RED STATE Vs. ALEX JONES & THE INFOWAR

Topher Morrison
PurpleSerf.com


While I may not always connect the dots Alex Jones puts out there on his sites Infowars.com or Prisonplanet.com he undoubtedly is a personality on the rise.  Alex Jones has been covering the "New World Order" or the "Globalists", as he calls them, for over 16 years.  Many times I have heard people refer to him as the Neo (referring to the blockbuster movie the Matrix) of modern day geopolitics, able to see through the Matrix and decode what is happening behind the scenes, but more importantly what will happen.  


The ultimate example of Jone's abilities was his uncanny prediction of 9/11 on July 25th, 2001.  Not only did this radio talk show host predict the targets (World Trade Center), he identified the weapons (airplanes), and who would ultimately take the blame before most of America knew of Osama Bin Laden.


You may scream conspiracy theorist until you are blue in the face, but conspiracy theories are usually hatched after the fact.  In the following video Alex Jones pleads with his audience to call the government out in order to avert government sponsored terrorism or what Alex Jone's refers to as another Reichstag. 


Watch below:


Those on RedState.com, a conservative blog of note, apparently do not like Alex Jones.  His stories are commonly linked by news powerhouse Matt Drudge of DrudgeReport.com, a wildly popular conservative news aggregator, and apparently the right is getting a little annoyed.  


Recently the InfoWars team posted an article on Rick Perry (R), governor of Texas, called "Bilderberg-Approved Perry Set to Become Presidential Frontrunner" and in classic form (which I'll let you read yourself) Jones and Co. heavily critique the ostensibly conservative small government Republican.  The commenters of the Red State Army (as they call themselves, ironically Soviet sounding) evidently find it distasteful, although you wouldn't know it, as they spend most of their time attacking Jones calling him a "charlatan", "conspiracy theorist", "left wing", and a whole host of other ad hominems without really addressing any of his arguments. 


I am a registered member of Red State and have re-posted some of their commentators' work here on Purple Serf.  When I tried to add my comment this evening, I was told I hadn't been a member long enough.  Well, this is what you would have seen:


"Rick Perry is a former Democrat himself, albeit a Texas Democrat, to be sure he was branded a "pit bull" for his austere budgets in the Texas legislature.  Remember, however, Gov. Perry was the chairman of the '88 Gore campaign in Texas, what does this say about his ideological strength?  I mean Al Gore,  Mr. Carbon Tax!   


Alternatively, how does Rick Perry stand on two legs in an argument over a healthcare mandate when in 2007 he mandated that Texas girls receive the HPV vaccine Gardasil, granted the executive order ostensibly carried with it an opt out provision for parents.  Nonetheless this expensive vaccine was shouldered by Texas taxpayers!  What precedent does this set if he becomes president?  As far as the race, we'll officially have three candidates (Romney, Huntsman, and Perry) who have from one degree or another backed government intervention in health care.  How can Perry say with a straight face government doesn't belong in your doctors office?


See I didn't even touch Bilderberg, well... What's wrong with a "staunch states' rights advocate" meeting with a bunch of sycophantic global government pioneers?  It makes total sense."


- Purple Serf


Alex Jones' has predicted openly that Gov. Rick Perry will indeed run for the White House based on moles inside the Perry offices and due to Perry's purported vetting by the Bilderberg Group.  Red State enthusiasts claim Alex Jones and by extension Matt Drudge lose credibility by posting and linking about Bilderberg - we shall see.

Thou Shall Not Steal, Thou Shall Not Covet

Repair_Man_Jack
Red State
6/3/11


"You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour." - Exodus 20:17

Gallup may have identified yet another fault line that divides the American People into two ideological camps. They recently polled as to whether the rich should be heavily taxed to provide more social benefits for the poor.

"Republicans and Democrats have sharply different reactions to the government’s taking such an active role in equalizing economic outcomes. Seven in 10 Democrats believe the government should levy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth, while an equal proportion of Republicans believe it should not. The slight majority of independents oppose this policy."

Although no one would ever call me rich unless they meant it as a sardonic pejorative, my chosen title of this post accurately describes where I come down on this issue. Count me in with the 70% of Republicans and the 49% for reasons both positive and normative.

My positive reasoning is this. The US economy has to stop looking like it does according to what is hyped as “The Scariest Jobs Chart Ever.” The money, resources, and other assets have to be put in the hands of people who are competent. We need people who know their jobs, if we want to create more jobs. Whether you buy into Keynesian Theory for correcting a recession or not, those competent people are not currently running the US Government.

Spreading the wealth, pace Candidate Obama, often puts this money into incapable hands and leads only to lower-order, non-productive consumption. This fails to stimulate the economy beyond a brief burst. People unprepared to handle money properly, often times merely lose it. They then have the same problems they had in the first place. Take the sad example of lottery winner Jack Whittaker.

"Take the case of Jack Whittaker, the lone winner of $314 million. He picked the cash option and took home $114 million after taxes…. Today Whittaker is broke and his claim to fame is the run-ins with the law while having millions of dollars. How someone can go from having over $100 million to being broke is something most of us will never understand but it happens all too often."

If giving people large sums of money insulated them from consequence, Jack Whittaker would probably tootle around town in a brand new Ferrari. Certainly, a few of the retailers, strip clubs and divorce attorneys patronized by Mr. Whittaker got a nice economic sugar high. However, no meaningful, lasting improvement resulted from placing $114 million dollars of hot cash in inexperienced hands. A very similar case can be made about many of the recipients of President Barack Obama’s stimulus funds.

"The Government Accountability Office, in a report being released Tuesday, said at least 3,700 government contractors and nonprofit organizations that received more than $24 billion from the stimulus effort owed $757 million in back taxes as of Sept. 30, 2009, the end of the budget year." - Yahoo News

The examples of the broke lottery winners and the stimulus crooks are excellent counter-examples to the old Keynesian Theoretical argument that you can resuscitate a moribund economy by paying people to bury a collection of objects and then paying more people to dig them back up again. Meaningless government handouts, designed merely to goose the velocity of money, do nothing more than urinate a large collection of funds down the drain.

Then we get to the more moral arguments. How do we justify having the government steal the property of another person on our behalf? And make no mistake about it. When we order the government to go “make the rich pay their fair share,” this is precisely the moral behavior we truly engage in. My position on this is simple. Thou shall not covet. Thou shall not steal.

Let me make this perfectly plain, perfectly simple and perfectly offensive. If you believe the government should tax the rich to make them “pay their fair share,” you are greedy and you are a thief. It is just that simple. Just saying “Barack Obama taxed the rich, not me!” does not absolve that evil. It is a dishonest answer if you voted for the man or morally approve of his “spread the wealth” positions on taxation or regulation.

Any person who voted for Barack Obama for the express purpose of having him utilize the US tax and regulatory apparatus to take money away from the rich and give it to them personally, is the moral equivalent of a bank robber. Neither I, nor any other person alive, is entitled to two red cents out of another person’s stash just because we don’t have as much.

Class envy and class warfare lead not only to bad economic investment, but also a society of blood-sucking amoral cannibals. The current desire to “tax the rich” is born of both petty hatred and cynical hucksterism. For America to fix many of our problems, we need to go back to our historical moral roots. Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not covet.