Previous

Contents

Next

Of COURSE you're free. Now shut-up.
by L. Reichard White
[email protected]

Special to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

That wimpy unpatriotic peace-monger Ron Paul doesn't want to start a war with Iran! What's wrong with him? Doesn't he know that after being forced out of Iraq, we're now at least one war short? And no, Pakistan doesn't count yet.

So what if Israel has at least 400 nukes—and we don't bother them? And the evidence of Iran's WMD nuke program is complete B.S.? That inconvenient detail can be easily overcome. After all, the Bush Administration successfully used non-existent WMD as an excuse for attacking the people in Iraq—and we managed to stay there for almost nine years anyway. True, Bush & Co. got busted for the 935 lies they told to get it on, but they told a bunch more lies they didn't get caught for.

And even two wars is nothing compared to Dubya—he thought BIG. As retired General Wesley Clark explained, the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 7 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. It looks like President Obama is well along in following up on that agenda. In an interview with Amy Goodman on March 2, 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 7 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran. A few folks even call President Obama "Bush without Bush."

And I'm sick and tired of hearing this drivel that "we haven't been legally at war since the end of WWII." It's true, but so what? Call it a pseudo-war, "police action" (Korea), "humanitarian war" (Libya), what ever you want. It's good for the economy.

Yes, these wars have all been unconstitutional, but Dubya already covered that: "The Constitution is nothing but a damn piece of paper," remember. Barack calls it "an imperfect document," and, especially when it comes to war, he likewise wisely ignores it.

Ron Paul doesn't want to kill people in Iran? Someone please shut these irritating bleeding hearts up! Those 1.4 million dead men, women, and children President Bush and President Obama caused in Iraq don't matter. Remember all the dead Afghan men, women and children? They're all freaking foreigners for crissake!!

And besides, long before Dubya came on the scene, Clinton & Co.— Madeline "Mad" Albright and Bill Richardson for example—endorsed sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi kids in pursuit of "U.S. policy." So what's the big deal?

True, the 4,500 or so American deaths in Iraq—and the 32,000 American soldiers wounded (not to mention record levels of life-long PTSD ) are unfortunate. But we all know we have to make sacrifices for Wall Street, the bankers and the Military Industrial Congressional Complex so they can turn a profit—and the 1% can keep us working for them. So it's a good thing Homeland Security regards the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street demonstrators as terrorist threats.

And not to worry, our young people below the age of 23 know how to live this life-style. At least one third of them have already been arrested at least once.

We all know freedom isn't free after all, so this worry that the NDAA 1301 authorization to detain U.S. citizens indefinitly "without charge, or trial" will be used to "disappear" us is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that President Obama just signed it into law. We already know we have to give up our freedom so we can be free. It's a long-standing tradition dating back to at least the Vietnam "war" when we had to destroy the villages to save them.

So of course you're free.

Now shut-up!

January 3, 2012 L. Reichard White [send him mail] has supported his writing habit by teaching Physics, managing a theater company, etc.—but mostly by beating casinos at their own games. You can find other dubious results from this questionable habit here.

Was that worth reading?
Then why not: