Newtie and Mitt and the Obama Re-set

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Let’s hope Obama wins a second term.

Because otherwise, we’ll have merely hit the “re-set” button again – and can expect a much worse situation – from the standpoint of liberty – by the next election cycle in 2016.

Reason? A Newtie (or Romney) presidency will be taken as a “conservative” presidency, implying a liberty-minded presidency, when as we all ought to know by now, it will in fact be another authoritarian-statist-corporatist presidency. More government. More war. More debt. Which will have the effect of further delegitimizing liberty in the mind of the average American, who already rightly equates Republican “conservatism” with everything foul.

No, a much better tactic – if you value liberty –  would be to sit this one out and let Obama run the train off the cliff.  It is going off the cliff regardless – but it will matter, in terms of public perception, who is the engineer when it does. If either Newtie or Romney becomes the engineer, then the public will blame “right wing” ideology and politics – which will be equated with limited government politics – even though it will in fact be more of the same-same authoritarian politics that we would have been on the receiving end of under Obama’s “leadership.”

So, let’s let him lead.

Nothing fundamental will change anyhow; merely the superficial appearance. Just as nothing has changed – well, nothing has changed for the better – under Obama. The federal leviathan has grown even more assertive and vicious. Not even The Chimp, as personally and politically loathsome a creature as he was, dared to assert the authority to have American citizens abroad extrajudicially murdered merely on his smirking say-so. Obama has taken the proverbial ball and run off the field with it. The “Patriot” act has been renewed and we’re on the verge of living in a “battlefield,” a “homeland” (formerly known as the United States) in which any of us may be dragged off the street, out of our homes, into the night, merely after having been declared “enemies of freedom” (or whatever the catchphrase is now) by Obama.

It is a power sure to be asserted and expanded upon by his successors – just as Grampy McSame would have continued and expanded upon The Chimp’s policies had he been anointed Frontman in ’08.

Newtie – and Romney – have already gone on record advocating even more extreme measures. As The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf noted just the other day, Newtie believes “… that the War on Terrorism somehow makes null certain rights to free speech and due process; that the government should stop the construction of a mosque until the day when Saudi Arabia permits churches and synagogues to be built; the proposal to escalate the War on Drugs by executing drug smugglers; support for warrantless wiretaps; and extreme hostility toward the co-equal judicial branch.”

And of course, Romney believes that federal authority should be made officially and openly unlimited in scope. Romneycare-Obamacare is the means by which this will be formally established once the Supreme Court rules it is “constitutional” to force people to buy “health insurance” at gunpoint and more, by necessary implication, to micromanage and control every aspect of every individuals’ life since that individual’s “health” and “health choices” (including your hobbies, what you eat, how and where you live/work, etc.) can conceivably be said to affect “interstate commerce,” the legal cornerstone upon which Romneycare-Obamacare has been built.

If Obama is re-appointed Frontman we’ll still get more and bigger (and meaner) government, to be sure. But then he will own the whole stinking mess. And instead of being played by the ongoing WWF match of “liberals” vs. “conservatives” the public – enough of the public to make the difference, at least –  may finally demand a real alternative.

Someone like Ron Paul, even.

But if we get Newtie or Romney, what will happen is four more years of war, fearmongering, diddling of our civil liberties and ruination of the economy – all building to a crescendo of disgust and anger about three years later, at which point a new messiah will be trotted out promising to “change Washington.” The exhausted, bewildered masses will rally to his flag, especially if he is a glib, personally attractive messiah. The “conservatives” will be routed; the new Messiah installed.

And we will get four more years.

And then the cycle will re-set.

And repeat.

This is how the con is run. The voters are offered a faux choice every few years and then its supposed opposite a few years later. But while Frontmen are shuffled, nothing actually changes, except the relentless forward march toward unlimited, omnipotent government and officialized lawlessness.

So, the best possible choice may be to let Obama be Frontman again. Delegitimize him – and prevent liberty from being delegitimized by a Republican “conservative” hack such as Newtie or Romney.

It could led to real change for a change.

Maybe even change we can support – which would be a helluva an improvement over “believing” in the next false  Messiah’s promises.




  1. Eric,

    I’m late to the party here, but this reminds me of what Trump did to us over the course of his term. Do you think for ONE SECOND that Operation Warp Speed would’ve happened under Hillary as POTUS? Not on your life! The GOP would’ve been all over it, while they were silent about Trump doing it. Notice how, now that Creepy Joe is in charged, only now are GOP pols making any noise about OWS or its fallout.

    Oh and BTW, there was never any MEANINGFUL difference between BHO and Mittens Romney! Where do you think Obamacare came from? From Mitt Romney’s Romneycare in MA. Did you know that, in order to craft Obamacare, that BHO’s people met with Romney’s people to craft the template? No, there was no difference between Mittens and BHO other than skin color, really.

    David Knight has said that, when TPTB want to push something through, then they’ll offer us up a choice of POTUS candidates between whom there’s no difference. David cited the 1992 election, because NAFTA, which produced the giant, sucking sound Ross Perot talked about, was being pushed then. TPTB pushed Bush, Sr. and Clinton on us, because, regardless of whoever got in, we were going to GET NAFTA! DK said the same applied during the 2012 election and Obamacare; regardless of who won then, we were going to get O’care no matter what. Granted, it had been passed in 2010, but in any case, Romney wouldn’t have been on board with a repeal effort. Why would he be, when he helped CRAFT the damn thing? So yeah, when TPTB really want to push something through, they’ll offer us a choice that, no matter who wins, their goals are advanced.

  2. Ron Paul is the only candidate that has an unwavering record of defending our Constitution and addressing the problems that our country is facing. He had the foresight to predict and warn about the consequences throughout the years and the knowledge to put us back on the right track to restore our Constitutional Republic to be yet again a great nation.The rest do not have a record to stand that mirrors what they now say – Ron Paul does.

    • Agree. But I see Dr. Paul as an early prophet, if you like, more than a leader of an active movement in the future. He is now well into his 70s (almost 80) and, I suspect, too old to remain much longer in active politics. This isn’t to say I would not vote for him. I would- and will – with enthusiasm. But for the movement back toward liberty to pick up steam, we’ll need millions of Paul-minded people, rallying around a cause more so than any individual man. A critical mass, such that in the future questions of public policy will be discussed on the basis of whether they comport with human liberty and human rights, not whether a given proposal is “good for society” or “helps” some group (at the expense of other individuals). Etc.

      • Eric you are pretty much right. Ron Paul if he would get elected would bring government to a halt. When you are president or in congress you have to compromise unless you hold the house and the senate with your party. From some of the statements made by Ron Paul over the past year it shows that he is not going to compromise on anything. The only way he would get his ideas passed would be to have congress with mostly libertarians which will not happen in my lifetime or yours.

        • “Ron Paul if he would get elected would bring government to a halt.”

          That’s the idea, Clover. Actually, let me modify that to be more precise. Ron Paul, if elected, would bring illegitimate government to an end.

          You’ll no doubt reply, “But illegitimate to whom”? And, you’re right. As things are currently constituted. Which is precisely the problem. We have a government of, by and for various “interests,” each exerting influence to get the government to use force to obtain a material good from (or exercise control over) other people. Now, if government were confined simply to its (and constitutionally described) proper role of keeping the peace and enforcing contracts – that is, if it limited itself to protecting individual rights – then such problems disappear. The government becomes legitimate; or at least, it is no longer a mechanism for robbing Peter to pay Paul, or forcing Paul to do as Peter insists. No one’s rights are violated. Our rights as individuals are respected. People interact peacefully, cooperatively. Can you imagine what a civilized, decent and socially healthy society that would be? As opposed to a society built on force, in which your rights are conditional and insecure? In which random strangers may use the law to take your property for their benefit? And force you to live your life as they see fit?

          Do you see? Probably not – or you probably just don’t care, since your over-riding belief is that the group has rights, as expressed by a mechanism such as The Vote or via the person of some lawmaker or politician who claims to speak on behalf of the group.

          Look in the mirror, Clover. You are a thug. A violent person. A person who wants people who have never done you any harm, who owe you no debt, to be threatened with violence, put in cages, in order to compel them to provide funds for the things you believe deserve funding, or to compel them to behave in some way that you believe to be correct. I want you to try to imagine being the one to personally threaten your fellow man with violence, even kill him, for the causes and reasons you espouse. Is there any human part of you still alive that recoils from this?

          And finally: Don’t be too cocksure about the permanence of your beloved federal Leviathan. I suppose you are old enough to remember the Soviet Union. Not one in a thousand people would have believed you if you had told them, circa 1979, that the Soviet Union would be wiped off the map just slightly more than ten years later.

          Things change, Clover. The wheel turns…

          • I get it Eric. You do not. You believe in individual rights and no one can tell you what to do. That is fine if you start a country and make the rules that you are given a piece of property and then you are on your own. There would be no roads. Everyone owns property so they pull out their guns if you cross it. There would be no cars because you could not get them delivered to you and you do not have the resources on your property to build and drive them. There would be no taking of someone’s property to build any roads you can use. Without government you could not survive with thousands or millions of other people.

            When was the last time that you were able to live a full year without going into a town organized and set up by the government and traveled on government roads set up by a government to buy supplies? You could not live without a government. Yes there are some that are capable of living off the land but with millions of people hunting off the land there are no animals left and within a year or two of bad crops you would be dead.

            You and others here say I am a violent person. I am not the one that feels it necessary to carry a gun or applauds someone who kills another person that is on their property. I am not the one that says it is a good thing to allow drunks on the road and reckless drivers. Those are things that are backed by violent people.

            To sum it up I believe in rules set up by an organized government. Without such rules everyone would need to carry not just one gun but many of them because it becomes self rule. Shoot the guy if he does something you do not like no matter what it is.

          • Clover, you miss the point altogether. Government grew out of indvidual liberty and the private (free market) prosperity that society is based on, it did not create those blessings. You have this perverse concept that if Ron Paul became president the whole government would come to a screeching halt, the sun would stop in the sky and dogs and cats would start sleeping with each other. C’mon!

            Federal and state bureaucracies are huge. The president doesn’t have the authority to shut it all down. What Dr. Paul proposes is to return to a form of government more in keeping with what the Constitution actually says, not what ambititious and often evil men have reinterpreted it to mean to achieve their own purposes at our expense.

            You being so “law and order” oriented should applaud a return to government in line with the Supreme Law of the Land. If not, then what parasitic function do you serve for the state? Because only people who live off the legitimate fruits of their fellow contrymen’s labor oppose a return to Constitutional government.

            The prosperity this nation enjoyed in the 19th through mid 20th century is unprecedented in the history of man. Don’t you think the fact that government has grown out of control and let it’s favored special interests spread their blood sucking tentacles into every avenue of our lives might have something to do with the current state of affairs? You know, like perpetual warfare, the surveillance state and a rotten economy.

            Before there was “government” as we know it, the need for arbitrators arose in our communities because people often don’t do what they say they will (i.e. they don’t honor contracts). The need for organized defense also arose because people often try to take things that don’t belong to them and force other people to do things they don’t want to do. These were originally private organizations. Once man tried to make these functions “official”, the very same people (i.e. the criminals) they were instituted to thwart starting seeking positions within the “official” bodies. It has been repeated down through history so many times that you have to be willfully ignorant not to see it. What do you do about it? You limit government. The smaller the government the fewer criminals you can have running things; it really is that simple. This is why the states demanded sovereignty at the founding and why the federal government worked to hard to destroy it.

            That is also why George Washington equated government to fire. If you have a fire in your wood stove, no problem. A fire in your trashcan is a bad thing, but caught in time it’s merely a minor inconvenience. But let that trash fire spread unchecked through your home and pretty soon you’re sitting on the curb in your underwear wondering what you’re gonna do next; if you live.

            The federal government is consuming the entire nation like a wildfire taking our liberty and our property. Worse yet, they’ve handed the economic reins over to a small group of very wealthy and powerful sociopaths that have colluded with government to steal our real wealth(the Federal Reserve has devalued OUR money 95% in under 100 years and given us worthless paper for OUR silver and gold). And somehow you think more laws and more government will improve things? Did yo’ momma drop you on yo’ haid?

          • Boothe, I have to leave soon so this will be short. All I hear from you and others here is that all rules are bad. Any rules kill your liberties. Life is number one on my liberty list for myself and others. Promoting drunk driving, reckless driving, beating up on police are things which you and others here promote take liberties from others. The military was set up by our government for our protection but at the same time you promote things that are dangerous to us. Liberty for you and others here is breaking all laws that will then endanger others with a justification you call it your liberty. Name one thing in the constitution or bill or rights that promotes the endangerment of others in the name of liberty?

            • Clover, the problem comes down to our very clearly different understanding of the meaning of words – and the concepts those words embody. You package-deal and generalize. You use imprecise language. You attempt to impugn a given concept by starting with a premise that assumes its opposite.

              For example, you write that we think “all rules are bad.” Obviously not true. I and others here have repeatedly noted that rules that comport with human liberty and individual rights are not only defensible but laudable. Thus, I (and I suspect Brent and Boothe) have no problem with “rules” (that is, with laws) against, say, theft or assault or fraud. But what you try to do, in a very clumsy and childish way, is try to make it seem as though we simply favor “no rules” rather than illegitimate rules, such as probable cause-free stops/searches. You can’t coherently argue in favor of the latter, not without coming across as a totalitarian dupe, that is. So you try this other tack, which amounts to an emotional outburst. The sort of eructation one might expect to issue forth from a petulant 14-year-old girl.

              Another example. You write that we “Promote drunk driving, reckless driving.” More girlish tugging on the emotional heartstrings – and entirely fact-free.

              In fact – as has been repeatedly explained to you – we are very much opposed to any sort of impaired or reckless driving that constitutes a threat to other drivers. What we oppose, Clover, is treating every driver on the road as a presumptive drunk without any specific cause; and fixating on alcohol-induced impairment over impairment as such; and redefining “drunk” to the point that it now means having a minuscule amount of alcohol in one’s system, even when one’s actual driving gives no indication of meaningful impairment. And so on.

              We go ’round and ’round. You apparently are not capable of comprehending concepts, or the plain meaning of language. Or reasoning like an adult, as opposed to a hormonal adolescent girl.

              Therefore, it’s pointless to attempt to have a rational discussion with someone such as yourself. Your feelings trump everything. You are the ideal citizen of the New America. It is my fervent hope that one day, you will personally experience the consequences of your sloppy, emotional whining and sick desire to control others so that you may feel “secure” and “safe.”

          • Clover, we like rules. Very simple concept driven rules that make sense. You on the other hand want a complex detailed control freakish rule book of many volumes that is to be used on anyone or anything you don’t like. What you feel is bad by a particular person at a particular moment.

            I’ve been over the concept of going after “bad driving” instead of “drunk driving” repeatedly. If some driver blows a red signal because he’s just plain spaced out behind the wheel and T bones your car injuring you, why is that better than a drunk driver who blows the red signal because he was drunk with .16 BAC to the same ends? Both are errors of judgment. Why should one be severely punished and the other might get a traffic ticket that may or may not stick?

            I will continued to be amused when someone like you seeks out the protection of the news media when the government starts targeting their violations of the “rules”. How they aren’t ‘bad people’ blah blah blah. When it happens to them it’s harassment or worse. Funny how that is.

            I learned as a child that the government’s institutions would not protect me. I had to protect myself and that those institutions were often the primary threat. Some day you may learn that when you have to call the cops and instead of protecting you they decide to search your home, run you for warrants, and bust you on some technicality of some law you’ve never heard of… while never investigating the complaint you called them about.

            • I can predict Clover’s response – and I’m betting you can, too.

              A. We support drunk driving (yes, I know… )
              B. Cops and other officials are there to protect us and never abuse their authority… (Yes, I know… again).
              C. “safety” and “security” (as Clover feels about these things) trump everything, including the rule of law and your and my rights.

              Honestly – meaning, I say this with no malice – I think Clover’s just not very bright. He has trouble formulating coherent trains of thought and expressing them. He speaks in the self-referential subjective, always from some emotional standpoint. He seems unable to comprehend a principle in the way that you and I and others here do. He sees everything in terms of isolated particulars, with no broader context (and so, no broader implications). He wants to “get” what he considers “drunk drivers.” He doesn’t see (or refuses to acknowledge) that the broader issue – as you’ve pointed out, several times now – is impairment. He also doesn’t grasp that if the principle of “checking” innocent people for no specific reason (i.e., without probable cause) is allowed in one context, then the precedent has been established and will be expanded to other areas that Clover may not like so much.

              Sigh. Combine mediocre (or worse) intelligence marinated in state propaganda (and so unable to reason) and mix in a dollop of passive-aggressive control freakism and, viola, you will understand why America is in the state it’s in.

              Clover – like so many millions of others – may simply not be capable of understanding the concept of human rights. Or of living in a free society based on voluntarism rather than coercion. It goes back to my admittedly cynical column about Napoleon. I think he was right. Most people aren’t capable of – or interested in – freedom as you and I understand it. Indeed, they are hostile toward it.

              And I think Clover’s right in one thing. We will not rid ourselves of him and his kind unless we can find some way to get off the Earth and start anew on another one. And even then, Cloverism will likely sprout among us, just as it sprouted in America. This country was a mostly free republic for a mere 70-something years; just one human lifetime.

          • You guys still do not get it and never will. One of the main reasons a government was created in the US, in our states and local government is for the safety of our people. Do you disagree with that?

            Safety is established by our government through laws and police and the military. These things are not set up to lock away the people or governments that kill and injure us but their first duty is to prevent these people from killing and injuring our civilians. Do you disagree with that? You do not create safety by only locking someone up after the fact. The government is set up to prevent injury, death and loss of property. You say the the government can not save us all so why bother? The truth is with some of the things put into place over the past 25 years have saved thousands of lives, saved us billions of dollars in losses from human life, property damage and injuries.

            If you work on your car like you want the government to protect us then you would wait and put in gas in your tank after it runs dry even after seeing it was running low in the first place . You would wait to put in oil in your engine after it locks up or explodes even though you could easily check it every few thousand miles.

            Many of the things you consistently complain about are things that were voted for by our representatives and backed up by the courts. I truly believe that you are a fraction as smart and logical as most of them.

            • Clover, please show me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights there is language about “safety.” I can find numerous references to securing or protecting our human rights as individuals; nothing about “safety.”

              Please, educate me.

              And: Once again, you showcase your inability to have a rational discussion. You write, for example, that I “… say the the government can not save us all so why bother?” In fact, I wrote no such thing. It’s another pathetic straw man argument; more fishwife emotional bleating.

              I’ve written in defense of the individual’s right to be left alone by government unless and until he has done something or there is good reason for believing he may be about to do something that causes injury or harm to others. I’ve pointed out to you that as a matter of simple logic, if you accept the idea that it’s ok for government to randomly stop/detain/search people for one reason, then you have admitted the principle of random stops/searches for other (and any) reason, which will make it much easier to broaden the practice to many other areas of our lives, not just “sobriety” checkpoints. This has in fact happened. You refuse to concede the point, which is factually unassailable. You just… feeeeeeel.

              You are on thin ice, Clover. I tire of having to recite the same simple points over and over and over. You are free to disagree with me – and if the disagreement is intelligent I will not prevent it from being posted. Come out and say that you think the Constitution is outmoded, that the Bill of Rights should be formally retired because you believe an authoritarian, collectivist form of government is best – and explain why. I will let that get through.

              But I’m not going to waste space or my time dealing with your 14-year-old girl emoting.

          • OK Eric you did not say all rules were bad yourself just 95% of them is my guess. You did say that tailgating was bad but never did say we should fine anyone for it. You said speeding was fine even 124 mph by the motorcyclist through traffic. Passing in no passing zones is fine with you. Guys that drink a lot and drive is fine with you.

            Drunk driving is fine with you as long as the guy does not hit anyone. You say that the police should not follow cars to see if they are driving safely and the police should not be able to have safety checks to see if they are drunk. That leaves only the crashes to be able to get them off the road. That promotes drunk driving. By the way, name one person that had a search of their vehicle without cause during a safety check? You consistently say that something is bad and against your rights because you say Eventually they will do something else than what you are complaining about. That kind of thinking would be the same as the police throwing all drivers in jail because they may possibly do something wrong and against the law.

            You are for rules that correspond to actions that already have caused injury or death or loss of property to others. You are for rules against drunk drivers after they hit someone. You are against speeders and reckless drivers after they hit someone else. You are for rules/laws against theft, assault and fraud. All of these are things that have already hurt someone or killed them. No prevention.

            I am against all impairment of drivers not just drunk drivers. The major reasons I bring up drunk driving is because it is the number one preventable cause of accidents and death. You say drunk driving is just a minor mistake in judgment. Having a half a dozen drinks in a couple of hours and then driving is not a mistake in judgment.

            • Firstly, Cloveroni, I want to make sure to point out your lack of any response to my taking you to task on the Constitution and Bill of Rights – where you will find no mention of “safety” anywhere. This – your ignorance of the founding documents – is at the root of all this back and forth. You either do not comprehend or are unwilling to accept that the country was not founded as the Land of Safety and Security. It was founded as and intended to be a land of liberty – in which individuals were free to exercise their own judgment, including judgment about risk, and not be interfered with by the law unless some demonstrable or imminent harm could be pointed to as a consequence of that person’s actions. You may not like it, but that’s the Troof and Facts. Feel free to argue for a collectivist-authoritarian form of government/society; just stop trying to claim that your collectivist-authoritarian views comport with the country’s original purpose or its founding documents.

              The rest of your latest post is more of the same barely literate gibberish. I’m not going to bother deconstructing it. There’s no point.

        • Another “compromise” person. Here’s how your system of compromise works Clover:
          Let’s say we all here debate cutting off both clover’s legs. Some people don’t want to cut off clover’s legs and others do. So we “compromise” and one of clover’s legs is cut off. Sound good Clover? But it gets better… a few months or years later it is proposed to cut off clover’s remaining leg… again there is debate which ends in compromise of cutting remaining leg off from the knee down. Sound good to you?

          I am sick and tired of “compromise” because that’s how it works. Someone proposes something that is completely wrong so we get something that is half wrong… then half wrong again and half wrong again…. until they get 7/8ths or better of what they wanted in the first place!

          That’s your “compromise” in action and that’s how it works in reality.

          • Precisely, Brent.

            There is no “freedom option” to choose at the ballot box. It’s just a question of whose rights shall be violated, and to what degree? It’s despicable on many levels, but perhaps most of all because of the way it subtly turns each of us upon the other, creating antagonisms and friction where none would normally, or naturally exist.

            For example, the Young vs. the Old.

            If you are in your 20 or 30s today, you probably – understandably – resent the hell out of politically powerful old farts and old fart lobbies such as AARP because of the way they are bleeding you white and destroying your financial well-being in order to provide for their “retirement income.” Why should a young worker have a gun put to his head and be told he will hand over 15 percent of everything he earns so that some old person he doesn’t even know can collect a check? We have replaced inter-generational relationships (younger family members caring for their older relatives when necessary) with an impersonal, government enforced system of intergenerational parasitism. The old vote against the interests (and rights) of the young. The young grow more and more resentful toward the old.

            You can draw a similar example from a multitude of government programs we’re told “help” so on and so on.

          • Clover,

            Government definitely establishes something through laws, police, and the military. But it is not safety. It is order. Specifically the order which government prefers. Safety and order are two very different things, in case you were unaware.

            What Clover calls “safety” I call “control.” The police and military do not exist to provide for the safety of the citizenry. They exist to preserve domestically (police) and project internationally (military) the government monopoly on force. I dare you to try and explain away the B-52 and USS Nimitz as defensive weapons designed to promote safety. These are offensive weapons designed to project power anywhere in the world.

            But let me guess, we kill them over there in the interests of “safety” over here, right Clover?

            I just won’t even bother with explaining the concept of a victimless crime to you because it would probably make your head explode, and anyways it seems that smarter people than me have tilted at that windmill to no avail.

            May your chains rest lightly upon you, Clover.

            • Clover is an archetype. He and his ilk cannot conceptualize or deal in principles. Thus, he sees no intellectual contradiction in, on the one hand, a system that does not bother the fellow who goes to the supermarket to buy a case of beer but will arrest and jail the same individual for possessing a bag of vegetable matter that, exactly like the alcohol, contains a drug. I’ve had this exact conversation with a person who is intelligent and “educated” (possesses a college degree). He is regular beer drinker. He enjoys the taste. He likes the slight buzz he gets. He doesn’t drink to excess, nor does he drive drunk or steal or beat his wife as a result of having a few beers. He is capable of drinking responsibly and harms no one (except perhaps his waistline). Yet he supports the War on (some) Drugs, even though I pointed out to him – and he conceded the point – that merely possessing or using pot is no different than possessing or using alcohol; that it is just as possible to use other drugs in moderation, responsibly (in the sense of not causing harm to others). And so on. I asked him why he believes (note, not thinks) it’s right to point guns at some kid smoking a joint (or who gets caught with a bag) and throw him in jail while the guy with the six-pack is a “solid citizen.” Blank Stare followed shortly by Cloverite idiocies about “gateway drugs” and all the rest of the scheisse. I am certain, incidentally, that this guy – like me – experimented with various drugs-other-than-alcohol back in college. Amazingly, neither he nor I nor any of our friends who dabbled ever harmed anyone or committed a crime as a result. We all got jobs, earn our livings, etc.

              Just one example.

              These people can’t be reached.

        • “Ron Paul if he would get elected would bring government to a halt.”

          Three cheers for that!

          I am the #1 fan of congressional gridlock, which would be guaranteed likely in toto by Ron Paul vetoes. A Ron Paul presidency could supplement that by imposing gridlock on the entire executive branch. Which total gridlock would then render the Supreme Court irrelevant, which it mostly ought to be anyhow.

          What’s not to like here?

          • Exactly. Just a stop of things getting worse would be welcome at this point.

            With Ron Paul in office people who can at least handle a the present system, if it’s held static, will be able to get things moving economically. There’s enough freedom left for those with the right risk tolerance to try. Not ideal by any means but enough that there’s room for prosperity if those people know it won’t get worse.

          • Excellent points by both Brent and Jay; look at the current situation like the big fly wheel on an old hit and miss engine. It can run in either direction; Liberty or tyranny. But before you can get it running in Liberty mode, you have to stop that fly wheel’s momentum with external force. Then you must apply external force again to restart it in the right direction. So the first step is applying the brake to stop this mess and Dr. Paul seems to be the only man who actually has his hand on the brake lever.

  3. In case Eric misunderstood me, I meant to say–in so many words–that Ron Paul is here and now running for president. No present need to look for “someone like” him, at least in that role. Yes, the battle is worth joining; and no doubt many posters on this blog joined it long ago. RP in ’12!! (And, fellow Paulistas, prepare for the long haul. Fixing the fubar-ed status quo will take awhile.)

  4. From early in the presidential primary campaign “season,” I have likened the Republican field to what pours out of the Volkswagen when it pulls up to the center circus ring and the door opens. Sole exception: Ron Paul, of course.

    Anyone notice who was first to snub the coming Trump “debate?” RP, of course. Notice who was first to accept? The execrable Newt Gingrich, with “Saint Rick” Santorum–“pro-life” poseur extraordinaire–next in line. That any of the others even have to think about it tells me all I would ever want to know about them, but already do.

    • I guess the bottom line is we have more sleepless nights for the next 4 years regardless. As the ship sinks the band plays on! Where is Colin Powell when the country needs him? Or Stormin’ Norman.

      • Colin Powell’s another compromised sell-out. Remember the “WMD” dog and pony show he gave at the UN? He helped, more than any other person, to legitimize The Chimp’s assault on Iraq. He lent gravitas to the war party – and even though he said later he regretted doing it, the fact is he let himself be used by The Chimp and the neocons. He also favors racial quotas (“affirmative action”) and is far from being a liberty-minded, freedom-loving person in my estimation.

        • Not to mention, something I find pretty creepy, is that he’s a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath. Along with a bunch of other foreign titles. He would literally be the global government candidate.

          • Amen. And: They all are. As George Carlin put it, it’s a club and you’re not a member. None of us are – and no one gets to the national level of politics in this country who isn’t – and lives.

      • Thanks all the same, Victor. But we’re already most of the way to a military dictatorship without having to recruit, for president, retired military brass who were–during their careers and well after–very much a part of the problem.

        • Amen.

          It is a popular mistake to equate the “upright, military bearing” and “he’s a veteran” with moral excellence. The U.S.military has arguably not fought a defensive war since 1812 and without question not since 1945. Powell – to give him the benefit of the doubt – may have meant well, but the fact is he helped kill innocent people in Vietnam who never posed any threat to America or “our freedom,” then enabled the mass slaughter of Iraqis who never posed any threat to America or “our freedom.” At best, he’s a soldierly dupe. At worst, he’s one of those large-scale sociopaths for whom the killing of thousands of people is an abstraction – a policy goal.

          If people want a human being for a leader – someone who abhors violence and would use it only in self-defense and even then, only as a last resort – then they need to look for someone like Ron Paul.

            • “For someone against all violence, why carry a gun in the car?”

              Clover, I’ll give you one more try. That’s it.

              I (and other Libertarians) oppose the gratuitous use of violence. Not the use of necessary violence in self-defense.

              It is not moral to threaten someone with a gun (or your fists) in order to make them do what you want, or to take their property. It is absolutely moral to use your fists – or a gun – to defend your person or property against someone who threatens you with their fists or a gun. I am against being a victim of violence.

              Do you see?

              Do you actually have a problem with this?

              If you answer coherently, it’ll get through. If you babble on like an imbecile, it won’t.

            • PS: This one’s just for you:

              If Donna Hopper, a 66 year old Redding, California, woman had listened to police during a 911 call, she may have been killed by an intruder.

              During a 911 call, a police operator told Hopper not to shoot the intruder breaking into her home. She was told to put down the gun and wait for police.

              Hopper instead shot and killed the man with a recently purchased .38 handgun.

              The incident is another example demonstrating that police are unable to protect citizens from criminals. Not only are police incapable of protecting citizens, they have no duty to do so.

              Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens were expected to arm and protect themselves. In fact, self defense was considered a civic duty. In America, armed police were considered no different than the dreaded prospect of a standing army.

              By the mid-1800s, however, cities began forming police forces and gradually the idea that the citizen is responsible for his self defense diminished. It is now virtually illegal in many large cities to own a firearm for self defense.

              As Operation Fast and Furious demonstrated, the government is actively involved in efforts to disarm the public. On Wednesday, we reported on documents obtained by CBS that prove the government launched Fast and Furious specifically as a pretense to argue for more restrictive gun laws.

              The government’s efforts to gut the Second Amendment and disarm the public has nothing to do with citizens killing intruders in self defense or even violent Mexican drug cartels. Government is invariably mistrustful of an armed public, especially when that government begins acting tyrannically.


          • Undue, irrational reverence for all things and people military is a completely logical outgrowth of the established American civil religion aka public “education.”

            As to looking for “someone like Ron Paul,” good luck. There is no one like him, at least right now. But why settle for a substitute, anyway?

            • “As to looking for “someone like Ron Paul,” good luck”

              No one that’s yet nationally known. Remember, men such as Jefferson had their antecedents, too. It is a process. We may only be the layers of the foundation stones; perhaps not even that. But what Paul has done – and what we are doing, merely by discussing these things as we have been – is to at least begin to alter the course of a very mighty current. It will take time. It may take more than our lifetimes But it is a battle worth joining, is it not?

          • I get it Eric. You say there was a person saved by killing an intruder. How do you know they were saved by using the gun? Just because she shot the person does not mean the intruder was going to kill her. Robbers are for the most part just like other animals. They would rather flee than to have a confrontation unless you corner them like pointing a gun at them.

            I believe Ron Paul has a chance but a very slight one. He sounds good in what he says but if people actually find out what he believes then that is another story. There are some of his writings that actually show what he thinks and when confronted with these statements he says he can not possibly have made them. He knows he could never get elected with his actual ideas.

            • Typical. Your first thought is for the violent scumbag who breaks into a person’s home – a woman’s home. Not for the scared-to-death 66-year-old woman facing a thug breaking into her home to do god-knows-what. Your sympathies are with the thug – and you question the actions of his intended victim.

              It speaks volumes about you as a person.

          • Clover I have never seen anything like you. You are right, we don’t know for sure what that thug woud have done if he’d made it into the house and that lady wasn’t armed. Whaddaya’ think he was there for? Tea and conversation? Are you daft?

            You can bet that the police would have been there in minutes…..when it was mere seconds that counted.

            I can tell you this, we sure as hell know what that perp didn’t do; he didn’t rob her, he didn’t rape her and he didn’t murder her. The only name on the body count list was his. Plus, we don’t have pay for his prosecution, incarceration and so called rehabilitation.

            She provided society with the gift of zero recidivism in this thug’s case and should get a medal! He could have easily avoided his untimely demise by not violating her rights. End of story.

  5. I’m inclined to agree with your assessment. If the Republicrats really want to win this round in the popular arena they’ll nominate Ron Paul. But if someone else gets the nomination, I’ll do what I’ve done for previous election cycles and write Dr. Paul in. That way I’ve got the “if you don’t vote, don’t bitch” crowd covered and I voted on principle, not for “the lesser of two evils”. Since the electoral college will select the next banksters’ sock puppet, other than sending a message to the zombies in D.C., our votes are practically meaningless as they were intended to be in this Constitutional Republic. Now if we could just get things back to where U.S. senators are once again selected by the state legislatures and each congressman only has 30 – 50 thousand constituents…..


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here