Why does the establishmentarian group Think Progress feel the need to denounce libertarian Tom Woods as a "neoconfederate" and particularly "extreme" CPAC attendee? Because unlike the easy-ignorable actual hatemongers at the conference, they feel threatened by Tom's message.
They indeed should. More and more Americans are coming to realize that more aptly named "predator" drones, bigger military budgets, and war escalations does not constitute change. It doesn't matter whether a PC Democrat of the sort Think Progress favors is carrying it out. Young people in particular couldn't care less about how PC the warmongering line has become, especially since the message of peace and liberty so well-articulated by heroes like Tom Woods is now a viable alternative.
Human beings -- who enjoy laughing, last time I checked -- will never adhere to the Dr.Phil-esque, wishy-washy, PC "standards" Think Progress is attempting to force on all of society. But even if we did, being PC doesn't excuse TP's favored politicians for the sin of killing innocent people. That Woods is so consistent in condemning both Republican and Democrat wars -- even when poor foreigners totally ignored by the establishment are the primary victims -- tells you all you need to know about his character.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
It is pathetic how so many political groups worship the central planning state in the name of progress. It's hilarious how Think Progress and others hold themself on some pedestal from which they feel all too comfortable firing off baseless accusations or attempting to marginalize people without a shred of anything backing it up.
Tossing around the term neo-confederate is a cheap trick that a far-left progressive Southern law group has done previously when they find someone understands American History enough to comprehend the role of secession and nullification. Principles of 78' , anyone? They sounded as silly as Think Progress.
The fact is Tom Woods is a brilliant man with a sober mind sharply focused on the highest principles of liberty and fredom. Anyone who says he is crazy is someone you should find suspicious at best.
Actually, Matt, my recollection (I prefer not to read it again) is that they themselves did not use the word "craziest" or anything like it; this was the spin put on the story by a particularly despicable and envious Beltway libertarian. (Thank you for your post, of course.)
Thanks. In the a discussion between Tom Palmer and I on Facebook, he implied that "crazier," came from the article, and didn't reflect his opinion. I'm sure he just remembered incorrectly. Duly changed.
Tom Palmer has a nasty habit of manipulating his own words based upon their convenience to his present argument. A delightful example occured this morning over at the Palmer blog where he was arguing in very explicit terms that South Carolina's secession and the Union response of war were "a different question" from each other, lacking both necessary connection and inevitability.
Meanwhile at the very same time he was posting the exact opposite on facebook: "The government (not “the people”) of South Carolina could have seceded, without the decision being followed by a decision of the government of the union to go to war."
And in characteristic fashion to it all, he interspersed those very same contradictory positions with an abundance of snide insinuations that OTHER people were misrepresenting his words and not reading him carefully enough.
Shaming him is unfortunately the only way to put an end to this garbage. I would therefore urge whoever was party to the facebook conversation to leave a public record of it for all to see.
How much less, exactly, could young people care "about how PC the warmongering line has become"? I didn't realize they cared enough to leave room for them to care less.
I think discounting the young people and their ideas is an error, Anonomous. If you pay attention I think you will be surprised what the young people are doing politically. They don't like war a whole lot, but they seem to like liberty and freedom.
Not something I will discount. Maybe with a more supportive attitude of young people who are learning about liberty (as opposed to rocking the vote), we will have a more informed population of voters who value freedom. And as I am sure you will agree, a more informed population is a better check on government.
You completely missed that I was mocking the misuse of the phrase "could [not] care less."
It's simply false that none of them ever cared. Many anti-war young people supported Obama solely because of his rhetoric.