Obama was right not to go to Paris

Neocon Byron York thinks Obama, or at least one of his closest lackeys, should have gone to Paris to march in the Unity Rally. Now Neocon journalists, columnists, and talking heads (York would probably qualify as all 3), exist mainly for the following reasons: Defend the Israeli government from all criticism and promote US involvement in every war anywhere on the planet.  So it’s not surprising they would use the Charlie Hebdo murders as an excuse to criticize a Democratic president who has been less bellicose than his Republican predecessor when it comes to threatening death and destruction on Israel’s chosen enemies.

But this stupidity about how Obama or Biden or Kerry had to march in some French parade that supposedly has to do with freedom of speech is one of the dumber arguments these so-called “conservatives” have made lately.  I just have to point out some inconvenient facts for York, Fox News, the Weekly Standard, The War Street Journal, the New York Post, and anyone else who thinks World War III needs to commence over a shooting at a magazine in France that no one who doesn’t speak French has ever heard of:

1. France does not have free speech protection.  There is no 1st Amendment in France. They will throw you in jail if you criticize the wrong ethnic group or question the official narrative regarding the Holocaust.

2, Obama does not believe in free speech.  He jails whistle blowers, spies on journalists, and wants to “regulate” the internet.

3. Charlie Hebdo does not believe in free speech.  They have urged the National Front Party in France to be banned.

4. Charlie Hebdo hates Christianity.  They’ve mocked it even more than Islam.  Yet many Christian conservatives apparently want to escalate the Terror War to avenge some left-wing Atheist French newspaper.

5. Obama would have been criticized if he’d gone.  And rightfully so for that matter.  It’s a huge waste of money for the President to travel abroad with his multi-million dollar security detail that has to be paid for by tax victims of the US and host governments.

6. None of the “world leaders” who showed up for the Unity Rally believe in free speech either.  Many of them also use their militaries to commit violence to further their political goals (what’s the definition of terrorism again?).

7. 20 people were killed.  That sucks.  It happened in France, not the USA.  It’s France’s problem.  Mass killings like this unfortunately happen in the USA several times a year, but I don’t think we need the French President coming over here to protect us.  Not everything is the US President’s responsibility!

8. What possible difference would it have made if Obama had been there?  Would ISIS cease to exist?  Would Muslims all over the world decide they love the the Empire now that the leader of the “Free” World marched in some dumb parade?  Why does corny symbolism matter so much to these hyper-nationalist armchair warriors?

Is tragedy in Paris any of US government’s business?

The murder of twelve employees of a French magazine, allegedly by Islamic terrorists, is certainly a tragedy.  Whatever was printed in Charlie Hebdo, it’s outrageous that anyone would be killed over it.  Regardless of terrorism or whether the average Muslim is particularly violent, I can also sympathize with Europeans wary of massive immigration into their homelands.  I rather enjoy living in a Western society myself, and if you flood it with non-Westerners the culture changes.  Not in a good way, as far as I’m concerned.  I have some apprehension about what will happen to much of the United States over the coming decades as we continue to import Asians and Latinos by the millions.

Yet I can’t help but think this tragedy is being blown out of proportion by the US media and the regime in Washington.  There have been bigger terrorist attacks in Europe in the 21st century.  Remember London in 2005?  How about Madrid in 2004?  These were seized upon by the Neocons in power in the US at the time to justify the war in Iraq.  But one could certainly argue they were reprisals for the UK and Spain’s support of that very war.  After all, that war was supposed to make the West safer, and yet Europe was suffering some of its worst terrorism in decades a few years into it.

And of course not all terrorism in Europe has been of the Islamic variety.  Remember the 2011 Oslo attacks perpetrated by an anti-Muslim pro-Israel right winger?

I guess my point is that just because there was a shooting or bombing in some European city, it doesn’t mean all of a sudden North America is in danger and we have to double down on the never ending Terror War.  Obama and his underlings have declared this an assault on freedom of the press and freedom of expression which is why we all have to stand in solidarity with what seems to be a French version of Mad Magazine.  But here in the USA, who’s more likely to abridge my freedom of speech?  An Islamic terrorist or our rulers in Washington who want to “regulate” the internet?  Obama also pledged to help France catch the perpetrators, but why is that necessary?  Are these shooters on their way to New York to kill Americans?  Can France not handle it’s own murder investigation? Every time 12 people are murdered in the USA should Obama go ask foreign governments to help catch the killers?

And that brings me to my next point.  I don’t want to sound heartless, but 12 Frenchmen died.  How is that the most important thing for the US media and government to focus on right now?  Just a few weeks ago 132 children were murdered in Pakistan.  That didn’t get nearly as much press here in America, even though it could be argued that Obama’s War on Afghanistan contributed to that massacre.  38 people were murdered in Chicago in December alone.  And that’s typical for Obama’s adopted hometown.

One final thought.  Not including the past year, Obama has killed 2,400 people via drone. At least 273 of them were civilians.  Keep that in mind the next time you hear the Emperor condemning a murder or terrorist attack.


Did people march at Selma 50 years ago for Democracy?

Ava Duvernay, the director of Selma, sat down with Oprah Winfrey’s best friend for an interview on CBS to promote the film.  This was part of her response to a question about some possible historical inaccuracies in the movie:

“If there is anything that we should be talking about in terms of legacy, it is really the destruction of the legacy of the Voting Rights Act and the fact that that very act is no more in the way that it should be, protecting all voices to be able to heard and participate in the electoral process. That is at risk right now. There’s been violence done to that act. We chronicle its creation in our film. And so I would just invite people to keep their eyes on the prize and really focus on the beautiful positives of the film.”

So I guess the most important thing to come out of the Civil Rights “era” was that black people were able to vote.  Because democracy equals freedom and justice and now there’s a black president and all black people are really happy and have no problems and everything’s just great.

The only problem is that now it’s all at risk.  Probably because of evil white southern Republicans.  So everybody that watches Selma needs to make sure they vote for people who won’t take away black people’s right to vote (Democrats I guess?) or else we’ll go back to the terrible 1950’s when blacks couldn’t vote.

Or something like that.  I mean I am white so maybe I just don’t understand.  Maybe if I shell out $15 to see this Paramount Picture, I’ll start to figure it all out.

This white guy understands:

“And then I came to the end of that fabulous film and I thought, ‘God, she got it! How did she do it?’ I was on the Pettus Bridge and I watched the mayhem, the madness of Sheriff Clark. She got it. I was there. I saw it. She wasn’t there, but she got it. When I was seeing the film, I was seeing what I remembered, truly remembered.”

So there!

Our overlords want to ban e-cigarettes

Steve Forbes makes some valid points if you care to read them here.  Indeed, the FDA is threatening the ban of e-cigs until they’re “proven” safe.  Of course that’s ridiculous.  I’m sure there is some danger from ingesting nicotine so if our rules in Washington, D.C. want to ban them, I’m sure they’ll find an excuse.

As a Libertarian of course I don’t think there should be any government restrictions on smoking of any kind.  You should be allowed to smoke unless you’re on the property of someone who won’t allow it.  That includes cigars, cigarettes, marijuana, crack, or anything else.

But the manufactured controversy over e-cigarettes illustrates two more specific things that are wrong with present day Amerika.

The first issue is this insistence by the State to almost immediately ban any new product that comes out in the market that is in some way associated with a drug that is already illegal or restricted in some way.

Someone decided to mix alcohol and caffeine and sell it?  Ban it.  It could be dangerous. After all people are too stupid to realize you can put vodka in Red Bull.  It’s not like someone saw that people were already doing this and decided to meet the demand the way Reese’s combined chocolate and peanut butter right?

Someone’s selling incense made with legal substances that when smoked gives similar effects to marijuana?  Ban it.  Chuck Schumer will have none of that.  Some people claimed that these synthetic marijuana-like concoctions were potentially more harmful than actual marijuana.  That may well be the case, but if marijuana weren’t illegal, no one would have invented these things in the first place.

Someone’s selling nicotine in a new way? Ban it. The government hasn’t studied it for ten years and forced manufacturers to pay them for the privilege of allowing them to sell it.

I’m sure in all these cases the more established beer and tobacco companies have lobbied hard for the bans.

The second issue is how people have completely lost perspective and common sense.  When governments first began banning smoking in private businesses, we were told it was to protect the health of non-smokers.  Adults were free to smoke they said, but they shouldn’t be able to do it indoors where they could make others sick.  I am quite suspicious that the dangers of second hand smoke have been exaggerated, but it’s not outrageous to believe that it’s unhealthy to spend a lot of time indoors with people smoking.  It doesn’t completely defy common sense.  After all you might cough if someone blows smoke in your face.  Your eyes might water when you’re in a smoky room.  So to save all the strippers and bartenders from lung cancer, our wise overlords had no choice but to ban indoor smoking.

But then they started banning it in parks and sports stadiums.  I’m sorry, but you really have to be an idiot to think you’re going to suffer health effects from being in the same park where people might be smoking.  It’s outdoors for Christ’s sake!  It’s only mildly inconvenient if you’re sitting right next to a smoker and you don’t like the smell.  That’s not even an issue in a public park because you can get up and move!  This was just about inconveniencing and ostracizing smokers and also handing out tickets to generate more revenue for local governments.

But now e-cigarettes?  There is no smoke involved yet “health organizations” want them banned indoors.  This defies common sense in almost every way you can look at it.  These are tobacco control advocates calling for these bans, but there’s no tobacco involved in e-cigarettes.  They cite reports by government agencies to support this ban, but these reports just say they haven’t studied them so they can’t certify them as safe.  They don’t offer any evidence that they’re dangerous. These e-cigs don’t give off smoke so there aren’t any “second hand smoke” health effects.

And now the FDA threatens to ban them outright because they might be dangerous, yet anyone who thought about it for 2 seconds would have to conclude that there is about 0% chance that they’re more dangerous than real cigarettes which would of course remain legal!

This whole “controversy” is about the State controlling you and crazed nanny-state zealots who are convinced that no one should be able to enjoy nicotine in any way, even if it’s enjoyed in a way that literally can’t bother anyone else.


“We don’t need these fringe guys as much as we did anymore,”

That’s what a GOP leadership aid said about any Republican House members who would dare question the authority of John Boehner.  “We can let them walk on certain bills, and it just won’t matter. That gives us breathing room.”

So isn’t it great that Republicans have an even greater majority to work with in the House of Representatives than they have had over the last four years?  Now John Boehnger can completely ignore the handful of House members who might actually have occasional Libertarian tendencies and focus on the core Republican priorities of promoting War and State Power.  Thanks a lot to all you freedom loving Republican voters out there!

NJ Gov is a Dallas Cowboys fan. He’s also a Warmongering Statist.

New Jersey’s obese and corrupt Governor, Chris Christie, is facing some criticism because he attended a Cowboys playoff game and was seen hugging Cowboys’ owner Jerry Jones.

Judging by press reports, it would appear some people think he shouldn’t be accepting gifts from the billionaire oil tycoon who is not particularly popular in the Garden State.  Some people also seem to think he shouldn’t be attending out of state football games while the NJ tax payer covers his security detail.  And I’m sure there are plenty of New Jerseyans who think he should root for one of the NFL franchises located in the state he governs.


I could not possibly care less how this fat bastard spends his free time or which football team he roots for.

Here’s what you need to know about Chris Christie:

He thinks any reduction in the size and scope of the US Military Empire is “dangerous,” and he thinks simply mentioning 9/11 victims is an argument in favor of a huge Empire.

He’s defended the Patriot Act.

He wants to fight the never ending Terror War and buys into the idea that ISIS is some kind of big threat to North America.

In fairness he has called the War on Drugs a “failure” so you have to give him some credit for that.  But he also called it “well-intentioned” proving his ignorance of history, and he’s against the legalization of anything currently illegal, even marijuana.

Let’s be clear.  Christie is a Warmongering Police Statist.  As far as I’m concerned he’s a fat, white, Republican version of his good buddy Barack Obama.  They only differ in style, not substance.