A drone can be “an idle person who lives off others; a loafer, a drudge,” also known as Barack Obama. A drone is also “a pilotless aircraft operated by remote control,” frequently utilized by the aforementioned “idle person who lives of others” to kill others.
“When Obama was sworn into office in 2009, the nation’s clandestine drone war was confined to a single country, Pakistan, where 44 strikes over five years had left about 400 people dead, according to the New America Foundation. The number of strikes has since soared to nearly 240, and the number of those killed, according to conservative estimates, has more than quadrupled.” (WaPo)
The New America Foundation breaks it down in a table. Between 2004 and 2007, when Genghis Bush reigned supreme, we killed 112 Pakistanis. The total number of Pakistanis eliminated by drone between 2004 and 2011 was 2,680.
“Terrible,” “tricky” and “a phony”: Who was the incorrigible racist who thus described Martin Luther King Jr.? Was it the unknown author of the politically improper newsletters published under Rep. Ron Paul’s name during the 1980s and 1990s?
Not quite.
Those were the words of the nation’s most engaging first lady, Jacqueline Kennedy.
Audio recordings of Mrs. Kennedy’s historic 1964 conversations on life with John F. Kennedy were released in September of 2011. Conducted with the late historian Arthur Schlesinger—and delivered in her hallmark dulcet lilt and exquisite diction—the exchanges reveal Jackie as a dazzling conversationalist, and a forceful, thoughtful persona.
This Jacky O held a low opinion of MLK, the man America has since deified, and was unafraid to say as much.
There were many reasons not racist for which to dislike MLK, not least of them was the man’s dalliance with communists. “His associations with communists” is why Jacky’s husband, hero of Chris Matthews’ latest book, ordered the wiretaps on King.
Mrs. Kennedy’s brother-in-law, Robert Kennedy—recounts Patrick J. Buchanan in his towering “Suicide of a Superpower”—“saw to it that the FBI carried out the order.” Among his other endearing qualities, the not-so enchanting Martin Luther King had “declared that the Goldwater campaign bore ‘dangerous signs of Hitlerism.”
Indisputably, MLK set the tone for “assailing America as irredeemably racist” forever after. Other brothers have built on MLK’s work to sculpt careers as professional race hustlers.
Faithful to this legacy, the media monolith has been fulminating over the reference in the Ron Paul newsletters to …” MORE in “Ron Paul: Stand Tall For Middle America.”
Still better, shipping is free and prompt if you purchase Into the Cannibal’s Pot fromThe Publisher.
UPDATE I: IN THIS COLUMN I was trying hard to show how everyone, Paul too, twists into pretzels in order to blame … white, liberal politicians for the problems in the black community. It’s the explanation du jour: Democrats corrupted the black community. The Democrats ate my homework. Nothing, not even hags like Pelosi, can explain away the facts in my column.
But bad habits die hard. Our Myron writes:
There are 500,000 blacks in federal prison for non-violent drug offenses that would be free if that “racist” [Ron Paul] had his way! And there would likely be less “real crime” (against people and property) without the idiotically distorted economy created by the War on Drugs and anti-business regulations.
I oppose the war on drugs, always have. But unlike the libertine perspective that I believe Myron echoes, I have no delusions about the drug dealer. He is NOT a productive member of society, who has been corrupted by politicians. He is unlikely to become a productive member of society once drugs are legalized. If anything, the dealer is more likely a low-life looking for a way to make a living that involves no graft.
Our hoodlum will go in search of other sources of easy, no-graft cash. Upward mobility for the drug dealers is the next most lucrative contraband that will yield maximum profit with minimum effort.
UPDATE II: As an addiction expert explained to me, many cocaine or heroine recreational users work, are productive, and manage to keep their use under control. It is no one’s business what they do in private, so long as they perform the jobs for which they are hired and do not aggress against others.
I have distinguished the user from the dealer; and the recreational user from the addict. Naturally, none of these people should be arrested, except for property or other crimes perpetrated (for instance, if a used needle was tossed in a park, and someone was stuck and became ill; nab the user for harm done). However, don’t expect a good “career” outcome, post legalization, for the career dealer in the hood. Pimping and stealing will likely be his next “career” options. It is one thing to be pro-legalization on the grounds that an individual owns his body. It is quite another to fantasize about human nature. Were I Paul, I would follow up wishy-washy exhortation to legalize drugs with promises to enforce the law against property crimes and other spillover effects that may accompany the loss of an easy buck.
The corollary of my latest column is that only the obsequious lick-spittle toadies among us libertarians are going to use this mainstream argument to launch a witch hunt against other libertarians. The “Lite” variety of libertarian will relish the ideologically confused in-fighting, for he is indistinguishable from the Left in may ways.
UPDATE IV: Via LRC.COM. Robin Williams’ quips are not “racist”; in the context, they were realistic:
UPDATE V (Dec. 31): RAPE IN NORWAY IS AN IMPORTED AFFAIR.
UPDATE VI: DJ: What the Norwegian officer says is not unreasonable; you don’t want individuals to be stigmatized. At the same time, you’d like these Norwegian girls to be forewarned by their elders to watch out for themselves. You would never find American law-enforcement officers making such an honest admission. Should you, do send it along … before the officer is fired. Europe is way ahead of the US in exposing the unhappy cult of multiculturalism.
Are these kids mere libertines, more committed to toking it up than cutting an overweening state’s reach and spending? It doesn’t appear so. The New York Times believes that, “For the students, much of Mr. Paul’s appeal derives from civil libertarian views like ending the federal ban on marijuana and other drugs, as well as his desire to end foreign wars and his small-government credo.”
I have never been in favor of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, smuggled into the Constitution by statute. The Amendment artificially swelled the ranks of Democratic voters, which has further eroded any protections the Constitution afforded to private property, and swayed the balance of power in favor of those who “vote for a living,” as opposed “those who work for a living.”
However, if Ron Paul’s youthful devotees are voting for negative, leave-me-alone rights—then, by all means, hop on board and bring along your pals on the Left.
Lawmakers in Arizona, Mississippi, Indiana, Utah, South Carolina and Alabama have successfully passed strong enforcement legislation against illegal immigration … The U.S Department of Justice has moved forward with lawsuits against four of those states, and Arizona’s well-known bill, S.B. 1070, will be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court some time next spring. … The main focus of the DOJ lawsuits are laws that give local police authority to check the immigration status for individuals during traffic stops and other minor violations.
According to the Los Angeles Times, federal judges have responded by blocking these “strict new immigration laws adopted by conservative legislatures in half a dozen states …” However, “legal experts believe the Supreme Court’s conservative majority will take a sharply different approach.”
The high court said it would hear the Arizona immigration case in April, and Eastman said he expected the justices to divide along the same lines as in the May ruling upholding Arizona’s sanctions on employers who hire illegal workers. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined with Roberts in that case.
As a legal immigrant, I went through an ordeal to get into the US. About me, Uncle Sam knows, for instance, that I do not carry any dread diseases. (I suspect some of you are relieved to know that the new immigrants at your kid’s school are TB free, right? Oh, they’re illegal?) Would I mind if a cop asked me for my ID, if he had reason to suspect I was up to no good? Why would I? The last time a cop asked me for an ID was when I applied for a license to carry concealed. That seemed eminently reasonable.
UPDATE (Dec. 30): Myron, unchecked crime is no answer. What a terrible position a liberal American is in: He much admit that as an upstanding citizen who obeys the law, he should be left unmolested by those who’ve sworn to protect him, whereas those who are not in this category should be sent packing. The upshot of this hue and cry over checking the immigration status of individuals who’ve broke the law will be that the poor natives will continue to be molested by the homegrown terrorists of the TSA, whereby your average illegal drunk driver, a lethal weapon, will leave the scene of an accident having obtained all the protections the ACLU can agitate for.
