Category Archives: Republicans

Barack’s Brilliant One-Two Punch

Affirmative Action, Barack Obama, Conspiracy, Pseudo-intellectualism, Republicans, Uncategorized

Our president may be stupid as far as political economy goes (a stupid “you can’t fix”), but when it comes to politics, he is as wily as a fox (see “Obama Cunning, Not Clever”). It is also true that Republicans pushing the Birther conspiracy are, to put is kindly, no match for this very mediocre man.

The bellicose and bombastic Donald Trump was dealt a well-deserved blow, when, to amplified attention (due to Trump publicity), Obama released a “Certificate of Live Birth.”

The president, who discussed the release at the White House without taking questions, said he had been “puzzled” by the enduring shelf life of the issue and acknowledged the announcement may not put the so-called birther controversy to rest. But he told the public and the media that it’s time to “get serious.”

As was mentioned in “Alien In More Than One Way,” I never understood the fetish with Obama’s alleged elusive birth certificate. “The President is an alien on so many levels, I fail to see why the formality of his birth is more central than the insanity and un-American nature of his thinking (which can be said of many other of his fellow pols, although BO is, admittedly, an extreme case).”

“Besides, isn’t BO American by virtue of his mother being an American? Mother Obama was a natural-born American, so baby BO is as well. The whole thing is a little loopy.”

This side show has sundered a chance to expose the lack of curiosity among Obama’s media acolytes about the president’s heavily guarded school and scholarly records. Obama’s Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago: none has been released, and none of the media that matters have evinced the slightest curiosity about these papers.

Thanks to the Birthers, lost is the opportunity to expose affirmative action, as it ripples through American society, affecting everything from the housing foreclosure crisis—“The Minority Meltdown”—to the highest office in the land.

UPDATE II: McMussolini Has Spoken (Succors Terrorists)

Foreign Policy, Islam, Jihad, John McCain, Middle East, Military, Republicans, Terrorism, War

He landed in Libya, checked into the local Benghazi hotel, looked around, and saw that the war was good, and then he spoketh:

“The [rebels] are my heroes,” exclaimed John McCain, senator for Arizona. And a hero deserves “every appropriate means of assistance,” including “command and control support, battlefield intelligence, training and weapons.”

Only a bit more thoughtful than his notoriously mindless daughter, McCain, joined by “Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.),” has shown no awareness of the intelligence. (Thank you, WikiLeaks) Fighting Qaddafi are “[f]ormer jihadi fighters who underwent ‘religious and ideological training’ in Afghanistan, Lebanon and the West Bank…”

From the pollution he has left along his political path McCain can run but cannot hide. Republicans once wisely rejected war in Kosovo. McCain, back then, jettisoned party loyalty to call for bombs from above and “more boots on the ground.” Not so long ago it was “bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb-Iran,” and the promise of a 100 year war in Iraq, which was bound to break the bank that McCain once vowed to make solvent.

Under the loving gaze of the media, McCain’s jingoism is ever evolving.

UPDATE I: You want to watch former CIA Counterterrorism analyst Michael Scheuer tell the teletwits of CNN that they are “carrying water for Obama.” Scheuer shone on Freedom Watch too, telling the Judge’s viewers that drones give you nothing but a body count, but no progress on the ground. “Why are we there; why do we care?” he asked, while pointing to “confusion, ignorance and even arrogance in the way the U.S. has handled the unrest in the Middle East so far.” I’ll say!

The sentiments expressed in “Frankly, My Dear Egyptians, I Don’t Give a Damn”…

UPDATE II (April 26): McCain Gives Succor To Terrorists. Jack Hunter at the American Conservative:

“Who says there is evidence of a link between the Libyan rebels and Al-Qaeda? US and British intelligence, NATO leaders, and the Libyan rebels themselves. Who says there is not a link? John McCain, who calls the rebels ‘heroes.'” MORE...

Ron Paul Vs. The ‘Revirginizing’ Republicans

libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Republicans, Ron Paul

John H. Richardson of Esquire Magazine has a great line about the Republicans’ hollow commitment to constitutional principles: “Once Obama became president, the hymen of their small-government ideals spontaneously regenerated.” Richardson follows with a fabulous piece about Ron Paul:

“[Ron] Paul chose to use the new Congress’s ceremonial reading of the Constitution — a tribute to him — to chastise his colleagues for the hollowness of the stunt. ‘Will there be no more wars without an actual congressional declaration?’ he asked. ‘Will the Federal Reserve Act be repealed? Will only gold and silver be called legal tender? Will we end all the unconstitutional federal departments, including the Departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor? Will the Patriot Act be repealed and all the warrantless searches stopped? Will the TSA be restrained or abolished? Will the IRS’s unconstitutional collection powers end? Will executive and judicial quasilegislative powers be ended? Will we end the federal war on drugs? Would we end the federal government’s involvement in medical care? Will we end all the federal government’s illusionary insurance programs? Will we ban secret prisons, trials without due process, and assassinations? Will we end our foreign policy of invasion and occupations?'”

The feature about Ron Paul is well-worth reading. (While you’re at it, here’s a defense of Representative Paul, one of many, written during the heyday of the attacks against him launched by Beltway libertarians.)

Other good lines by Richardson: “Words that other politicians used like screeches of chimpanzee code, Paul actually meant and could explain so that everything from the economic collapse to marijuana legalization to terrorism actually connected and made sense. Like the words on everyone’s lips these days, small government. The way Ron Paul explains it, the U. S. Constitution was all about setting up a balance of powers in order to prevent a recurrence of government tyranny, a purpose emphasized by the Bill of Rights….”

A not-so-good line, because arguably incorrect (the accretion of the state has been the ruin of the USA): “He doesn’t care that it was a powerful American government, based in Washington and willing to invest in its people, that ultimately made the United States into the world-historic power that it is today, with a huge economy and a vast middle class. Nor does he care that it was that strong central government that ensured the survival of the young country” …

Finally:

The difference is that a lot of conservatives just say this stuff without meaning it. It was conservatives, after all, who said that you can have small government along with two wars and seven hundred overseas military bases. But Ron Paul goes the other way. Philosophical and systematic and pure in a way that young people may be best qualified to understand, he lays bare the contradictions. That is the reason his ideas have spread like hidden veins throughout our culture, the reason he has become such a stunning challenge to the existing order. He means the words that everyone else just uses. He’s flinty as a Founder and solid as the gold standard — not just the messenger but also the message.

Facebook Forced To Fawn Over Beltway Bosses

Barack Obama, Business, Democrats, Fascism, Government, Regulation, Republicans, The State

Had Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook—which we all use to such great advantage—neglected to schmooze Washington, one of this or the next administration’s top dogs (Republicans are no better than Democrats in persecuting business) would pick-up the scent and give chase. Why? Because we labor under a system “in which the government leaves nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private individuals but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation.” So wrote the Tannehills in The Market for Liberty.

Fascism, in short.

Duly, Facebook now has a new Washington office. As the Wall Street Journal reported:

“… Facebook is still trying to find a path to Washington, where the company has only a fledgling lobbying operation, even though it finds its privacy policies under increasing scrutiny and is trying to navigate a politically sensitive expansion into China.

In seven years, Facebook has risen from a tiny start-up to an Internet power with a potential market value estimated at more than $50 billion. Now an online forum with more than 600 million users, Facebook faces growing pressure from lawmakers and regulators concerned about the way it uses personal information shared by its users. [Yeah, right; the Big Bosses only want what’s best for us.]

At the same time, the company is confronting questions about how it will handle its role as a global public square for dissidents if it enters China and other countries with little tolerance for dissent. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal about its approach abroad, Facebook officials in Washington suggested the company might be willing to play by China’s rules—a stance that could raise hackles in Congress.

Until lately, Facebook has spent very little money in Washington, even by Silicon Valley’s frugal standards. The company’s outlays on lobbying totaled $351,000 last year, federal records show. That’s a fraction of the amount spent by other technology giants, including Google Inc.’s $5.2 million and Microsoft Corp.’s $6.9 million.”

[SNIP]

Any serious student of economics knows that regulation hinders wealth creation, often forcing the entrepreneur to replace viable, voluntary trades and transactions with bureaucratic, politicized decision making. Rather than concentrate on satisfying and protecting his users on Facebook, Zuckerberg, is now compelled to divert resources from customer service and technical innovation into navigating the bureaucrat’s tax and regulatory laws.