed wire and encased in cement. Yet twelve people are still dead.
I love this country, I really do. But we’ve got a brand of stupid in this nation that I doubt you’d find anywhere else on Earth, let alone the galaxy. Requiring military members to be disarmed on military bases and in military installations? Two mass murders in the span of a few years, and yet this policy remains? Back in the Roman days, soldiers were required to be armed at all times, under penalty of death. Yet here we confiscate their personal firearms and tell them to keep their military issued weapons locked away, which leads DIRECTLY to these sorts of situations. What the hell is wrong with us? The first responders got there in seven minutes, which is an incredible response time. But there should have been return fire immediately. We trust these people to fight wars, operate battleships, fly jets, drop bombs, use drones, go on Special Forces missions, but we don’t think they’re competent or psychologically stable enough to carry a weapon to work without accidentally shooting each other?
Let me ask you: Would you board a commercial airplane if you found out the pilot has been legally barred from driving a Segway? This is your captain speaking, I’m not trusted to operate a motorized scooter at 4 miles an hour across the sidewalk, but I’ll be flying this 250 passenger aircraft 30 thousand feet in the air for the next 2600 miles. Enjoy the flight.
In my innocence and naivety, prior to the Fort Hood rampage, I sort of assumed that the military members on a military base would be perpetually locked and loaded every day, because, you know, it’s a military base. It’s a target. It’s a place where everyone ought to be prepared for the worst, because that’s why it exists. It’s a military base. These are trained and disciplined men and women. These people are in the military. Their weapons are tools of their trade.
Back when I didn’t know any better, I had a certain foolish confidence that, say, a trained Marine Corps sniper, who assassinates high valued targets from a distance of 800 meters for a living, might be allowed to keep a holstered firearm on his person if he entered an American military installation in his civilian clothes. But not so much. A military base in the United States should be the last place on the planet where anyone could hope to successfully carry out a mass killing. But here we are. Again. The feds tell us we are in a permanent state of war, so why is our military in a permanent state of disarmament?
Speaking of war and terrorism, the horrendous stupidity of this policy has been colored in a tinge of morbid irony, now that President Obama has officially waived the provision designed to prohibit the supply of arms to terrorist groups. As innocent people die defenseless in American forts and bases, we are handing guns and grenades to Al Qaeda affiliates overseas. THEY can be trusted, but not our Soldiers, Sailors and Marines. As we listen to the tedious and predictable demands for the NRA to apologize for the shooting (which is a bit like asking PETA to apologize for a bear attack), I’d like to see some of these gun control advocates turn their attention to the high powered weaponry we are currently in the process of dispensing into the hands of murderers and militants in the Middle East.
If all of this makes sense to you, if you still can’t fathom the logistical and logical shortcomings of the gun control, “gun free zone,” argument, allow me to issue the following challenge: Put your money where your mouth is, anti-gun guy. Stop asking other people to die for the sake of your gun phobia, and put your ideology into practice. Go home right now and make a sign that says: “Gun Free Zone. No guns on premises.” Then put that sign on your front lawn. I’ll move in next door and make a different sign: “Gun Zone. Trespassers shot on sight.” Then I’ll nail it to my front door. Next, we wait to see who gets burglarized first. Hell, I’ll keep my door unlocked; meanwhile you can buy 40 deadbolts and put bars on the window. I still like my chances.
How confident are you?
To the fan I lost yesterday:
I don’t owe you an explanation, but I thought I’d offer one anyway. I do this more for your sake than mine. You see, maybe, as you later suggested, I was in a bad mood. Maybe I could have been a bit more polite about it. Maybe I’m more sensitive to it now that I have kids. Maybe I’m just sick of hearing these comments about parents. Maybe I know that my wife has to take the twins with her when she goes grocery shopping sometimes, so she could easily be on the receiving end of your sort of bullying. Maybe I took it personally.
Whatever the case, there I was, walking down the aisles of the grocery store looking for the ingredients for a new chili recipe I wanted to try. I heard the kid screaming from a distance; the whole store heard him. It was a temper tantrum, a meltdown, a hissy fit — it happens. Toddlers are notorious for losing their cool at the most inconvenient times. Nobody likes to hear it, but it happens. You’re out running errands with your little guy, everything is fine, and next thing you know he’s in full-on rabid poodle mode. It’s humiliating and emotionally draining, but what can you do? Pull out that large glass sound proof aquarium you carry around and stick your kid in it so nobody can hear him shriek? That’s a possibility, but the logistics don’t always work. Slightly more realistically, the peanut gallery probably expects you to drop all of your groceries and immediately run into the parking lot, so as to save them from having to deal with the spectacle. But it’s not always that simple; maybe you don’t have time to shut down the whole operation just because Billy’s gone nuclear.
It wasn’t that simple for the mother of this kid. I finally came across her in the beans aisle. She had a cart full of groceries, a kid riding along, and another one walking beside her. Well, he wasn’t really walking so much as convulsing and thrashing about like he’d invented some bizarre, angry interpretive dance. He was upset about something, from what I gathered it had to do with a certain lucky cereal he wished to acquire, but which his mother refused to purchase. I felt his pain, poor guy. My mom never bought me sugary cereal either — “breakfast candy,” she called it. She used to get us Cheerio’s — “breakfast cardboard,” I called it.
I felt the woman’s pain even more. She could bribe her kid into silence, but she was sticking to her guns. Good for her, I thought. Sure, if she’d only meet his ransom demands, my bean purchasing experience would be a bit more pleasurable, but I was rooting for her nonetheless. Not everyone felt the same way, apparently.
I’d met you a few minutes earlier. You told me you were a fan. We spoke for a moment, you seemed nice enough. Then we crossed paths again there by the beans and the screaming toddler. I guess you thought we were friends, you thought you could confide in me your deepest thoughts. You glanced toward the mother and the kid, then at me, rolled your eyes and said in a loud voice: “Man, some people need to learn how to control their f**king kids.” The lady could definitely hear you, but I guess that was your intention. You had this expression like you were expecting a high five. “Yeah, put it here, dude, you really told that young mother and her three year old off! Nice!” Is that how you thought I’d respond? What is it about me that made you think I would react that way? You’re the second stranger in the last few months to say something like that to me about a mom with a tantrum-throwing toddler.
Yeah, I didn’t respond the way you anticipated. Instead, I offered my own helpful suggestion: “Man, some people need to learn how to shut their mouths, watch their language, and mind their own business.” You looked at me like I hurt your feelings, then you muttered some choice words under your breath — as cowards are wont to do — and walked away. Later that day you sent me an email, threatening to tell everyone that I’m “abusive” and “crappy” to my listeners. Well, now I’m one step ahead of you. Now, everyone knows about my shameful “abuse.” Let them decide who’s the bully: the guy who vulgarly insults a woman while she’s dealing with a difficult child, or the guy who tells the guy who insulted the woman to shut up and go away?
After you left, injury was quickly added to insult when her kid bumped into a display and knocked a bunch of stuff onto the ground. I started to help pick it all up, but she said she wanted her son to do it because he’s the one who made the mess. Touché, madam. Nicely played. A lot of people would buckle under the pressure of having sonny going psycho in aisle 7, while, seemingly, the whole world stops to gawk and scrutinize, but this lady stayed cool and composed. It was an inspiring performance, and it’s too bad you missed the point because your feeble mind can only calculate the equation this way: misbehaving child = BAD PARENT.
I’m no math major, but that calculus makes no sense. A kid going berserk at a grocery store doesn’t indicate the quality of his parents, anymore than a guy getting pneumonia after he spends six hours naked in the snow indicates the quality of his doctor. Grocery stores are designed to send children into crying fits. All of the sugary food, the bright packaging, the toys, the candy — it’s a minefield. The occasional meltdown is unavoidable, the real test is how you deal with it. This mother handled it like a pro. She was like mom-ninja; she was calm and poised, but stern and in command.
See, I figure there are two types of people who mock and criticize parents whose children throw tantrums in public. The first is — from what I gathered based on your age (you looked about 19? 20, perhaps?) and what you said in your follow up email — your type: the non-parent who thinks, if they ever have kids, they’ll discover the secret formula that will prevent their hypothetical son or daughter from ever crying in front of other people. Then they promptly scrutinize and chastise real parents for not having this fake, imaginary, impossible, non existent formula. This sort of non-parent doesn’t realize that, unless they plan on using a muzzle and a straightjacket, there is nothing they can do to tantrum-proof their toddler.
Fine. Ignorant non-parents, who don’t know what they’re talking about, imposing ridiculous standards on actual parents because it makes them feel superior. I get it. I don’t like it, but I get it. As bad as you people are, you’re not nearly as horrible as the second type: actual parents with grown children who judge other parents, as if they haven’t been in the exact same situation many times. I had an older guy complain to me recently about babies that cry during church. He said: “Back when our children were babies, you didn’t have this problem.” Interesting. Apparently babies didn’t cry in the 50′s. The whole “crying baby” thing is a new fad, it would seem. These folks who had kids a long time ago seem to have a rather selective memory when it comes to their own days of parenting young kids. They also tend to dismiss the fact that modern parenting presents unique challenges, some of which didn’t apply several decades ago. I always love the older folks who lecture about how THEIR kids weren’t as “attached to electronics” as kids are nowadays. That’s probably true, but mainly because, well, YOU DIDN’T HAVE ELECTRONICS. You had a toaster and a black and white TV with 2 channels, both of which were pretty easy to regulate. But, sure, congratulations for not letting your kids use things that didn’t exist. On that note, I have a strict “no time machines or hover-boards” policy in my home. It is stringently enforced. I’m thinking of writing a parenting book: “How to Stop Your Child From Becoming Dependent Upon Technology That Isn’t Invented Yet”
Anyway, listen, I don’t think you, of all people, should be telling other folks what they “need to learn.” If you just shut up and paid attention, you’d realize that YOU could learn plenty from mothers like the one we both encountered yesterday. I know I have lots and lots to learn as a young parent, which is why I’m always prepared for a more experienced parent to take me to school and teach me a thing or two, even if they don’t know they’re doing it. Parenting is the easiest thing in the world to have an opinion about, but the hardest thing in the world to do. You shouldn’t scrutinize parents when you aren’t one, for the same reason I wouldn’t sit and heckle an architect while he draws up the blueprint for a new skyscraper. I know that buildings generally aren’t supposed to fall down, but I don’t have the slightest clue as to how to design one that won’t, so I’ll just keep my worthless architectural opinions to myself.
That’s a strategy you might consider adopting.
In any event, it was nice meeting you.
Our governor here in Kentucky has decided to implement the new Common Core “Next Generation” science standards. Progressives are celebrating this move for a few reasons : 1) It will put us in line with many other states, which is great because we all know a diverse and enriching education must be in utter uniformity with the national collective and in compliance with the federal agenda. 2) The criteria calls for a renewed emphasis on man-caused climate change and, of course, evolution. Evolution — atheistic, nihilistic, materialistic, mindless evolution — must be taught as fact, without other ideas presented to compete with the theory.
Proponents say that atheistic evolution is the only thing that belongs in the classroom because religion and science just don’t mix. I agree, partially at least. Some religions don’t gel with science — religions like Scientology or, say, Atheism. The followers of the COA (Church of Atheism) are not only hostile to science, they are aggressively allergic to history and philosophy as well. They are the ones who constantly need to alter and warp these subjects, so as to fit them all in their tiny little box of nihilism and emptiness. A Christian doesn’t need to be so selective and manipulative because he is part of something full, rational, multi-faceted and universal. He is part of something that, as Chesterton said, has “a multiplicity and subtlety and imagination about the varieties of life which is far beyond the bald or breezy platitudes of most ancient or modern philosophy. In a word, there is more in it; it finds more in existence to think about; it gets more out of life.”
This is where some of my Christian brothers and sisters fail mightily. So often they cede “science” to the atheist and shrink away from his challenges, backing off in defeat while muttering something about “faith” and “belief.” “Well, you might have your fancy science books, but I’ve got faith.” Yes, faith and belief are important, but you, my Christian compatriot, are standing on the Mountain of Truth. You have the high ground. YOU have the facts and the science on your side. Your faith does NOT conflict with science. Christianity built this civilization; your Christian ancestors are the pioneers behind the greatest advancements in many fields of study. Christianity illuminates the sciences and invigorates the passion for discovery. As a Christian, you aren’t just a member of a religion — you’re a member of a rich intellectual tradition unmatched by any group, anywhere in the world. So don’t just sit there and let the atheists blabber about how your faith hates science. Speak up, damn it. Fight back. Get angry.
I have heard this “you can’t mix religion and science” argument so many times, and so many times the atheist gets away with making such a silly and irrational claim. A guy actually told me today that “Christians have always hated science.” What a bizarre and stupid thing to say; easily refuted, if only we take the time and endure the frustration. Modern science, despite the incoherent ramblings of historically illiterate fools, wouldn’t exist without religion.
Christianity hasn’t stifled science. Christianity has been its driving force and, for hundreds of years, virtually its only significant contributor. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Descartes, Newton, Kelvin, Mendel, Boyle — all devout Christians. You want to remove your science from my religion? Fine. But we’re keeping these dudes. You can have Richard Dawkins and his tales of “mild pedophilia.” Enjoy.
Father Steno was a priest. Geologists call him “father,” but for none religious reasons: he’s considered the father of modern geology.
The Basilica of San Petronio is a beautiful church. It was also, for many years, one of the most sophisticated solar observatories in the world.
The Jesuits helped contribute to the development of clocks, barometers, microscopes and telescopes. They theorized about things like human flight, the moon and the tides, and blood circulation. They observed certain astronomical phenomena before anyone else. They did these things as an aspect of their religious pursuits, not in competition with it.
In fact, for five or six centuries no institution funded and supported the sciences more than the Church. They don’t teach that in school, which yet again demonstrates the danger of mixing atheism and education. Atheism has to hide from so much, deny so much, and twist and manipulate so much, because its existence is always jeopardized by the scorching light of truth. To paraphrase CS Lewis, an atheist has to be careful about what he reads and which facts he encounters. There are traps everywhere.
When western scientific knowledge came to places like China and India in the 1600′s, it came by way of Christians and their science-hating Christianity. You’d be hard pressed to find a single bit of modern scientific knowledge that wasn’t discovered, or heavily influenced by, the work of devout Christians.
Do the progressive science lovers, who use the Big Bang to “disprove” God, even know the name of the guy who originally formulated the hypothesis? Well, they think the universe and the human mind came about my happenstance, so I guess it follows that the Big Bang Theory just appeared magically in text books one day. But, unfortunately for them, just like the Big Bang itself, the theory has an originator. His name was Monseigneur Georges Lemaitre. “Monseigneur,” for the uninitiated, means “priest” in France-talk.
Those who broadly mock religion, and who pretend that Christianity inhibits education and discovery, aren’t just arrogantly dismissing Joe Schmoes like me. Yesterday I received a typical email from a tolerant progressive atheist. It read, in part, “f**ck you and your Jesus bull sh*t. You people are all idiots constantly afraid of real education.” Oh, don’t worry, he then segues from calling billions of people “idiots” who believe in “Jesus bull sh*t” to railing against Christians for being “bigoted” and “hateful,” just as you’d expect. Masters of unintentional irony, these left wing atheists.
But are we Christians all “idiots”? Well, I don’t mind if you say that about me, but was Da Vinci an idiot? Aquinas? Shakespeare? Mozart? Washington? Locke? Martin Luther King Jr? Edison? Tesla? Alexandar Graham Bell? Adam Smith? Marconi? Chesterton? Lewis? MacDonald? Dickens? Faulkner? Tolkein? Marco Polo? Neil Armstrong? Magellan? Columbus? Henry Ford? All of these guys are idiots, along with the scientific pioneers I mentioned earlier? They all hated education? I mean, sure, they weren’t as smart as modern liberals — they certainly can’t compete with the atheist intellectuals of our day, like Seth McFarlane and Angelina Jolie — but they were sort of clever in their own way, don’t you think?
Science, just like any other subject, is multidimensional. There is the fact, and then there is the meaning behind the fact, and then there is the motivation to pursue the fact and its meaning, and then there is the issue of how to apply and interpret all of these things. In other words, science does advance or regress drastically depending on the prevailing philosophy of any civilization. Christian civilizations advanced science immeasurably because they were Christian civilizations. If you take God out of the study of the origin of life, not only are you left with a confused and arbitrary thing, riddled with holes and inconsistencies, but you’ve also stripped the subject, and the study of the subject, of its meaning and purpose.
Our understanding of the universe deepened so profoundly during the Christian era because of the Christian tradition that brought a sense of order and rationality to the universe. Now political and ideological forces wish to decapitate existence from the Mind that created it, thus shredding its order and meaning, and leaving us with a “science” that has regressed back into something incoherent and archaic. Atheism does not advance science — it doesn’t advance anything — it does only what it is designed to do: confuse and destroy.
You can’t take Christianity out of the classroom no matter how hard you try. If you take it out, most everything — especially science — goes with it. Christianity is woven into the fabric of most every academic subject (except gender studies). You can, however, remove Atheism, and I think it’s time we do that. Such a silly superstition — uncaused causes removed from the Ultimate Cause, human consciousness that develops accidentally out of lifeless material, order coming from chaos, rationality coming from irrationality, everything coming from nothing — has never done anyone any good, and it doesn’t belong inside a school.
Really, we must get atheism away from education before we all end up like the modern atheist’s greatest prophet, Nietchsze, who died insane and naked, eating his own feces in a mental institution. This is not the sort of fate we should wish upon our children.
Think of the children, for goodness sake.
Click here to listen to Senator Paul on the show: 2013-9-12 - Senator Paul with Matt Walsh
Our politicians really support the troops. I mean, they say it all the time. They wear their ribbons and their flag pins, and they constantly talk about how our men and women in uniform are the best and brightest in the world. And how do they demonstrate their love and respect for our noble servicemen? Well, by finding every conceivable reason to keep them as far away from their own families and communities as possible. Our leaders “support” the troops by throwing them into every Godforsaken cesspool and war-torn hell hole across the globe, on impossible missions to accomplish murky and untenable objectives. They show their affection for our military members by sitting around all day thinking of ways to get them killed.
Oh, but their adulation for Marines, soldiers and sailors can’t end with simply using them as pawns in their sadistic geopolitical chess matches; they continue the love affair when (if) the veterans return home. At that point, these vets find their benefits cut, their voices silenced, and, for good measure, they end up on a Homeland Security terrorist watch list. No matter, I suppose, because they’ll soon be sent back overseas to fight against, or with, or for, or with but also against, the barbarian hordes in some other desert wasteland, all because the President ran his mouth and now needs to wage a war to avoid looking silly.
So when you hear some bloated, crusty, degenerate, establishment politician blabber about his “support” for our troops, please realize what “support” probably means in his universe. Please know that you are listening to a murderer. Maybe not a murderer in the legal sense, but in the sense of a man who would send other people’s sons and daughters halfway around the world to invade another nation, all for the sake of his pride, and for his politics, and for his foolishness, and for his blood lust. Like I said, not murder in the legal sense, but God doesn’t judge these things by man’s law.
I’ve got a proposal for those freaks in DC, who can’t seem to go five days without finding a reason to “intervene” in another country’s affairs, while our own nation descends further into bankruptcy and ruin: let’s have our military invade America for a change. I’m not talking about Martial Law. I’m talking about sending them in to occupy their homes, neighborhoods, and PTAs. Let’s have our service members intervene in their families, communities, and churches. Rather than shipping them off to the Middle East to hunt for Uncle Sam’s boogeymen, why don’t we ship them back to their own lives, where they have jobs and kids and bills and responsibilities? Instead of dropping them into the midst of another foreign civil war in search of more monsters to destroy, why don’t we put them back into their houses and allow them to be dads, moms, husbands and wives again? In other words, why don’t we send America’s military to the one place on Earth that could really use its help?
Whether or not Obama ultimately decides to clumsily back off of his Syria threats and pretend this whole thing never happened — a likely outcome, I think — my point still stands. In recent years we have completely abandoned even the pretense of caution, thoughtfulness and discernment; plunging ourselves into chaos and anarchy on every corner and in every rotting crevice of the map. And for what? For what? To bring “stability”? You call THIS “stability”? Please, never get into the business of bridge building, now that I’ve seen what passes for “stable” in your mind.
The men and women who join the service have talents and abilities unmatched by anyone else in the world, so what good has it done us to take these awesome people and disperse them haphazardly across the Earth, in an effort to maintain our confused and discombobulated pseudo-empire?
Don’t tell me that Syrian terrorists really “need” our military, don’t tell me that South Korea or Iraq or Afghanistan or Yemen or Jordan or Uganda or Egypt or Libya “needs” our military, I don’t want to hear it. WE NEED OUR MILITARY. Their kids need them, their spouses need them, their employers need them. We can not manage, monitor, or control the world. We never should have even tried, but we did and it hasn’t worked. The Roman Empire was undone by its imperialist ambitions after ruling the world for five centuries. We are disintegrating for similar reasons, except it only took us five decades.
I shudder when so many fools advocate for military “involvement” all over the planet, and then in the next breath they quote the Founding Fathers in order to make a point about a domestic issue of some kind. These qausi-imperialists have to be selective when they read about our Framers, so as to avoid quotes like this:
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” – James Madison
“Having seen the people of all other nations bowed down to the earth under the wars and prodigalities of their rulers, I have cherished their opposites, peace, economy, and riddance of public debt, believing that these were the high road to public as well as private prosperity and happiness.” – Thomas Jefferson
“A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang.” – Benjamin Franklin
“It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” – George Washington
“[America] has . . . respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings . . . Whenever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.” – John Adams
We’ve betrayed and abandoned all of these ideas, but particularly that last one from John Adams. There is not a phrase or concept in that quote that even remotely holds true for the US in 2013.
Of course we are dumb enough to think these words don’t apply in “modern” times, anyway. We have bombs, and tanks, and the internet now, so the principles espoused by our Founders in regards to warfare can’t be relevant, right? Wrong. Not just wrong, but childish and stupid to a degree that borders on psychosis. Principles aren’t altered by technological advancements. If they were, then the Bill of Rights is also moot, every idea at the foundation of our country is antiquated, and we are no longer America in any meaningful sense.
A minority of politicians today will articulate foreign policy views that mirror our Founders, and how are they treated because of it? They’re mocked, booed and heckled. Meanwhile, the president can pick a fight with a foreign dictator, set conflicting and capricious ultimatums, build false narratives, wage a propaganda campaign, declare the power to go to war without congressional approval — all of this despite the fact that the security of our nation was never at risk — and the public will not treat him near as harshly as they treat a politician who counters his warhawking with a foreign policy philosophy similar to the Founders.
Whatever happens with Syria, we are still a nation perpetually at war. This means our best and brightest are perpetually being killed and maimed on foreign soil, when they could be here, at home, working, leading, living. I think we have reached a point where the military would cease to exist if it actually recruited honestly. How many would join if they were told the truth up front: “Come enlist, kid! You can look forward to being sent all over the Earth for reasons that have nothing to do with defending your home country; one minute you’ll be fighting psychopaths and terrorists, the next minute you’ll be helping them overthrow a government. You’ll become the pawns and scapegoats for bureaucrats in DC. You’ll be hired out like mercenaries to do the bidding of Saudi royalty. You’ll fight constantly, but rarely for reasons that make sense, and likely never to defend your own nation. You’ll be used, abused, and then –if you reach the end of your service alive — you’ll be abandoned and forgotten by the same government you dutifully served. But at least we’ll help pay for college (maybe)!”
Not much of a sales pitch, and that’s only because it’s actually truthful.
So that’s why I’m calling for an American military intervention in America. Let’s take a break from trying to run the world, and try our hand at running America. If we’re going to do that, we’ll need help from the skilled, disciplined and brilliant folks in our armed services. Here we suffer greatly from a leadership void, and that has everything to do with the fact that we keep our best leaders busy micromanaging the bedlam in foreign countries. We’ve got our own turmoil inside the US, and I think it’s time to send in the cavalry to deal with it. Not with guns and grenades, but with the skills and character they’ve developed and, to this point, been forced to waste on dragon-slaying missions overseas.
Enough is enough. Let’s try peace, sovereignty and prosperity for a few years, just to see how it feels. It’s worth a shot, isn’t it?
I’ve listened to the arguments and looked at the evidence. There is no doubt that President Obama and Secretary Kerry have presented a convincing case for military intervention in Syria. As they outlined, terrorists, rapists, cannibals, killers and war criminals in that country are being murdered by their government, all because they’re simply attempting to violently overthrow it. Meanwhile, both sides are butchering civilians, but one side may have killed civilians with chemicals, therefore we have to drop bombs and kill more civilians to make a point about not killing civilians. Or maybe we’re going to drop bombs and kill civilians in order to demonstrate the proper and ethical way to incinerate women and children. Certainly it’s perfectly acceptable to behead Christians and exterminate entire villages, which is why we’re aiding and abetting the folks who are doing just that. But to conduct the extermination with chemicals? That’s crossing the line, sir. The RED line. (Unless it was actually the rebels who used the chemical weapons, in which case, hey, stuff happens.)
It all makes perfect sense. And certainly our government is in an unassailable position when it comes to lecturing other leaders about how to deal with rebellion. The United States government would never slaughter its own citizenry, even if the people in this country took to the streets and started shooting state officials. No, our leaders would simply put up their hands and say, “OK, you guys win! We don’t want anyone to get hurt! Here! Take our power from us! Take it!” That’s exactly how it would work, right? Just look at the Civil War. The South didn’t even want to overthrow the government, they just wanted to secede from it, and how did the Feds react? They just said, “Cool, you guys can go. Have a nice day!” They were so peaceful and reasonable about the whole thing, weren’t they?
So our Powers that Be can now sit atop their perch of Moral Righteousness and micromanage the entire globe. They’ve earned that right. Don’t question their methods, peons. You’re not in on the “classified briefings,” OK?
Oh, you want to know how, exactly, America will be made safer by helping Al Qaeda militants topple a foreign government? Well, maybe if you were in the CLASSIFIED BRIEFINGS, you’d understand.
Where is the physical evidence that the government launched the chemical attack, as opposed to the terrorist rebels? Classified briefings.
Didn’t this strategy already blow up in our face in Egypt and Libya? Classified briefings.
In what precise way is our national security threatened by the current president of Syria? Classified. Briefing.
Hey, isn’t it treasonous to provide direct or indirect financial and/or military support to a group, like Al Qaeda, that has declared war on the United States? CLASSIFIED BRIEFINGS. CLASSIFIED BRIEFINGS.
Is this president a reckless, blubbering, narcissistic, power hungry fool? Again, I point you to the classified briefings.
See, a lot of people have hang ups about arbitrary military action overseas, but that’s only because they don’t understand the situation. They don’t seem to grasp the fact that we are in a “Global Community.” Global can be defined as, “worldwide, universal,” and community can be defined as “the people in a particular area.” In other words, the two concepts are literally directly opposed to one another. It makes as much sense to say we live in a spherical cube as it does to say we live in a global community. What does all this mean? Nothing, that’s the point. In modern times we have transcended archaic things like “logic,” and “coherence,” so you can not hold our leaders to such primitive standards. Nothing makes any sense, nobody means anything they say, words don’t have definitions, and the law is meaningless. This, my friends, is the essence of modern enlightenment.
So, yes, invade Syria. Burn it to the ground. Besides, I’m bored and there’s nothing else to do.