Posts Tagged ‘Reason (magazine)’

Reason: Obama is obviously a warmongering president

November 21, 2015

About Steve Chapman, writer of record of this article at Reason Magazine:
Hillary’s Appetite for War

The author says “The president himself is partly to blame” for getting Democrat Party members and followers and the public “inured” to war. Hey guys, he is to blame for jumping in with both feet. President Truman hung out a sign on his desk: “The buck stops here”. The expression, for you younger guys, means he’s the boss and takes the blame for his underlings.

Obama loves to blame the “top one percent” for everything their companies do, why soft-pedal this thing with him. What, he listens to his Secretary of State and former rival for top dog, and his coterie of adviser women, and he has no blame for anything?

And then this “Reason” author says something that in this real world sounds irrational:

“Obama has also refused to be panicked into reckless military action against Syria”.

BALONEY.

Americans were tired of war, and even when they tried the false flag operation of getting the Syrian “rebels” to use chemical weapons against civilians while blaming it on Syria, in one marvelous demonstration of the importance of an independent free-for-all Internet, it took one lonely unsung European reporter to blow the whistle on them.

(By the way, the U. S. has stockpiles of those weapons, and used a banned chemical warfare weapon against its own civilians at Waco, Texas. That “tear gas” was a chemical used in Vietnam to kill the Vietcong in their tunnels.)

In other words, Obama either approved the operation or post-facto nodded at it.

OBAMA IS ALL IN AGAINST ASSAD AND HELPING SYRIAN REBELS AND ISIS INCLUDED

Everybody who isn’t head-stuck in the sand knows by now that D.C. is pouring aid into Saudi Arabia as back-channel help for the “rebels” in Syria. Almost everybody should know by now –if you’re paying attention– that Saudi Arabia is pouring rivers of financing and arms to ISIS. On occasion the war hawks talk about using the Middle East allies more, but they don’t say too much.

Now we find out that Obama has deliberately ordered the troops to let ISIS sell their oil.

Somebody reading this is rolling their eyes because they believe government media (PBS, NPR, CNN, FNC,FBN, CNBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, Washington Post, etc). He just announced in a big news story that they dropped leaflets warning oil truck drivers to get out of the way, for around 100 of them waiting at the ISIS oil docks.

The Pentagon has been watching they said, over a THOUSAND of these trucks filling up and they have not bombed them.

Obama is waging a PRETEND war against ISIS. Obama is all in for helping al Qaeda and ISIS overthrow Assad in Syria. Obama saw nothing wrong with Hillary Clinton’s helping al Qaeda get rid of Gaddafi.

Gaddafi had become one of the best allies against al Qaeda in the Middle East. He turned over their bad guys and he gave up his nuclear program. That’s why he was confused about the West attacking him so hard.

What about the propaganda against him that claimed he was attacking civilians? My question is, why did the media go along with that propaganda without mentioning that the Libyan “rebels” were doing much worse? Where is the story that exposes the lie that said all the blacks defending Gaddafi were “mercenaries”, when in fact they were the people who were treated well in Gaddafi’s Libya and that knew the Yankee-supported NATO-armed “rebels” were fatally dangerous to them?

Why did nobody ask why the Obama-Clinton regime was supporting rebels that committed much worse atrocities against civilians? If getting rid of monsters is the goal, why aren’t they attacking the worst of them?

“Massacre of Blacks in Libya By NATO-backed Rebels Continues as World Watches”:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/massacre-of-blacks-in-libya-by-nato-backed-rebels-continues-as-world-watches/26643

Who in their right mind believes this? Oh, yeah, maybe the same ones that believed the troops would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvliUuXjbL4

And quoting a Washington Post propagandist that said Obama shows “an appreciation not just of the limits of U.S. power, but also of the limited need to exercise it.”

We can all see that he pushes U.S. power where he wants it, and that is, AGAINST the United States and its future. Contrary to the “peaceful guy” government propaganda, he is actively supporting operations that will be the country’s ruin, and he knows it. How can he not, unless his IQ is a lot less that his hiding of college records suggests.

You cannot blame Hillary Clinton for Obama’s continued war against Syria, his pretense bombing of ISIS while supporting Saudi Arabia’s support for ISIS in Syria. You can blame Obama for refusing to cooperate with Russia against ISIS, but not as a “weakness” or “peaceful” man. The truth is rather obvious: they don’t want it known that their support for “moderate Syrians” is a bogus smokescreen disinformation cover. Russia asked the U.S. to tell them where to avoid bombing, then asked them where to bomb.

How strange, two months or so after Obama’s own propaganda campaign for bombing Assad’s forces had hit a blowback wall, ISIS bursts onto the news cycle with captured American tanks and captured Iraqi oil wells, complete with a change in American opinion.

A libertarian answers Reason Magazine’s “conservative” case for gay marriage

October 8, 2013

A. Barton Hinkle has written an article found at Reason Magazine contributing reasons he believes conservatives have for supporting same-sex marriage, other than the old boiler-plate equality argument:
http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/07/a-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage

Being of libertarian persuasion myself, I think the government should not only get out of the business of telling people who to marry or not to marry, but get out of the business of “licensing” anybody at all to marry. There should be no benefit to marrying or not marrying, at all. Or any government-with-guns favored behavior at all.

But some of these things deserve answering in the context outside of that, because too many libertarians mistakenly think that supporting such a thing in general is a libertarian cause. I say that because their arguments show it.

(1) Gay marriage is good for “the institution of marriage.

Just because you’re under the illusion that “gay marriage” means more marriages does not make it so. I say illusion not because it necessarily means the opposite but because this assertion is a facile kind of argument, along the lines of the superficial supposition that anything government does for a group is good for them. That’s not an analogy to the argument, it’s just to say that this “reason”, at least the reasoning, does not take into account the unintended consequences, which is something libertarians are supposed to specialize in.

In fact the author recognizes some of this anyway when he admits that marriage between cats and mice would not strengthen the institution of marriage.

And one more thing, simply saying that “gay marriage” gets gay people to buy into a “(conservative)” value set (parentheses his), presupposes that a “conservative” value set including marriage with commitment would include the idea of same-sex marriage, something that a great many conservatives of course sharply disagree with.

In fact, gay marriage is another big blow to the institution of marriage and of the natural family. Not to mention intellectual honesty and common sense. The first one was easy divorce, which I view as a symptom rather than cause. Gay marriage is the second. Some groups advocating “gay marriage” already –quietly of course– include polygamy in their list of demands. After that will be group marriages.

But what this movement is really about is not about equality. It is driven more by powers and shadowy groups that seek to end the institution of marriage altogether, and absolutely fits what I used to support as a college-age Communist, full-blown. It’s part of the platform of the Communist Party, as listed by Karl Marx himself in the Communist Manifesto, right alongside central banks and dictatorships.

(2) Gay marriage fosters virtue.

Social conservatives believe sexual promiscuity is bad for the body and corrosive to the soul – that the sexual revolution’s encouragement of licentiousness has degraded social norms and debased our common virtue. If they are right about that, then allowing homosexuals to enter lifetime monogamy ought to be altogether desirable – just as it is desirable for heterosexuals, and for the same reasons.

Muy bonito, as they would say in Latin America. “Allowing homosexuals to enter lifetime monogamy” is desirable. Listen, A. Barton, not one person is America is preventing any “gay couple” in America or anywhere else from “entering lifetime monogamy”. Any gay couple can do that without pretending to be wed in what you called “holy” matrimony.

In fact, it would do the opposite in a number of ways.

One Christian speaker tells about a time when during Q&A, a “gay couple” arose to tell him they were engaged in a monogamous relationships. He asked this “gay man” for “how much” they were monogamous. Say, 100%, 90%, 60%? And the young man answered, “about 80%”. This young man did so apparently without even thinking.

The speaker of course highlighted the difference between “gay marriage” monogamy and heterosexual monogamy in the answer. He said his wife would never tolerate such a “monogamous “marriage”. In fact, almost all Hollywood movies recognize that one “infidelity” breaks the monogamy.

(3) Gay marriage benefits children.

Oh really?! Wow. Almost every social study on the subject has shown that by almost any objective criteria, in general, children raised in a home with both a father and a mother do better later on than those raised in any other family configuration.

In fact, the ACLU argument quoted here, mitigates against their own position, saying that denying same-sex “marriage” is to deny those children “the protection and stability of having parents who are married.” One of the most repeated points made by advocates is that heterosexual marriage is already broken, and they are right.

That’s because there’s so much selfishness, self-centeredness in the culture, and so many more people today than before who have grown up to think they have to claim all their “rights” and so cannot see another’s perspective. (Right here some are thinking I should consider another’s perspectives, but I have and it is irrelevant to the point. So read it again).

The point is, the reasons homosexual marriages are breaking down are part of the same phenomenon that drives the reasons argued for “gay marriage”.

The statement quoted there that “There is no evidence that gay parents are any less effective or loving than heterosexual ones” is actually and factually incorrect. Every relevant study shows a father and a mother in the home is best for the child. The words “less effective” cover a lot of ambiguity. “No evidence” probably means the speaker has avoided seeing it, and when pointed to it, just issues the mantra chant of “bigotry” as if using the word without addressing the issues raised would counter every argument.

(4) Banning gay marriage injects government where it doesn’t belong.

I agree with this, but it’s because marriage itself is something where the government does not belong.

As a matter of fact, demanding the government issue licenses for “gay marriage” is to recognize that government in fact must determine what is the optimal role for a family. Traditionally the entire culture, in fact almost all cultures for millenia, have considered gay coupling as something way outside of marriage, because marriage has always been seen as a natural institution that was best for raising children.

Even demanding “gay marriage” is in a way a demand for the “right” to simulate heterosexual marriage.

Now this really intellectually dishonest argument:

Conservatives content they want to protect the institution of marriage and foster procreation by straight couples. First question: Show me where the Constitution says that is any part of government’s job. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Yeah, wait all you want, because this belies the obvious, and the use of phrasing “protect the institution of marriage and foster procreation by straight couples” is a misdirection that avoids another strong argument against the “constitutionality” of forcing “gay marriage” on the body politic.

First, I don’t know of even one conservative who points to the Constitution when they say that, so that’s disingenuous. To knock down the argument, you need to address it, not misdirect it like an illusionist.

Second, libertarians do not generally point to the Constitution for the basis for their arguments. Ron Paul has indeed used the constitutionality argument against many things, but he wraps it with the real reasons for his constitutional positions.

Third, SHOW ME ONE OF THE SIGNERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, EVEN ONE, WHO SAID ANYTHING THAT WOULD SUGGEST that they considered a marriage to be anything other than between a man and a woman, and the natural institution for raising children.

I dare anybody to show me evidence for any founding father of the nation or anyone who voted to ratify the Constitution, that might suggest they would think of marriage as anything else. In fact we all know that even marriages without children, after many years, would be considered a marriage that is missing something.

We all know this. We also know that this is why it is not explicit. It would have laughed out of the first draft, along with calls for repealing the laws of gravity, or motion, or biology.

Fourth, procreation has always been understood implicitly as part of the package in marriage. That’s why many states (most?) have required blood tests before issuing a marriage license, because incompatible blood types made a dangerous Russian roulette game for the babies.

So there is a great cost to society in same-sex marriage, and Dennis Prager has shown in detail how this works. They are a minority among “gays”, also, but there is a significant minority among currently practicing “gays” that strongly argue against “gay marriage”, I have heard them.

In fact, if government had not gotten involved in the first place with “licensing” and now we have pastors marrying people by the power vested in them by the state of so-and-so, then there would have been so such clamor, and the idea would have been seen in general with some humor.

Nothing less than the Constitution

July 15, 2012
FIRST HEALTHCARE, NEXT THE FOOD SUPPLY:  WHAT ...

FIRST HEALTHCARE, NEXT THE FOOD SUPPLY: WHAT ARE CONSERVATIVES DOING SIGNING ON TO THIS MADNESS? (Photo credit: SS&SS)

Congressman tells Conservative Activists that fighting for the Constitution is a losing battle, but he is immediately corrected: