Bill Maher

While I don't agree with absolutely everything he says, I can't say that my reaction to this Bill Maher video was negative. 

My reaction wasn't even neutral. In fact, I actually stood up from my chair and started clapping.

My first thoughts were, 'This is the start of a real conversation - one that addresses how warped our society has become.'

On this issue, at least Bill Maher is logical, consistent, and honest. That is refreshing. He might be a bit crude, but so what?! I think he actually highlights the tolerance of Christians. I am not threatened by him on the minor issues for which we disagree.

Why am I not threatened? It should be obvious, but just in case:

1) Because I understand that I don't have to agree with him in lock-step to understand the greater point he makes in the video below.

2) Because I'm confident that he will never head a movement to control people's minds, lobby for laws to take away choices from people, or participate in one-sided, politically-motivated character assassination of people whose only offense was to speak their mind in a public setting.

Grandiose final thought: a self-evident, non-threatening disagreement between two Citizens is the essence of America (by self-evident I mean that the individual makes decides what is or is not threatening, instead of the media doing so - something they have long since tried to do).

Recognizing that a guy who I formerly perceived as a philosophical enemy has made a spectacularly valid point makes me happy in a very simple way. 

So without further ado, I say this to Mr. Maher: Touché. You've made a brilliant exposé. I hope it goes viral.

PBS Frontline Video Documentary: Losing Iraq

Voices from the Front: An Iraqi Army Officer’s Account of the Battle Against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)

Excellent Foreign Intrigue article: http://foreign-intrigue.com/2014/09/voices-from-the-front-2/

I fear we have lost the initiative in countering the ISIS threat. The US seems focused solely on destroying ISIS equipment and senior leadership, instead of being be concerned with mid-level leadership.

ISIS leadership anticipated US-led airstrikes. They moved fighters and equipment out of strongholds more than a month ago.  They now blend in with the various population hubs which support them, daring the United States to escalate the situation by attacking these hubs.



The US airstrikes currently underway, I'm afraid, have more to do with countering the bad mid-term election optics which currently serve to highlight Obama's impotence in the face of the beheading videos. This administration has always, and continues to be, obsessed with their image in the media. To be sure, all administrations are guilty of this, but the Obama team takes media paranoia to a new level.

General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently said that 15,000 troops are needed to destroy ISIS. If either Obama or Congress ultimately heeds this recommendation, and US ground combat operations recommence in Iraq or begin for the first time in Syria, I strongly believe that operations must be quick. The whole thing needs to be over in 3-4 months. During that time, every asset in the US military arsenal should be used for full victory. We cannot settle for anything less, and in order to win there has to be a willingness to get dirty with the people spreading the dirt.

Otherwise we, as a Country, are the equivalent of a soccer team 'trying' to win while taking great pains to ensure that our uniforms receive no grass stains. That is a laughable scenario, but you can get your bottom dollar that if we only engage halfway, the other team - ISIS - would do just that: they will laugh at us.

We must also be willing to take extreme risks if they become necessary. For example, surprise drop the entire 173rd Airborne to cut-off escape routes after the Peshmerga, under the advisement of US Special Forces, attack a major ISIS stronghold - something like that. Right now, ISIS believes the United States is risk averse, and they are correct. As a result, they can formulate tactics based on knowing what we won't do.

In 2004 I was a member of a four-man counter-ambush patrol in Iraq. We were trying to sneaky-pete our way on foot to catch guys setting up IEDs. Quiet-like. The four of us volunteered - one man from each of three squads and our Platoon Sergeant. I'll save the long story, but the short of it is that we got in trouble with our Battalion HQ. They didn't like the low number of guys. Well, guess what, we were armed to the gills! We had a QRF standing by - one that we coordinated ourselves. We had justifiable reasons why we did what we did, but we overruled. Bottom line, the sort of risk averse mentality displayed by our HQ negatively affects combat operations and needs to stop.

Risk averse behavior has been the style of United States General Officers since the Clinton administration.  We have weapons in our arsenal that we are afraid to use, often because they are deemed as too expensive to risk. Why, then, spend billions on these expensive shiny things? We pay billions in jump pay to servicemen but never really use this 'risky' capability. Shit, our entire society is risk averse, except for squirrel suit skydivers.  In engaging in combat operations, we need to act like American Wild Weasel Pilots over Vietnam in 1966.

In 2005 my Marine infantry platoon was living at a combat outpost under a bridge in Iraq, 10 miles away from the Battalion HQ. At combat outposts you only bring what you need; any non-essential gear is locked away in sea bags placed in storage back at HQ. When it came time to go home, the HQ started issuing out directives for every Marine to take inventory of his issued gear and fill out a form.

No problem, I thought to myself. I get it. They have to know who has what in terms of equipment so they can record combat losses. It helped that I was conditioned to do gear layouts twice a week for a portion of my predeployment cycle. It usually went something like this: "layout off of your stuff on two ponchos, fold your socks this exact way and stack them this exact way and place them two inches from the upper right corner, next to your gay-ass motherfucking reflective running belt. Then stand at parade rest for 1.5 hours waiting for the CO to come by to admire your stack of socks."

Well, in contrast, this combat equipment inventory was easy! I was a team leader and team leaders were allowed to verify our guy's equipment.

Problem was, HQ said the forms were needed immediately. I can't say for sure, but lets say it was Tuesday. Battalion getting the forms on Wednesday was not acceptable. So we were going to make a 10 mile trip in HMMVWs down one of the most dangerous roads in all of Iraq, just so that we could drop off equipment inspection forms.

What's more, in order to verify that equipment was present it had to be seen. The Marines had much of the gear to be inspected back at the base in storage, therefore it could not be accounted for. Nevertheless, after vocalizing my argument against the inspection, I was overruled.

We were about two weeks from rotating in off the line for good. Once pulled off the line, we were scheduled to be at Battalion HQ for a week before departing for Camp Victory at Baghdad International Airport. During this time at HQ we knew that almost every day we'd be doing redundant gear inspections and a great many more forms. So the fact that we were making a special trip down IED alley to just to deliver the initial, rather tentative wave of inspection forms was asinine. We risked the lives of Marines over meaningless paperwork. At least no Marines were killed as a result.

What is the point of my personal accounts surrounding military decision-making? Even the military occasionally gets detached from its true purpose: winning in combat. Some leaders get "bureaucrat-ized" - they issue orders to 'part the seas' for paperwork. Priority is given to producing powerpoint presentations. Their intentions are good; they have a steadfast belief in the chain-of-command and decide not to ask questions. But they sometimes get tunnel vision. They sometimes ask Marines to risk their lives for stupid paperwork-oriented reasons, but cringe when four heavily armed Marines try a new (more quiet) technique of inserting into an ambush position in order to increase chances of killing the enemy.

Calculated risks and adaptive tactics are not stupid. Winning every war in the history of our Country until 1945, and losing every war since then because we became risk averse and began to embrace a policy of limited war - that is definition of stupid.

I've listed two short scenarios for what I would deem as an acceptable approach to a new ground combat mission in Iraq/Syria:

Scenario One. Total annihilation must be the goal. When the Iraqi Army decides to retake Mosul or other ISIS strongholds, we should only participate if their intention is to flatten it. Marines are good at killing everything they see, and would be ideal for this mission.

Scenario Two. If the Iraqi Army decides to conduct counterinsurgency in Mosul, US Army Special Forces should advise them and work with Iraqi/Peshmerga Special Forces to coordinate the battlespace. That's it. It will be a cluster-fuck quagmire if US military conventional forces rejoin the counterinsurgency fight in Mosul or anywhere else in the Middle East. If scenario two occurs, it can be in conjunction with sporadic bouts of scenario one sprinkled in.

The op-tempo of either scenario should be very high. We should not construct any large bases because our purpose cannot be to occupy. The 75th Ranger Regiment, 3rd and 5th SFG, the 82nd/101st/173rd Airborne, SEAL Teams, three carrier battle groups, various air assets based in Europe, and a MEU of 1,100 combat Marines - all of these units can sustain high optempo for 3-4 months when working as a total force. 

No micro-management on the part of politicians or any bullshit appointed State Department Special attaché. In order to achieve an attainable military objective, all of the people in the units I listed above just need to be allowed to deal out death to the enemy.

Unless they are allowed to do this, I am 100% against countering ISIS with ground forces. Anything less than a mindset that is fully committed to bringing the most intense combat possible means that we will lose more Americans, but gain nothing in the end.

Beyond the Orange Jumpsuit Videos

Acknowledging the rise of a new islamic caliphate has, only recently, gained main stream media acceptance.

We are currently at a juncture where we need to pause and reflect on the situation. How did we get to this point? Our reflection must include the Progressive voices of three years ago, who claimed that the definition of fear mongering was to simply report the facts of a developing situation.

In the case of the restoration of the Khalifah (islamic caliphate), Progressives said that the definition of fear mongering was to use the public, video-recorded statements of various forces in the Middle East who were in the process of taking action to restore the Khalifah.

But that is not the end of the story. Progressives took their rhetoric further and said that even floating the idea of the new Khalifah was 'dangerous.'

 

In my view, when Progressives play the 'free speech is dangerous' card, they are really just conforming with their party's long-held historic platform - one that seeks to ban things for which it disagrees.

Never mind that in the case of the islamists coveting the notion of a new caliphate, there were huge amounts of readily available information which clearly staked out the issue. I would go so far as to say that keeping the words of the caliphate-backing islamists from the American public has to be one of the most grand media deceptions of the last century. The evidence is everywhere. No research needs to be done. All that is needed is to replay the the islamist's own words.



Rather than debating openly and honestly, Progressives target anyone - commoner or otherwise - who doesn't sign on to the Progressive world view. Those who refuse to march in lock-step with the Progressive's chosen PC terminology of the day will, in turn, have their character targeted for assassination. And then the three-day news cycle repeats. And repeats again.

It is in this sense that Progressives champion elitism, all while claiming to be fighting against elitism. It is really fucking unbelievable how many people don't see this contradiction.

Do something really PC-unfriendly that garners a lot of attention - well, Progressives will probably take steps to silence you. In some cases, they will use the force of law. Let us not forget that the maker of the now famous 'Innocence of Muslims' movie sat in a California prison for a year after we discovered that the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

Progressives even touted the notion that legitimate 100-year-old laws are already on the books that could be used to prevent a citizen from disrespecting the prophet mohammed.

Reality check: if the 'shouting fire in a crowded theater law' were really used that way, and the state restrains a serf from speaking out against religion (Islam), wouldn't the state, then, be promoting that religion? Where is separation between religion and state? If that happens, would we really be Citizens anymore, or only mere serfs with limited rights in free speech?

Let's recap. While Progressives promote a separation between church and state, they simultaneously want the government to sensor free speech against Islam. No contradiction there.

And while they talk about the Catholic Church's war on women, they basically remain silent on the actual war on women in the Islamic world. 'Culture must be respected,' they say. Okay. Agreed. But if you follow up by asking Progressives where the line between culture and human rights is located, they'll probably answer with, 'it depends' or something like that.

This is why, in my view, Progressives seem to be confused by very simple concepts most of the time. They don't apply their logic evenly, and they are wholeheartedly ashamed to apply it universally. As a result, they must remember a hundred different definitions of the same thing, you see? And so, in the end, they really don't stand for anything, other than a very ambiguous relativism.

What about how progressive women have no problem covering their hair while traveling to predominantly Muslim countries, yet crucify Western culture for promoting societal gender norms?

Got all that? Makes perfect sense, right? I digress.

Eat shit...I mean...eat this video, hypocritical Progressive idiots. People living in the real world saw ISIS coming a long time ago.

Shame on you for your elitist mocking of what eventually came to be true. I guess that's our fault too, right?

We are a Nation of Laws, Not Men

What does mob rule look like?

This is what mob rule might look like: https://vine.co/AntonioFrench

I say 'might,' because, so far, this mob hasn't exerted rule over anything, other than the airwaves.

For now, they have few tangible results, other than a visit from a self-described 'activist' U.S. Attorney General, and a Federal investigation into the August 8, 2014, shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson.

But if local authorities are ultimately pressured into arresting Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, without sufficient evidence of his guilt, only then does the mob become truly dangerous.

We already know that many in our Country have long-since embraced the notion of 'trial by media.' The shooting death of Michael Brown is just the most recent example. 

But if trial by mob actually exerts influence to the point where evidence no longer the paramount item in an investigation, it means that Mr. French's videos will no longer simply depict a jeering gathering of folks expressing their First Amendment rights. It means that the mob, and whatever meandering sense of justice they propel forward at any given moment, will have actual legal traction.

I don't pretend to know what will ultimately happen in this case. I hope justice is served, that's all. What I do know, however, is that the Federal authorities doing  the 'independent investigation' into the shooting of Michael Brown need to stay in their lane and stick with the facts. They must use facts only, and all of the facts. They cannot be selective in which facts they implement.

If the Feds decide they want to prosecute Officer Wilson, and local Ferguson prosecutors disagree with the Feds based on evidence or lack thereof, but are overruled, it means that the mob will have gained far more legal traction than it could have ever dreamed of on its own.

My thoughts turn to Ben Franklin. As he exited the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he responded to a woman who asked him, "Sir, what have you given us?"

He said, "A Republic Ma'am, if you can keep it."

If Mr. French, his mob, or the left-wing media gets what they want in the end - which is a total disregard for real evidence - we will have the answer to Mr. Franklin's insinuated question. We will no longer be Citizens in a Republic.

And if the act of removing the blindfold from Lady Justice becomes routine procedure at the federal level in the coming years? What then? What do we do?

Answer: arm yourselves. With knowledge, wisdom, principles, and very solid restraint.

The Dumbest Media Segment I Have Ever Seen

This was run through the following number of stupid filters: zero

Remembering 9/11; Dusting Off "The Third Jihad"

As ISIS carries out its savagery across Iraq and Syria, Western citizens have increasingly become aware, at least very generally, of the situation. They appear to be concerned of the threat posed (finally). The poll numbers show it.

I am happy to welcome these people into my camp. I have some marshmallows for them to roast around my campfire. But, before we squish the gooey goodness onto the chocolate bar, I have one question for them: where the fuck have you been?

A few American journalists recently have their heads lopped off on video, and the serfs are suddenly surprised? 'How could this happen?'...they say.

I'll tell you how we got to this point. Lopping off of heads tends to be a problematic thing in the Islamist world. In fact, there was a string of events that happened over almost a decade of conflict in Iraq: foreign worker executions. Hundreds of them.

Where were the serfs and the poll numbers when hundreds of third country national (TCN) workers were being executed in Iraq from 2003 onward? Many of those executed were Filipino, Sri Lankan, or Nepalese truck drivers - who are some the best and most humble dudes you'll ever meet.

But those good dudes got the same orange jumpsuit treatment, and the same barbaric manner of death as our American journalists in 2014. Why not a mega-uproar then, back in the early days?

Are we really that political as a society? Answer: yes.

Are we really that umbilically tied to mainstream media, who gives us selective, low-information reporting? Answer: yes.

I'll tell you where I was in the early days: It was February 2005. I was just south of Baghdad. My squad and I were taking the home of a Iraqi male and flipping it upside down. Said Iraqi male was a suspicious looking fuckstick. I had found his jack-off video in a bedroom drawer. The video showed about a dozen Filipino workers getting their heads lopped off one by one. I was watching him smirk when we played the video in order to qualify what kind of guy he was. Then, I was slamming his head into the wall and kneeing him in the peroneal nerve, cuffing him, and taking him back to base for questioning.

What were the serfs doing in the same time-frame? Playing fantasy football? Reading Cosmo on the elliptical? Talking at Starbucks about how the United States brought the war on terror on ourselves?

Pause. Take a deep breath.

It is no matter what the serfs were doing then. Whomever is with me around the campfire at the present moment is welcome. I'll even teach my new guests how to shoot - and shoot well - all for a low low price of $free.99. But to understand islamism, they'd better have an attention-span above that of a second grader.

Let's back up. Before even coming to see me, they'd better pass by the front desk of the campground to trade their politically-correct ramblings in exchange for some critical thinking skills where there are no limits on free speech. If they they show up without having completely shed their adult-child persona, I will be forced to torture them (first-world-style) by giving them a latte with lactose in it (after all, I am not ISIS).

End rant on the dangerously low expectations society has for American adult-children when it comes to current events knowledge.

As we remember the victims of 9/11, let us also remember that folks (other than the elliptical Cosmo readers) that have kept the torch of true enlightenment lit since 9/11. They've authored all kinds of educational videos and books in an effort to sound a warning of the coming threat of islamism. They have loads of critical thinking skills, tremendous maturity, humility, and, I might add, a large amount of courage. The real kind.

Today, my thoughts turn towards those true Patriots, the ones who've seen it as their duty to stand guard against the threat posed by islamists, and who repeatedly articulate their knowledge publicly. Zuhdi Jasser, Frank Gaffney, Aayan Hirsi Ali, and Nonie Darwish immediately come to mind. And there are others. To all these folks, I say thank you.

Let us remember that the full length below, The Third Jihad, was made in 2008, while Obama was pre-writing his 2009 Cairo speech.

Let us also acknowledge the criticism the video received, and where that criticism came from.

Response to SOFREP Article: Transgenders in the Military Exist

Reading: http://sofrep.com/36747/transgenders-in-the-military-exist/

Reaction:

I agree with Brandon Webb in that holistic thinking must be kept close at hand when contemplating this issue. I also agree that in the society as a whole, transgenders deserve respect, tolerance, and we should move forward as a society to learn how to better understand them. They should give respect in return, and should avoid portraying minor issues as if the Taliban just attacked them.

I say this in light of exhibits A and B:

 

 

Of course, everyone in this Country is free to express themselves as they see fit. I believe so strongly, in fact, in regards to free expression, that I'd give my life in defense of transgenders from a violent attack, no matter the motivation of the attacker. America should not be tolerant of intolerance, and that ethos needs to extend in all directions.

Having said that, Brandon appears to believe (additionally) that holistic thinking on this topic means the military should reflect the holistic values of the entire society. Well, with all due respect, I have some news to share: the entire society believes a bad day is when the mall closes early on Sunday. It is not a proper analogy, Brandon.

If the military was merely modeled after society's values, we'd be overrun. What works for society doesn't mean it will work in the military. Ya'll get the premise and understand why, correct?

I saw a T-shirt recently in a shop that had a US flag on it and it said "back-to-back world war champs." I didn't buy it, but nonetheless, the t-shirt means something. It means that what we have/had for a modus operandi in the military isn't broken. We have been successful in combat without conforming to the standard of regular society. We have not, and should not, feel compelled as war fighters to chase society towards total relativism. The military exists to shoot bad people in the face. And to repeat without unnecessary delay until the enemy is defeated. That's it.

If you want a great business example of fixing something that isn't broken, research Coca-Cola's campaign of New Coke. Watch the brief intro to the video, then go to about 4:40.



I have about four years downrange, 3.5 in a combat environment. Those of us that were there know that men and women in the military fuck each other all the time in combat zones. 18 month Big Army deployments, are you surprised?

BIAP was basically a large city with MRAPS, cheesecake, yoga studios, and trailers where my estimate is that two out of every three women were getting nailed on a regular basis. By men from both inside and outside of their unit. Once, after arriving at FOB Falcon in South Baghdad, I had Joes from the 1st CAV tell me to "avoid the females" because there had been a few incidents of women extorting men for cash after some sort of sex act occurred between them (or it was threatened that they would sound the rape whistle). I took their advice, and steered clear.

I am sure the Army did an investigation of the above incident(s), but it is a clear example of how women, when co-deployed for long periods alongside combat soldiers and in close quarters, is problematic, and is an unnecessary distraction. America has won many wars without women in, or alongside, combat arms (different from happenstance combat, or isolated incidents of combat where it was unexpected, serving in combat arms means to live in an environment entirely dedicated towards finding, fixing, and destroying the enemy). Combat arms is an aggressive "mental place" to reside while one is in a unit.

If you refuse to believe this about our military, that this sort of fraternization happens, then just keep those American flag stickers stuck over your eyelids. The rest of us will sort through and deal with reality. Bottom line, while I was never in a unit with women, from stories I've heard this sexual fraternization dynamic fucked up unit cohesion something fierce. And that was with non-combat arms units, where a fucked up dynamic didn't mean life and death, at least as much as it does in combat arms.

The issue of females in a combat environment is relevant, because, as homosexuality is introduced into the combat equation, it means the likely scenario of additional group dynamic complexity to war fighting. This is not needed. After all, what happened to KISS principles? Especially in combat?

Bottom line, I believe holistic thinking does apply to transgenders in the military, but by way of understanding that the mission of the military is to keep the main thing the main thing. After all, we have a track record of success.

Let's stick with that.

Progressive Thugs: Attemping to Ban Beer (and Other Good Stuff) since 1920

http://host.madison.com/news/local/madison-only-latest-fight-for-uber-lyft/article_195b0e4e-9c09-5c88-a073-ab79328512e8.html

"Mayor Paul Soglin says the issue is a test of Madison’s commitment to racial and social equality, writing in a blog post that he wants to ensure access to on-call transportation for “every individual in every neighborhood.”

If Uber and Lyft are allowed to defy or cherry-pick regulations, they’ll gain an unfair advantage over taxis that follow the rules, Soglin said, threatening the companies that do provide equal access."

My commentary:

If we're being direct here.....my assessment is that Major Soglin is a thug. He's wielding mob tactics. 

Historically, mobs always had 'legitimate' businesses that they ran. If you wanted to come into their section of the city and put up a new building, you could do so, as long as you used the mob's builder. If you were okay with paying a higher price, everything was good.

But try choosing another builder, and you could end up dead and so could the other builder. Concrete shoes, anyone?

That is tyranny, especially when the city government knew about it and looked the other way (and in the hay day of mobs, they often did, because officials were on the take).

Does my metaphor mean that I am calling Soglin a mobster who uses physical brutality? Absolutely not, there's no evidence of that in the least. But today people on his side of the argument are making an argument for soft tyranny.

Example of soft tyranny: Have a better idea for a service that disrupts the relationship between government and its 'chosen' businesses? That's fine. You can proceed, but we're just going to tax you into oblivion and make you do years of paperwork, just so you can make an attempt at operating legally here in the city of Madison. Have a nice day.

And if the above argument wins, the legal monopoly, and soft tyranny, continues on unthwarted.

The issue of Lyft and Uber has nothing to do with racial and social equality, and Soglin knows it. He is deliberately obfuscating. That's Saul Alinsky 101: when you have a losing argument, pull back. Don't allow the public an extended opportunity to see your logic fail when debating your opponent. Instead, end the honest and factual debate as quickly as possible. Pivot towards attacking the character and credibility of your opponent. Repeat.

That is what Soglin's quote sets the stage for - he is prepping the coming narrative by using the chosen buzzwords of the day. All to get the idiot lemmings to begin their emotional journey of assembling to go attack the racists and the rich with pitch forks in hand.

Instead of having a factual debate being about the necessity of regulations and potential cost savings to the customers while getting a better service, Soglin is transforming the argument to one of racial and social equality. Bullshit, I say.

Why bullshit?

1) Because the main thing (in the debate) is not kept as the main thing. He's way off point.
2) The obfuscation is ridiculous, because evidence of potential inequality (his argument) is nil

3) Feigned racism really pisses me off because it detracts attention from real cries of racism

Nevertheless, the battle lines are drawn now....if you're for Uber and Lyft, you must not be for racial/social equality, or you must not be sophisticated/educated enough to understand the core of the issue. Got it?

Make no mistake, this is about preserving the partnership that organized labor has with government. It is an attempt at legalizing monopolies.

Unions came into existence for good reasons. Laborers of the past worked hard to overcome various labor-oriented injustices. Fast forward to today: progressives are exploiting the power gained by the honest efforts of past laborers in order to preserve current monopolies. And they are doubling-down on traditional taxi services: an outdated, over-regulated, often under-performing, and expensive service.

All in order to preserve 1) kickback funding for Democratic/Progressive political candidates, and 2) to continue their long-standing rubber-stamp messaging, which states that the only way a service can help the people is when government gets their hands all over it.

Not only is this immoral, it slows true progress because they are trying to kill a more modern, better, and cheaper service that could truly help the common person. Very ironic that progressives are trying to hamstring progress in this way.

For this reason, I think it will backfire on Soglin and his progressive friends. People are smarter than the progressives understand (well, most people anyway. The Kool-aid drinkers will still go into the jungle and repeat the ramblings of their master.) I hope the people choose to fight. I think they will. It is only a matter of time.

The progressives don't realize how much We the People don't need or want them to regulate our lives. After all, progressives failed at maintaining prohibition, and, shockingly, at foreseeing the backlash they ultimately created when they decided it would be a good idea to ban beer. WTF, right?! Morons.

Final witty comment: 'We know better than you' type-arguments are condescending and really fuckin' suck. There is a wave of Libertarianism coming, and it will sweep the Nation. Free Minds and Free Markets (Reason's Motto) will reign once again. Wait for it....wait....there it is! BOOM!

Now go get it. BOOM again!