Replies

I think it was Jonah Goldberg who observed a few weeks ago that one clear indication that your opponent's argument is pathetically weak is the reduction of his comments to questioning your motives.

I do not work for, I am not affiliated with, and I am not otherwise engaged in any fashion with anyone or anything that has a stake in the outcome of any of these "globalist" (for lack of a better term) threads. I am here for my own amusement. There are few areas in FR-land where ostensible conservatives wilfully betray their utter ignorance of a subject, and I enjoy pointing it out.

Take this thread, for example. Anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of the subject at hand (biometric passports) knows that the United States has been pushing other countries to implement some form of biometric identification for years. It is purely a post-September 11th phenomenon, and the level(s) of success with this program are mixed. But you should know that. But you don't.

Enter World Net Daily. Long ago it discovered that articles titled "Canada asks for extension to comply with new passport regime" only merit one paragraph on A6 in even the best of papers. Thus, it "discovers" that the United States is in talks with Mexico [queue dramatic sound effect] to implement, you guessed it, biometric passports! (Frankly, it discovers the same or publishes an article from someone that discovers the same every week, but I digress). And every week, like clockwork, the same "conservatives" who learned the previous week of the program are shocked to hear it again. Meanwhile, those of us that see through (and are amused by) the way you are being played like fiddles cannot resist observing the process and remaining silent. It's just too darn funny. And the notion that some of you think that anyone who points out that you are embarrassing yourselves is a "hired gun" is icing on the cake.

So go ahead, think what you will. I wish I was paid to do this.