Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Adam Kokesh is not a conservative.  He’s not a libertarian.  He’s a fake, a liar and a shitbag who has consistently foulmouthed our troops.

The guys at This Ain’t Hell have more, as does Cassy.

He enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1999, and served in Fallujah as a
sergeant in 2004. Before being disharged in 2006, he was demoted to
corporal for bringing a pistol he purchased in Iraq to the United
States. He now portrays himself a libertarian conservative, and has
even earned the endorsement of Ron Paul (surprise surprise). His shady
background shows that he isn’t a conservative at all, that he was a
poor NCO, and an awful excuse for a Marine.

After leaving the Corps, he joined Iraq Veterans Against the War. They’re a nasty little group. They’ve issued bomb threats against the Gathering of Eagles and threatend to assassinate Michelle Malkin. They’re the organization that gave us fake Army vet Jesse Macbeth.
This is the group that Adam Kokesh aligns himself with. IVAW blames the
war in Iraq on “corporate profiteering” and claim that the military is
“broken”. It’s also extremely similar to the Vietnam Veterans Against
the War, which was little more than a communist front group that held
the views that America is an imperialist nation, and that our soldiers
who aren’t against the war are murderers.

Kokesh is a scumbag.  He’s no one I would EVER want making decisions for this country. Hell, he’s no one I’d ever want serving me a burger at a drive thru!

He’s a disgrace to the uniform, and I think he should join the late John Murtha in being awarded the title of EX Marine.

Thank you again, Dr. Williams!

The great Walter Williams explains why health care is not a right.  I’ve explained it on this blog before, but the esteemed economics professor just breaks it down.

True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.

For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else’s rights, namely their rights to their earnings.The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover,there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

Here’s the way I look at it, folks.  It’s simple:

You’re walking home from work with $300 in your pocket.  A robber stops you, points a gun at your head, and forces you to give up your hard earned cash.  Is it theft?  Yes.  Is it immoral?  Yes.

Now…

You’re walking home from work wit $300 in your pocket, and the same robber stops you, points a gun at your head and says that he saw a guy lying on the sidewalk, starving to death, thirsty and bleeding. He’s taking your $300 to buy the guy some food and drink and a bandage.  The guy is dying.  He needs the food, water and bandage, and therefore, the robber lays a moral claim to your earnings for this needy guy on the sidewalk.  He’ll only keep a little for himself for the work he did threatening you with the gun.  It’s still theft, and it’s still immoral, because it takes your property by force, violating your right.

What is the difference between someone taking your money by force to help someone who needs it and Congress taking your money via government force (try not paying your taxes and see what happens to you, Al Capone!) to help those who need it?

“But wait!” you say.  We elected Congress and therefore we give them tacit consent to do what they feel is right.

ORLY?  OK.

You’re walking home from work wit $300 in your pocket, and the samerobber stops you, points a gun at your head and says that he saw a guylying on the sidewalk, starving to death, thirsty and bleeding. He’staking your $300 to buy the guy some food and drink and a bandage.  Theguy is dying.  He needs the food, water and bandage, and therefore, therobber lays a moral claim to your earnings for this needy guy on thesidewalk.  A crowd gathers around you and cheers on the robber, telling you that they believe the robber is right to rob you of your earnings, thereby giving him the moral sanction to take your property by force.  Does it make the act any less of a moral abomination?

Now this is not to say that if I saw the same guy bleeding, thirsty and hungry on the sidewalk, I wouldn’t help him.  Quite the opposite.  It’s called charity, and as Dr. Williams writes, “Reaching into one’s own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.”