Category: Politics

The Ministry of Propaganda is in Full Swing

I have to say that the Obama campaign has succeeded in employing some of the slickest propagandists in the country. Take a look at this site that purports to show how Obama’s policies have directly helped local municipalities.

Don’t mind the fact that the information contained on that site is pure malarkey since all of the listed projects are funded through the Recovery Act; funding that Congress controls. Still it’s a damn slick site and the boys over at the Romney campaign really need to get their shit together if they hope to combat Obama’s propaganda with their own propaganda. Seriously, Joseph Goebbels would be in awe of the Obama campaign’s ability in marketing.

Jeffery Tucker on the Presidential Debate

You have to love Jeffery Tucker, the man is a wordsmith. His quote on Wednesday’s presidential debate summed up the political system in this country perfectly:

Romney and Obama are both extraordinarily talented and smart. That’s what it takes to pull off the world’s biggest hoax. In their public debates, they must shamelessly play along with the expectation that they are masterminds of history’s largest and most expansive government with thousands of departments, millions and millions of regulations, astonishingly complex networks of graft and corruption, and legacy content dating back more then a century, and, further, claim — with a straight face — that their personal “vision” can encompass and control the whole apparatus, and, by extension, the nation and the world. They must pull off this ostentatious and wildly implausible display of the pretense of knowledge with the look and feel of genuine conviction. Anyone who can do this has to be pathological, if he believes what he is saying, or duplicitous to an extent that vastly exceeds the human norm. It’s all mightily impressive, so much so that the entire show could and should be moved to Broadway as a profitable venture. In that way, it could become consumer-pleasing entertainment rather persist in what it actually is: the biggest threat to peace, prosperity, and freedom in the world today.

There really isn’t much else to say on the subject.

What if Gary Johnson Won

Yesterday the Republican and Democratic candidates had their first presidential debate. While I didn’t watch the debate I’m assuming it was a publicly broadcasted circle jerk where both candidates refused to say anything truly critical of the other while pretending some iota of difference exists between them (I feel this assumption is safe based on previous presidential debates and both candidates’ voting records). This is the problem with presidential debates, they’re predictable and boring. Many people are being quick to point out that these debates could be made much more interesting if third party candidates were allowed to participate. Unfortunately those candidates aren’t allowed to participate in the debates unless they reach 15% in a series of polls (and if they do manage to get close the Commission of Presidential Debates will surely raise the required percentage).

One of the more notable movements regarding third party candidates are Gary Johnson’s supporters. They’ve been demanding Johnson be allowed to participate in the debates, going so far as to support the lawsuit brought against the commission by Johnson’s campaign. Johnson’s supporters believe that participation in these debates will allow Johnson to win the presidential election (or, at least, help the Libertarian Party achieve victory in a future election). This raises an interesting question, what would happen if Johnson won the election?

In our system of checks and balances Johnson’s victory would be entirely symbolic. Yes we would have a third party president but we would still have a Congress controlled by the Republicans and Democrats. As it currently stands the system of checks and balances doesn’t check or balance anything. Congress isn’t motivated to control the president and the president isn’t motivated to control Congress. The Supreme Court, which is composed of judges appointed by members of the two major parties, has been more than happy to further the statist agenda through its rulings. Our state is one big happy family. Each of the branches helps out the others because they’re controlled by the same people.

Johnson’s victory would throw a monkey wrench into the current state circle jerk. While that in of itself sounds hilarious it would effectively change nothing. Once the circle jerk is broken you can guarantee that the legislative and judicial branches of the state will use every check and balance at their disposal to control Johnson. Congress will suddenly question executive orders, challenge Supreme Court nominations, and probably go so far as to actually declare wars to prevent Johnson from brining the troops home (then they would probably move to impeach him if he still ordered the troops to return, claiming he is derelict in his duties as command-in-chief). You can also guarantee that Congress will call for impeachment hearings the second Johnson sliped up in any way.

Although people are often quick to point out the checks and balances supposedly designed into our federal government as a tool against tyranny they seem to be oblivious of the fact that such tools aren’t effective if they’re all controlled by the same statists. Checks and balances only work if each involved entity actually desires to control the other involved entities. If the legislative branch wants to control the executive branch they can but if they don’t want to the executive branch remains free to do whatever it please. The Republicans and Democrats have developed an understanding with one another. Neither party will throw up any actual resistance against the other so long as the favor is returned. The second a third party gets into a position of power both major parties will work together to check and balance that outsider into ineffectiveness.

The Presidential Debate

Yesterday the first presidential debate was held between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. I would normally give you a summary of the debate and criticized basically everything that was said by both candidates but I didn’t watch it. Instead I did productive things that didn’t involve watching a person argue with a mirror. From what I gathered on my Facebook feed I made the right decision, nothing of substance appears to have been said (although I had some very intoxicated friends who were playing the presidential debate drinking game).

The Truth Hurts

Mitt Romney recently made a statement that 47% of Americans, those currently dependent on the state, will vote for Obama no matter what. Needless to say Romney’s opponents are in a tizzy over this statement. As much as I hate the man I have to agree with Jeffery Tucker:

Cover the kids’ ears! Hide their eyes! Shuffle the weak and frail from the room! A politician running for president has uttered a heresy that brings into question the holy grail of democratic politics. Romney has failed to pretend as if the country is one big happy family that uses our glorious voting system to discover ever better ways of governing ourselves.

Which is to say that Romney made a gaffe.

You know the definition of a political gaffe: inadvertent and unscripted truth. That’s what the supposed scandal of Romney’s off-the-cuff comments amounts to. He told potential donors an unvarnished truth that everyone knows but which is not part of the official civic creed of the land of the free:

Nobody wants to hear the truth. Romney, after stating the truth (probably for the first time ever), is being lambasted. People are up in arms. How dare Romney point out that a large portion of the American population is receiving government subsidies?

We really need to look at the current situation in America for what it is, the inevitable side effect of democracy:

The implied model here is that modern democracy is a system that enables mass confiscation of wealth by some from others. And who can doubt it? In older monarchical systems, only a tiny elite was privileged to steal from everyone else, and if they stole too much, people would get angry and overthrow them.

Democracy solved the problem by granting everyone the privilege once reserved to elites. Now we can all steal from each other, and even from ourselves. This way, it is no longer clear who the enemy is. We don’t know whom to blame when things get bad. There is no one to overthrow but ourselves.

Democracy has ensured that a large potion of the population is currently taking wealth from another portion. This is the reality that Americans either want to ignore or sugarcoat. I think I’m starting to understand why politicians always lie, when they actually tell the truth they’re crucified by the public. Come to think about it the public’s reaction to the truth is understandable as well. Whether you want to call this country a representative republic or a democracy the people feel they are in charge so when an ill is pointed out they take it as an accusation that they’ve personally screwed up. Considering that fact it’s no surprise that lies are now preferred over truth.

Moving Up in the World

The man who helped sink Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, Jesse Benton, has managed to get himself involved with an establishment Republican:

Ron Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton is going to head up the campaign of Mitch McConnell. Gee, now why did those incorrigible naysayers have so many unkind words for him?

This is no surprise to me, after all I pointed out that this was likely his plan all along:

Benton is a skilled operator when it comes to lining his own pockets. He understands that his salary, $586,616 in the case of this election, is dependent on the political process. Rational self-interest will lead him towards supporting the current state as it is allowing him to collect a six figure salary. Furthermore, he also has a reason to make other politicians, such as Mitt Romney, happy since Benton may find himself in the future employ of another politicians who he made nice with.

Of course, as Tom Woods explains, those of us who were pointing out Benton’s attempt at maintaining his political gravy train at the expense of Paul’s campaign were laughed at:

People who said Benton was positioning himself all along for bigger things in the GOP were scoffed at. Why, Jesse has a secret plan to get Ron Paul the nomination at the last minute!

Now will you guys listen when we tell you that Rand Paul and Kurt Bills are just establishment Republicans who are exploiting the liberty movement to advance their political careers? When you’re dealing with the political means you are necessarily dealing with vile and corrupt individuals who have no problem throwing their mother under the bus if it advances their political career. A vast majority of the people who run for political office are sociopaths who merely want power over others. Because of that there are very few people running for office who are actually advocates of liberty.

Influencing the Vote

A new study has shown that using social media to influence people to vote actually works:

Brace yourself for a tidal wave of Facebook campaigning before November’s U.S. presidential election. A study of 61 million Facebook users finds that using online social networks to urge people to vote has a much stronger effect on their voting behavior than spamming them with information via television ads or phone calls.

I wonder if it also works in reverse. Will posting messages to Facebook encourage my friends not to vote? It’s not that I’m a horrible curmudgeon, I’m just concerned about the safety of my friends considering that their chances of dying on the way to their polling place is much greater than the chances of them changing the results of the presidential election. I guess we’ll find out in November.

Obama: More of the Same

Remember the halcyon days when Obama was running for his first term? He promised to undue all the ills that Bush wrought upon the United States. Guantanamo Bay was going to be closed, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were going to be ended, and warrantless wiretapping was going to be again made illegal. This greatly fired up political support for the man by those who oppose war and the expanding police state. Unfortunately those days are over and Obama has revealed his true self as George W. Bush II:

President Barack Obama has closely followed the policy of his predecessor, President George W. Bush, when it comes to tactics used in the “war on terror” — from rendition, targeted killings, state secrets, Guantanamo Bay to domestic spying, according to Michael Hayden, Bush’s former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency.

OK my statement isn’t entirely accurate. Obama isn’t just another Bush, he’s a more violent Bush:

Moments later, Hayden added:

“And so, we’ve seen all of these continuities between two very different human beings, President Bush and President Obama. We are at war, targeted killings have continued, in fact, if you look at the statistics, targeted killings have increased under Obama.”

He said that was the case because, in one differing path between the two presidents, Obama in 2009 closed CIA “black sites” and ratcheted down on torturing detainees. But instead of capturing so-called “enemy combatants,” President Obama kills them instead, Hayden said.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, Obama is simply a more lethal Bush. Instead of concerning himself with capturing potential enemies Obama has decided it would be far more expedient to just order their executions.

To every person who is currently supporting Obama and supported him during his previous election because of his anti-war stance let me say this: fuck you you fucking hypocrites.

One of These Men is Just Like the Other

This year the major goals of the Republican Party appear to be stopping the gays from marrying, killing more foreigners in war, and repealing Obamacare. To accomplish these glorious tasks the Republican National Convention (RNC) cheated to ensure Romney was their presidential nominee. Unfortunately for them their grand scheme has run into a snag, Romney doesn’t actually want to repeal Obamacare:

Romney, who faces Obama in the November 6 election, has vowed throughout the campaign to repeal and replace the Obama healthcare law. But asked about the Obama healthcare law on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program, Romney said, “Well, I’m not getting rid of all of healthcare reform.”

“Of course, there are a number of things that I like in healthcare reform that I’m going to put in place,” Romney added. “One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like.”

Is anybody surprised that the Massachusetts governor who signed the blueprint for Obamacare wants to keep Obamacare? The only thing Romney really wants is to replace Obama’s name on the legislation with his own. This news should make the hardcore Democrats happy since they get what they want either way (except Obama’s name on the legislation, which really is all they want).

Supporting Civil Liberties Only When it’s Convenient

People often claim that Democratic Party is the political party of civil liberties. Unfortunately this is only true when it’s convenient for them to support civil liberties:

What a difference four years makes.

In 2008, Democrats were eager to draw a contrast with what they then portrayed as Republican excesses in the fight against Al Qaeda. Since then, the Obama administration has in many cases continued the national security policies of its predecessor—and the Democratic Party’s 2012 platform highlights this reversal, abandoning much of the substance and all of the bombast of the 2008 platform.

The article goes on to show that the new Democratic Party platform has removed references to opposing indefinite detention, prohibiting warrantless surveillance and repealing the PATRIOT Act, closing Guantanamo Bay, opposing racial profiling, and opposing torture.

When Bush was in office the Democratic Party was entirely against everything Bush did. Now that their guy is in office they are entirely supportive of Bush’s tactics. It’s not about what’s right and what’s wrong, it’s about who is in power. So long as the man in power is on “their” team whatever he does is fine.

I hope the Democratic and Republican parties get everything they want and I hope they get it hard.