The problem with conspiracies is that they are hard to publicly validate and defend, while presenting easy marks to discredit through minor inaccuracies or over exaggerations. Of course, identifying exaggerations or minor inaccuracies do not invalidate the conspiracy theory in itself, they do one important thing; create doubt. This created doubt is enough to cause many neutral parties to abandon the debate (for whatever reason).

Of course conspiracies do exist, and identifying them is important for investigation. Using conspiracy notions is an advanced tool for investigation, not something for public consumption. My primary point is that there is no need to speak of conspiracies. The left has advanced their agenda so far, so fast, and with practically no publicity. Sure, the complicity between the media and the left is real, but over stating the relationship will cause people to pause and wonder why the emphasis is there, as opposed to the topics at hand.

The journal list story does lend much credence to this, but who knows about it?

Isn't that the way of the left? If your successful, you only did so through treachery. You are evil because you do not give to the poor. If you give to the poor, you do so only for your ego. If you give it all away and become destitute your a pathetic fool. If you try to succeed and fail, your a joke and a loser worthy of ridicule.

This loathing of success is so pervasive, it even spreads even to those who are successful in providing a product "free to everyone". Only because that one person has set himself apart.

Everyone who keeps on bashing at Linus and the other "ego's" are just pissed off because their success somehow shows your the haters ineptitude. Of course, its only in your head and in your heart.

The American left is not interested in creating any wealth, either through private industry or government intervention. The American Left are best described as Eco Marxists. I'd prefer industrialist socialists to what we are dealing with in this administration. At least the industrialists are interested in producing something... the Eco Marxist views wealth AND humanity as the bad guy....

In the mind of Barack Obama and the great socialist/marxist thinkers, Bush is responsible for two wars of choice, costing over a trillion dollars. That trillion dollars could have been given to the poor, to turn them into the middle class, and thus creating perpetual wealth. Under Bush, the march towards iron clad regulatory control slowed down (but really wasnt reeled back). Because Bush didnt pass even more draconian legislation, more wealth has been concentrated into the hands of the rich, stolen from the poor. The economic crash was completely the fault of the Bush administration, although Bush did "exactly" what the democrats wanted.

None of the above explanations make any sense to me. I'm certain you could read slashkos and find explanations that are so far down the leftist rabit hole that it would take a week to wash the stink off. Remember, Obama isn't your garden variety country club politician. He really believes that stuff.

Its pointless to debate on the ethics of progressives because they are firmly enchanted by the idea's of Karl Marx and his loser cohorts. Instead of challenging their ideas of patriotism, societal values, and intellectual talking points, we need to ridicule them, dismiss their far fetched hypothesis's, and exclude them. The time to play games with progressives is over as far as I'm concerned. Cap and Trade, Social Justice, Economic Justice, Re-distributive Change, Universal Health Care, Immigration Reform, all ideas should share the same tag: Stupid. The person espousing these ideas needs to be shoved back into the basement and given no second thought.

Because that is the only thing that will get through to the Liberal Progressive. If you tolerate their stupidity, they get more aggressive, angrier, and more invasive until there is very little you can actually do about their societal experiments. Liberals know the power of intolerance because they use it like a tool against any concept which doesn't conform to their cult like obsessions. Besides, it has worked in the past. There is a reason most Liberals avoid the title Liberal; because it is a pejorative. Now we just need to be as aggressive forcing them to swallow all their other ideas (talking from a social perspective, not a governmental/legal perspective).

The only thing the Democrats have been good for in the past 60 years is "freedom from" things. Such as, freedom from speech, freedom from religion, freedom responsibility, etc..

And when you guarantee freedom from anything, you are simply guaranteeing the removal of freedoms. Anyone who considers the constitution a "living and breathing" document is an activist. These activists have perverted the law that is very, very clear, such as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Now we have laws that prohibit speech, such as the Hatch Act and all the rest of the crappy, activist radical legislation that is now on the books.

Am I the only one who is disturbed by the fact that the DC Police havent arrested this guy? When did politicians become some sort of exempt social class? For example, if I walked up to a congressman and grabbed him by the back of the neck and the arm and started asking him "Who are you", I am quiet certain that I would be spending the night in the DC jail until arraigned.

A simple assault charge is no big deal, but its still assault, and the congressman should still be charged, just like any other person. There is no excuse, no status, no station, that exempts a person from equal justice.

Globalism isnt bad. Its bad when its done in a Marxist way. A free, global market, is a good thing. Global stability is a good thing. When people have food, shelter, and hope, its a good thing. Intertwining economies through government policy is bad, but it isnt bad when it happens because of free market principles. I don't believe in spreading liberty at the point of the spear, but I believe in containing tyranny with all reasonable means.

What I disagree with Glenn Beck and most Libertarians is the idea that people will be free if they so choose, and that the US should be non involved in foreign affairs. This is a naive perspective that is as destructive as getting into a land war in Asia. The United States and the rest of the western world are profiting greatly from the relative stability in the developing world. To withdraw military force, or adopt a posture of absolute neutrality would spin the world back to the multi-polar nightmare that existed pre-WWII.

What we have seen over the past 15 years is a trend for government not to govern according to the law, but to play favorites with certain interest groups. Free market lifts societies out of poverty (Eastern Europe) and promotes liberty when the government forces foreign nations to play fairly. This is not the case with our relationship with China, for example, where the Chinese government has the most lopsided, protectionist policies in the world. Yet, because our government favored short term gain over enforcing equal trade, we are now suffering the consequences, and people are further away from liberty than they were 20 years ago.

Really? You know McCain that well? Ever hear of McCain-Feinstein Law? Its an absolutely progressive, anti-constitutional, anti-first amendment law. It was his law (bears his name), and it was partially struck down by the supreme court, and rightly so. If this doesn't prove his progressive/statist nature, what will? Does he have to set up gulags or seize farms for state control?

As far as the republican party during the Bush senior years, they ignored the Constitution with Medicare plan D. Sure, the tax cuts were great, pro-free market, but being pro-free market doesnt mean conservative or liberty minded. Continuing the statist agenda of increased entitlements is proof enough for me.

As for Neo-Conservatives being "statists" or statist leaning, please provide some examples of where Neo-Conservatism espouses or promotes statism (considering I justified my remarks about McCain being a statist).

... Never to play at all. Arguing the value of God given rights gives credence to the discussion. As a society, we need to step back and start treating our rights as sacred... the same way Liberals treat race. Talking bad about the constitution should make companies fire you. Make an anti-constitution comment should make public officials unelectable by the masses. If a politician goes on stage and screams the N word, no one would associate with them. The same stigma should be given to these mental disease ridden avatards.

The vernacular is very confused these days. Republican and Democrat have nothing to do with political philosophy. Its the thoughts of the like minded people within them that terms the identity of the parties. For example, if we take parties as they were form, the Republicans are "anti-slavery" and the Democrats are "pro-slavery". Republicans are pro-centralized government, Democrats are pro-decentralized government. Republicans are for unconstitutional change, while Democrats are for strict constitutional adherence. All of these comments are taken straight out of the context of 1858-1864, during the civil war. The Republicans were for forcing new states to be either "slave" or "free", and the Democrats were for "popular sovereignty" (aka: let the states choose if they want to be slave or free).

Today, as well as 5 years ago, the Republican party is much different, as well as the Democrat party is different (though not much more). The Republicans AND the Democrats during the Bush years were both predominantly run by "Statists". Ala: They want central authority, have no regard with limited government, and believe that freedom is a gift from government. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and a bunch of other Republicans fall into the "statist" definition. These "neo-statists" under GWB caused a LOT of problems for the United States and the rest of the world, especially in the developing world, by supporting policies that favored the foundation of strong central governments, and government controlled economies.

Neo-Conservatives (I am one) are opposed to tyrannical government, would not embrace tyrannical government (which was easily identified with GWB white house in the middle east, and central aisian dictators), and would be willing to reach out to protect democracies from neighboring tyrannical regimes. GWB and the republican congress during that time, did not differentiate between tyrannical or free societies when it gave support, it simply gave support to nations that were acting in the interests of the United States (without consideration to the actions of the source). As a Neo-Conservative, I believe that the United States must maintain a strong military in order to ensure global economic stability, which our own economy relies heavily upon. Neo-conservatives do not believe in simply striking the head off every dictator we come across, but it is vital that we not let WWII happen because the world is being run by a bunch of Neo-Marxists and Neville Chamberlains.

Todays Republican party is in a fight between "Conservatives" (of all flavors) and "Statists" (which the Left likes to call "Moderates"). The various Conservative factions have a solid rallying point, "The Constitution". The Democratic party today has nothing to do with the democratic party of the past (Kennedy and beyond). Todays Democrats are the Far Left, and their only common point is that they dislike the US for whatever reason and in varying degree's. This can be seen with leftists hecklers heckling Obama and Pelosi at well vetted Potemkin style town halls.

The Libertarians are also very closely related to Conservatives, and I would sleep soundly at night if the argument was between Conservative ideas and Libertarian ideas, but its not. Its between American ideas and European Marxist ideas. Fortunately, I think the statists are going to be run out of the Republican party, and going to be embraced by the left. Arlen Spectre and that loser from Florida, have shown their true colors. A couple more key Statist republicans to go, and there will be almost NO similarity between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Compare that to nearly 4-5 years ago when there was nearly no difference (at least in propaganda).

LOL. Is it? Really? Its more dangerous to live in Los Angeles than it is to do a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. You should read the LA Times homicide blog from time to time.

Police have no power. They can detain, but they cannot imprison. The judicial system is the only group who can really do anything to you within the frame work of the law. And of course, the judges cannot create laws because they do not have the authority, that lies with the elected politicans. If you dont like the laws the police are enforcing, petition your representatives to have it changed. If you find it to hard to change, its because the Statists have consolidated too much power at the federal level, thus making over turning bad laws more difficult, and thus making cops and judges more menacing to freedom.

Of course, its probably just easier to rage against the under paid guys who have to deal with the people no one else would ever dream of.