Texans Against Senator John Cornyn

Anyone else think it's time to see senator Cornyn removed as Texas representative? His recent support for the "fiscal cliff" compromise shows me that he enjoys spending other people's money and would rather see taxes increase so that he can continues to do without regard to that unsustainable path. Cornyn would rather ignore the realistic idea that cutting spending creases deficits, while raising taxes only increases the national debt. How can anyone so ignorant of economic principles be allowed to make fiscal choices on behalf of anyone else? There is nothing bipartisan about what politicians are doing today in regards to responsibility in government, and voting them out is one effective way to make a change in the state.

More:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Texans-Against-John-Cornyn

At least, with Cornyn and Pelosi holding hands-on this "compromise," we don't have to pass the billet see what's in it...

Despite being toosick to testify in front of Congress, Clinton traveled to the Dominican Republic for the New Year. Politics as usual...

http://thenavigatoronline.com/2012/12/29/hillary-clinton-so-sick-she-had-to-travel-to-punta-cana-resort-to-celebrate-the-new-year/

Simple Answers to Questions Posed To Imaginary Liberals

I noticed this expansion of the old vastleft strawman while reading deBoer's argument about how all liberals are secret torture apologists:

Here's my problem: for months prior to Election Day, many Democrats and liberals insisted that the position of the presidency was so vastly important that it was worth suspending certain moral and ethical principles in order to elect the better candidate. I don't want to rehash the wrongness or rightness of lesser evilism yet again. I'm just pointing out that this was the argument. And please note that the moral stakes simply could not have been higher; what was in argument were issues of literal life and death, of our stance towards the killing of innocent people. Retaining the presidency was so important that we had to put some of our most basic convictions on hold.

---

More: Lawyers Guns Money

75 Percent of Obama’s Proposed Tax Hikes to Go Toward New Spending

The Swash calls it for what it is; 

Seventy-five percent of the new revenue pulled in by President Barack Obama's "fiscal cliff" plan would go toward new spending, not toward deficit reduction, the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee contends. Here's a chart, detailing how money from the new tax hikes would be distributed:

According to the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee, $1.2 trillion of the proposed $1.6 trillion in tax hikes would go toward new spending, while only $400 billion would go toward deficit reduction.

"The [president's] plan called for $1.6 trillion in new taxes, twice what the president asked for in the campaign. He asked for $800 billion during the campaign. Now he wants $1.6 trillion in new taxes," said Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, last week on the floor.

"Spending under that plan would increase $1 trillion above the levels agreed to in the Budget Control Act, as signed into law. We agreed to the Budget Control Act 16 months ago, in August 2011, and we raised the debt ceiling and agreed to reduce spending. We raised the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion and agreed to reduce spending $2.1 trillion. The President's plan would take out over $1.1 trillion of those spending limitations that are in current law. I repeat, spending will increase more than $1 trillion above the already projected growth in spending," Sessions added.

"Our spending is growing. It is not decreasing. It is already projected to grow, but the President's proposal is to have it grow even faster than the law currently calls for."

I'm not keen to side with one party over the other, but this is just ridiculous. Budgetary debates within government tend to focus on decreases in future spending rate increases, which is hardly cutting back. It's like saying you are not going to spend $100 in the future, only $97. Adjusting future projected spending rates are not the same as cutting spending when we need immediate cuts to keep things from grinding to a halt as a result of career politicians and their partisan politics, not that anything has or will change while either party has their hands around the necks of taxpayers...

Boehner says Obama is slow-walking fiscal cliff talks

Cuts, that's funny!

House Speaker John Boehner accused President Barack Obama on Tuesday of slow-walking negotiations to avoid the "fiscal cliff" and urged him to name specific cuts in government spending he would support as part of any compromise.

---

Source

Handwriting on the wall for Susan Rice

The Benghazi attack gets more convoluted through the political games as time marches on:

Why would the New York Times choose to publish an attack on Susan Rice ("a surprising and unsettling sympathy for Africa's despots") in its Sunday edition? The Times turned over prized op-ed real state to Salem Solomon ("an Eritrean-American journalist who runs Africa Talks, a news and opinion Web site covering Africa and the global African diaspora"), who signaled the UN Ambassador that a nomination to be Secretary of State would not be a bed of roses. Just in case she felt that going on those five Sunday shows and playing a meat puppet mouthing whatever she was told to say about Benghazi deserves some sort of reward.

I see it as a sign that President Obama has decided that confirmation hearings for Rice would be so politically costly that he would be better served by another nominee. Right now, it appears that former Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, is being test marketed. Rice is getting the message indirectly that her reward for loyalty is being deferred.

---

American Thinker

Obama: Give Me Debt Ceiling Power Or I’ll Veto My Own Tax Proposal

In case there is still anyone out there that continues to believe that the 2008 campaign lines that Barack Obama gave about changing the way Washington works, stopping “politics as usual,” and providing more transparency in government are true, then get a load of this. On Wednesday, Obama demonstrated just how partisan and how much of a power grabber he is. He indicated that if he were not given unlimited powers to raise the debt ceiling, apart from Congressional approval, that he might just veto his own tax hike proposal should it come to his desk.

As Obama addressed corporate CEOs at the Business Roundtable, he told them that business leaders “should not accept going through” another debt-ceiling crisis like the one that occurred in 2011, which caused stocks to fall and ended with the first U.S. credit rating downgrade.

He said that the Republicans using the debt ceiling as leverage, in order to get more spending cuts, is not only a “bad strategy for America,” but he was adamant that it was a game he would not play.

More: Obama: Give Me Debt Ceiling Power Or I’ll Veto My Own Tax Proposal

Right-wing Fails to Learn from History and Gives Lead to the Left

In December 2010, I wrote that "An indicator of the incoming House Republican majority's seriousness about cutting spending will be which members the party selects to head the various committees." The final roster ended up leaving a lot to be desired from a limited government perspective. For example, the House Republican leadership and its allies went with "The Prince of Pork" to head up the Appropriations Committee.

Two years later, the committee situation is about to get even worse now that the House Republican leadership has decided to send a message that casting a vote according to one's beliefs instead of one's instructions is a punishable offense. On Monday, four congressmen were booted from "plum" committee assignments for failing to sufficiently tow the leadership line. I suspect that the purge was motivated, at least in part, by Team Boehner's desire to have the rest of the rank and file think twice before casting a "no" vote on whatever lousy deal is struck with the White House to avoid the "fiscal cliff."

Three of the purged Republicans are returning members of the 2010 freshmen "Tea Party Class": Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ), Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). Over the past year, I have been keeping a loose record of how the freshmen voted on opportunities to eliminate programs and prevent spending increases. On seven particularly telling votes*, Schweikert and Amash voted in favor of limited government every time. Out of 87 freshmen, only Schweikert, Amash, and five others had a perfect record. Huelskamp was six for seven. He also was one of only four Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee to vote against the bloated farm bill that passed out of the committee in July. The fourth outcast, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), had become an irritant to the Republican establishment after turning against the Iraq War and associating himself with more libertarian Republicans like Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

More: With Purge, GOP Leadership Reaches New Low

While this looks to be a serious setback for right-wing fascism in the fight to control the state with left-wing socialism, either way we are screwed. Whether one party or the other (or one half of the single party system) gains control of the state is not entirely significant, as individuals in either paradigm are working toward authoritarian systems of government that have been tried and failed throughout history, but why bother learning from history? Or maybe it's more like a horse race, where the winner is fixed before the race begins...

No State: Israel and Palestine

There is a sick irony in that the Israeli government has become an aggressor against another culture after the historical persecution against the Jewish people (though not all Israeli and Palestinian people are violently opposed to each other). Somehow, I don't see sympathy for Israel during this campaign of violence toward another culture:

Israel's interior minister has publicly vowed to "send Gaza back to the Middle Ages" as the aerial and naval bombardment of the besieged enclave, as well as the Palestinian rocket barrage against Israel, continued into Sunday.

There was no calm in Gaza as 'Operation Pillar of Defense,' Israel's air and sea bombardment of the densely populated enclave, entered its fifth straight day on Sunday. Israel has carried out 950 air strikes targeting Palestinian militants who have launched more than 500 rockets into Israel during the course of hostilities.

Reuters reports that the Palestinian death toll stood at 47 going into Sunday morning. Around half of those deaths were civilians, including 12 children. Gaza health officials said that 385 Palestinians have been wounded.

And end to the governments of Israel and Palestine would put and end to the violence. These acts of war are not by the people themselves, but the warmongers that have come to power. There is no explicit consent by either culture to the aggressive ruling class of either nation which are so violently opposed to each other, just as many Americans do not support the acts of the American military abroad. To put and end to the violence, the people must recognize and oppose the violence inherent in the system, and take steps to dismantle the state itself, replacing it with a voluntary society. 

President Obama Finally Speaks Out on Legalization

Oops, sorry, my bad. That was from 2004

What? Obama hasn't been the Prohibitionist usurper he claimed to be? I'm cool with candidate Obama, but chairman Obama sure isn't my soft of guy. 

The silence from the administration has been deafening. And other states and countries have been stepping into the void to make a case for legalization. The genie is definitely out of the bottle.

It's interesting to watch the silence on Twitter. Rafael Lemaitre, the Communications Director or the ONDCP hasn't tweeted since October 14, except to re-tweet some posts by others that had nothing to do with marijuana legalization. And the other ONDCP twitter account has joked about Director Kerlikowske secretly desiring to guest host NPR's show "Wait, Wait," and yet hasn't commented on the Washington and Colorado votes. The ONDCP blog talked about drugged driving legislation in California, and a Veteran's Day message, but nothing on the elections. Clearly, the ONDCP has been told in no uncertain terms to keep its collective mouth shut.

Source

EPA Regulatory Conflict of Interest

A brief list of senior EPA officials who have formerly worked at environmental interest groups that often sue the EPA:

Nancy Stoner, Interim Assistant Administrator of Water
Formerly Worked for: Natural Resources Defense Council

Glenn Paulson, Chief Scientist
Formerly Worked for: Natural Resources Defense Council

Michael L. Goo, Associate Administrator for the Office of Policy
Formerly Worked for: Natural Resources Defense Council

Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator
Formerly Worked for: National Audubon Society

Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement & Compliance
Formerly Worked for: The Conservation Law Foundation's Advocacy Center

Michelle J. DePass, Asst. Administrator for the Office of International and Tribal Affairs
Formerly Worked for: The New York City Environmental Justice Alliance

Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
Formerly Served on the Board of: NYC Environmental Justice Alliance

Curt Spalding – Region 1 Director
Formerly Worked for: “Save the Bay” and “Narragansett Bay Keeper”

Judith A. Enck – Region 2 Director
Formerly Worked for: New York PIRG and Environmental Advocates of New York

Susan Hedman – Region 5 Director
Formerly Worked for: Environmental Law and Policy Center and Center for Global Change

Karl Brooks – Region 7 Director
Formerly Worked for: Idaho Conservation League

James B. Martin – Region 8 Director
Formerly Worked for: Environmental Defense Fund

Jared Blumenfeld – Region 9 Director
Formerly Worked for: Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, the NRDC and International Fund for Animal Welfare

6 out of the 10 EPA regional directors came right from the radical enviro groups.

Here in Region 6, we have work to do. The EPA regional director just resigned. He’s not listed as one of the 60%, but should have been. He resigned just a couple of weeks ago over a comment he made, that he would ‘crucify’ industries which violated the EPA regulations.

Petraeus testifies that CIA blamed terrorists for Benghazi attack

Holy crap! it takes charges laid by the state on one of it's own before they'll tell the "truth." It's always about the power struggle between the US intelligence agencies, not sex. 

Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus explained Friday that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation so as not to alert them that U.S. intelligence was on their trail.

They're not really even saying anything about why the attack occurred. Why focus on the US intervention into another sovereign nation until a generation passes (Vietnam, Nixon, Cambodia, Pol Pot, in that order) and we can criticize the previous version of the state, not ready to question it while we live today. 

A Simple Constitutional Argument For Letting States Legalize Marijuana

Former federal prosecutor Mark Oslet wrote a CNN op-ed that presents a clear and concise argument as to why the U.S. federal government should honor state laws legalizing marijuana.

Last week Colorado and Washington became the first places in the world to remove the the prohibition on commercial production, distribution and possession of marijuana for non-medical purposes. 

Oslet, now a law professor, argues that a central principle built into the structure of the U.S. government through the Constitution "demands that individual and state rights be honored above all but the most important federal imperatives."

In the book "Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know," drug policy scholars note that the "Constitution does not allow the federal government either to order state governments to create any particular criminal law or to require state and local police to enforce federal criminal laws."

The U.S. government has long argued that the war on drugs is imperative to combating the possession and use of drugs in America.

But Oslet counters that federal and state efforts to curb marijuana use through prosecution "simply haven't worked" since the U.S. has spent $20 to $25 billion a year during the past decade and incarcerated tens of thousands of people "to punish drug possession and trafficking without ever successfully restricting the flow of marijuana or cocaine."

Therefore, Oslet concludes, the Obama administration should "employ that discretionary power in line with our oldest and best principles and step back from continuing marijuana prosecutions in Colorado and Washington."

---

Source

Every President Makes you Nostalgic for his Predecessor

On January 16, 1991, a day which shall live in infamy, George Bush finally got his cherished shooting war. The United States launched an avalanche of mass murder and mass destruction upon a small, impoverished third-world country. Bush and the military finally got to uncork their high-tech devastation; and the military-industrial complex, secure in the vanishing of the short-lived "peace dividend," can stand tall once more. By personalizing the war and narrowing it to Saddam Hussein, Bush has managed to make Americans forget about the countless number of Iraqi civilians he is going to maim and murder. Or maybe there is nothing to forget: one reason why a U.S. war is always depressing to libertarians is because each new war is yet another demonstration that many Americans are only concerned about American lives and body bags, and care not a fig for the annihilation of citizens of other countries.

George Bush was, of course, able to maneuver us into a shooting war by aggressively and viciously, in barracks-room language, denying Saddam anyway out, any compromise, any avenue of negotiation. "Just get out, unconditionally...He doesn't need any face...I'm going to kick his ass." What head of State, ever, is going to submit under such terms? Every promising initiative by a third party was shot down brusquely by Bush; even the last-minute proposal by France that the U.N. simply implement its own resolutions by holding a Mideast conference (as suggested by Tariq Aziz) was shot down quickly by Bush as "linkage" and "rewarding the aggressor."

George Bush worked his evil will in the face of a sharply divided country and of an anti-war movement of unprecedented scope at this early stage of a US war. He was aided and abetted in this course by a supine Congress. The iniquity of Congress was bipartisan. What happened to the conservative Republicans, so defiant in opposition to Bush's tax increase? They folded totally in the face of the power of the president. As for the Democrats, led by George Mitchell and Tom Foley – they deliberately waited cravenly to debate until the last minute, when they could effectively be clobbered by the cry to support the president in his last hours of negotiation. And when they finally did allow a debate, they refused to use any muscle to rally the Democrats behind them. In that way, they could support the president, while keeping their voting records clear in case the war should eventually turn sour.

More from the irrepressible Murray N. Rothbard: MR. BUSH'S SHOOTING WAR

Lew Rockwell Roundup

There are a handful of good articles posted over at Lew Rockwell's site today, including a Ron Paul Farewell to Congress (finally coming out of the closet as a Voluntaryist), Lincoln's Greatest Failure (there are so many to choose from), the Petraeus Scandal (I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with sex), and more. Enjoy your liberty? Thank the folks contributing to Rockwell' site for fighting for it on an intellectual level, because your vote means nothing to anyone but yourself. 

Is Obama Asking for Too Much Revenue?

President Barack Obama will be sitting down with CEOs from some of America's top businesses today to discuss strategies for dealing with the fiscal cliff. Congress began a session on Tuesday with seven weeks on the clock before hundreds of billions of dollars in spending cuts and tax hikes scheduled at the end of the year threaten to turn a struggling economic recovery into a full-fledged recession.

InvestorWords defines recession thusly;

A period of general economic decline; typically defined as a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters. A recession is typically accompanied by a drop in the stock market, an increase in unemployment, and a decline in the housing market. A recession is generally considered less severe than a depression, and if a recession continues long enough it is often then classified as a depression. There is no one obvious cause of a recession, although overall blame generally falls on the federal leadership, often either the President himself, the head of the Federal Reserve, or the entire administration.

If we are not in a recession, I don't know what to call it. 

Time is of the essence in finding a solution, but politics as usual will have lawmakers on both sides of the isle lobbing grenades at each other for a few weeks before serious discussions are expected to begin.

[...] 

More

Less than One in Five Voted for Obama

That's my tentative estimate (based on Google election result and population statistics) of the percentage of Americans who voted for nobody for President of the United States on Tuesday.

US President Barack Obama knocked down about 60.7 million votes.

GOP challenger Mitt Romney polled about 57.8 million.

Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, 1.14 million.

Green candidate Jill Stein, about 400,000.

A few others, a few thousands or tens of thousands.

About 38.8% of the population supported one of the candidates; about 19.5% of the population supported the alleged "winner."

61.2% of the population did not consent to be ruled at all, and fewer than one in five Americans consented to be ruled by Barack Obama. The figures are likely similar for most or all of the 435 US Representatives and 33 US Senators "elected" on Tuesday.

If these politicians support the system of government they claim to support — one in which governments "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed" — then the only order of business they have to discuss is who will turn the lights off as they depart Washington.

Don't bet the ranch on it.

http://c4ss.org/content/14117

As voter turnout reduces, that consent is more apparently not given to politicians through the vote, and confidence in politicians and their government is fading. Getting the support of less than 20% of the population is a sign that the consent of the governed is being withdrawn en masse.

Vote no confidence by not voting.

WA and CO Recognize that Marijuana is not a Drug

Colorado and Washington became the first U.S. states to legalize the possession and sale of marijuana for recreational use on Tuesday in defiance of federal law, setting the stage for a possible showdown with the Obama administration.

But another ballot measure to remove criminal penalties for personal possession and cultivation of recreational cannabis was defeated in Oregon, where significantly less money and campaign organization was devoted to the cause.

Supporters of a Colorado constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana were the first to declare victory, and opponents conceded defeat, after returns showed the measure garnering nearly 53 percent of the vote versus 47 percent against.

Polls for the last couple of years have shown that marijuana has been gaining acceptance by a majority of the population, even those who do not condone the activity, but recognize that deeming something illegal where there are no victims is an abuse of government power. That doesn't even get into the idea that alcohol and tobacco are legal and regulated, but have negative health and social effects that marijuana does not.

The state has no real authority to regulate drugs, they have seized this for themselves without the consent of the population. This was not an enumerated power. In addition, a naturally occurring plant is not a drug. The number of real drugs that the government approves through the FDA that have negative health effects on users far overshadow those which are outside of it's invalid jurisdiction (any non-consensual act by an outside force is immoral and unjust).

"Colorado will no longer have laws that steer people toward using alcohol, and adults will be free to use marijuana instead if that is what they prefer. And we will be better off as a society because of it," said Mason Tvert, co-director of the Colorado pro-legalization campaign.

The economic benefits of the end of prohibition will be significant, including a decrease in the amount of wasteful cases ending up in the court system. I only hope that it becomes applied retroactively, and that anyone serving time for possession charges is able to appeal and gain the freedom they deserve.

The Drug Policy Alliance, a national advocacy group that backed the initiatives, said the outcome in Washington and Colorado reflected growing national support for liberalized pot laws, citing a Gallup poll last year that found 50 percent of Americans favored making it legal, versus 46 opposed.

I see it as only a matter of time before the Tenth Amendment is once again seen as being the way in which the Constitution was intended to limit the power of the federal government, allowing the states the final say on issues such as this. 

Supporters of Washington state's pot legalization initiative declared victory after the Seattle Times and other media projected a win for marijuana proponents.

Early returns showed pro-legalization votes led with 55 percent versus to 44 percent opposed with about 60 percent of ballots tallied in the state's all-mail-in election system.

The outcomes in Colorado and Washington, which already have laws on the books legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, put both states in further conflict with the federal government, which classifies cannabis as an illegal narcotic.

It is the federal government which is in conflict, and as more states refuse to oppress their residents, the federal government begins to lose consent and power. Small moves, Ellie.


Read on: Colorado, Washington first states to legalize recreational pot | Reuters

Netanyahu Says Bring it on

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday granted a pre-election interview to Channel 2 in which he spoke more tough than ever on Iran, and firmly positioned himself as the "security" candidate ahead of the January 22 poll.

Asked about Israel's perceived reluctance to take military action against Iran's defiant nuclear program without American consent, Netanyahu made clear that he was prepared to act without anyone's permission.

Preemptive strikes are acts of aggression, not defense. It really is that simple. Until a person or group of people is attacked or attack is imminent, there is no justification to instead become the aggressor. 

A history of violent persecution has turned a once peaceful culture into one of violence. What a sad world. 

"When former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of the State of Israel, was it with the consent of the Americans? When former Prime Minister Menachem Begin bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor, was that with the consent of the Americans?" asked Netanyahu.

Netanyahu insisted that the Jewish nation's days of pleading for its survival were over. "When we didn't have a state, when we didn't have an army, and when someone threatened to destroy us and then actually annihilated us, we went and pleaded with others. Today we don't plead, we prepare."

[...]

---

More Warmongering

Obama "wins"

I didn't watch any election coverage yesterday.  In fact, I hadn't really thought about it until I got online this morning and saw half of the statist socialists cheering the victory of their candidate and the other half of the statist socialists wringing their hands over the defeat of their candidate. 

As the Freedom Feens say, the desire to be a statist is a birth defect. 

It wouldn't have made one bit of difference had Romney won.  He was Obama's clone.  Just a Big Government socialistic fascist stamped out of the same die as Obama. And the Bushes.  And Clinton.  Etc.  The claims about Obama's secret religion or birthplace were distractions from the things that really mattered- and on those things Romney wasn't just shooting blanks; he was pointing his finger and saying "click".  And only those who were blinded by their hatred of Obama even noticed Romney.

More

Republicans Should Prepare For Obama's Ultimatum

An early winter has descended on the northeast, ushered in by a 100 year storm that has left the coastal portions of much of the mid-Atlantic and northeastern states reeling.  Our quadrennial demonstration of the degree to which the entire country is divided and politically irreconcilable was once again upon us last night. 

It's hard to put the political season into words better than those. 

Moving into last night's contest, the only things we could be sure of was that climatic change would leave us exposed to more frequent storms in the future (although half the country seems intent on disagreeing with that statement), and that our federal government would remain deeply divided and dysfunctional.

The most concise description of modern government I've heard thus far. 

President Obama's victory last night provides the country with an opportunity that was, unfortunately, squandered during the president's first term. The White House, chastened by a narrow victory and benefiting from the freedom to operate that historically characterizes second term Democratic administrations, is likely to move into next week and next year with a far more combative message than the milquetoast and entirely elusive "bi-partisanship" of the president's first term.

Moreover, the Republicans in the House of Representatives, and to a lesser extent in the Senate, will today come face to face with the reality that their message could not defeat a Democratic president suffering from a nearly 8% unemployment rate, and a massive 14.5% underemployment rate, to say nothing of a generally anemic economy and a lackluster set of policy responses to same.

[...] 

---

More from BU

Where Did The Voters Go?

It is mindboggling. John McCain and Sarah Palin got more votes than Obama did in 2012. This is a incredible drop in voter turnout in what was to be the election of our lifetime. The numbers are in:

2012 
OBAMA -- 59,651,236 ROMNEY -- 57,028,531

2008 OBAMA -- 69,456,897 MCCAIN -- 59,934,814 

If the same number of voters showed up in 2012 as they did for McCain and Palin in 2008, Obama would have been defeated last night. This is insane!!

I'd say that many voters have become jaded and refuse to participate in electoral politics. I sure have. 

Its from stormfront, so take it with a grain of salt...

The Kill List President

The Kill List President

If Romney Had Won

Everyone is talking about the disturbing Bloomberg Businessweek cover showing an aged and very gray President Obama with the headline "The Next Four Years."

Here's what the cover would have looked like in the event of a Romney victory. 

From Businessweek: 

Source

Lame Duck

With the elections results nearly in, I am no more surprised that Obama won than if it had been Romney. If it becomes official, Obama will in effect become the lame duck, and lacking any motivation to be re-elected, the acts of the administration will likely deviate even further from reason than they have thus far. Some of past president's greatest atrocities have been committed in second terms.

2012 Election

I know I can go to bed and sleep well without knowing which candidate won.

The question is, can you?

Clinton and the Art of Distraction

bill clinton bombed the al shifa sudan pharmaceutical medicine factory to cover up sex scandal with monica lewinsky
…obama and clinton deserve each other!

bill clinton | Tumblr

Obama Campaigner Punches Voter in Face

A woman in a Detroit polling location was aggressively campaigning for Obama. A female voter in line objected. The Obama supporter punched the woman in the face.  

Just the divisiveness that the electoral process promotes...

Police came to arrest her and she smacked the cop.  

Developing... 

Detroit Polls: Obama Campaigner Punches Voter in Face

And that's one more reason not to vote, quite a list we're building...

Americans Don't Vote for Presidents (and Shouldn't Vote)

The United States may be an iconic democracy, but every year many Americans don't bother voting at all—regardless of lower turnout caused by events like Hurricane Sandy.

The United States ranks 120th of the 169 countries for which data exists on voter turnout, falling between the Dominican Republic and Benin, according to a January 2012 study from the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (Not all countries ranked were democracies, a factor that could skew the results.)

About 60 percent of eligible voters will likely cast ballots Tuesday (Nov. 6), a lower percentage than in most other Western democracies, said Michael McDonald, a political scientist at George Mason University. [The Strangest Elections in US History]

Experts say the low turnout results from how often Americans conduct elections, the inconvenience of voting and the reality that each individual vote doesn't count for much.

[...]

---

More

And that reality discourages even more from voting. If a vote doesn't matter, why bother? Not to mention that voting is an act of aggression, contributing to what Bastiat referred to as "legal plunder."

"A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years." - Lysander Spooner

Panic In Obama Ranks?

In a conference call..., President Barack Obama's re-election campaign had one central message for their supporters when Election Day arrives tomorrow: They should "keep calm," even if they hear snippets of information favoring Republican Mitt Romney.

Obama Campaign to Supporters: Don't Panic Over Early Exit Polls

The Futility of Politics: Robert P Murphy

As this October issue will be published just before the presidential election, and especially because our interview this month with Murray Sabrin touches on the subject, I thought it appropriate to share my general thoughts on the so-called "political process." To cut to the chase: I think it can be entertaining, but that people who revere liberty should focus their energies elsewhere.

What About Ron Paul?

The first thing that many self-described Austrians and libertarians will say in response to my claim is, "What about Ron Paul? Are you saying we just wasted our time and money spreading his message of Constitutional government, which necessarily includes his stress on genuine national defense and sound money?"

No, I'm not saying that the "Ron Paul Revolution" was a waste. But thepurpose of the Ron Paul movement wasn't to put him in the White House.

For one thing, that objective was impossible in the present climate. Look, if Ron Paul is right in his diagnosis of what ails the Republic, then the Federal Reserve and what Eisenhower famously called the "military-industrial complex" literally makes hundreds of billions of dollars annually by keeping the American public in a constant state of fear: Fear about collapsing banks, fear about terrorist attackers, fear about "paranoid" militia groups, fear about superflu viruses, you name it. Many of Ron Paul's most ardent supporters—and I've talked with literally thousands of them over the years—think it's clear as day that a small ruling clique manufactured bogus "evidence" to justify the invasion of Iraq. Yet if the Ron Paul supporters thought these shadowy figures are capable of starting wars to keep the money flowing, did they really think these nefarious characters were going to let somebody waltz in and end the gravy train?

For those who followed the Ron Paul campaign this last time, it was an amazing sight to behold. His insistence that, say, the Constitution said a formal declaration of war was necessary before U.S. forces occupied another country for a decade, was treated like the ravings of some lunatic. Yet when Newt Gingrich talked of building a moon colony by 2020, this was all taken in stride—at least among the Fox News crowd—as an interesting position from the "intellectual" in the pack.

More

Interview with Gary Johnson

Libertarian Presidential Candidate joins Daily Paul Radio with Kurt Wallace for 'Daily Paul interview with Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson' to discuss many issues facing our country: medicare, debt, undeclared wars, civil liberties and the war on drugs.

Listen to the Interview Here!

read more

Obamney: What's the Difference?

In the final hours, we should be seriously looking at these two candidates for the presidency and ask not which would be the more responsible or productive choice, but if there are actually significant differences (especially on foreign policy) between them, or their predecessors. We continue to hope, yet nothing ever changes for the better. 

We're coming down to the final hours of this electoral cycle. By late Tuesday night or perhaps even Wednesday morning, we'll know whether voters will trust President Barack Obama with another term in office or if they'll elect a different direction with Mitt Romney.

National polls are showing an incredibly close race, but those polls mean little when it comes down it. And though there are are many states considered to be part of the electoral battleground, those that will determine the election — Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia — were made clear weeks ago. Early voting is considered to be a key part of success either candidate hopes to have in these states. And while it appears that Obama has a lead over Romney in early voting, Molly Ball reports that Republicans are performing better at this aspect of the election than they did four years ago.

If Romney sweeps those four states, he wins the election. But if he were to lose any one of them, Obama wins re-election. Unfortunately for Republicans, that is exactly the scenario they face headed into a election day with polls in Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia showing a slight tilt toward President Obama:

[...]

---

More

Mother of Navy SEAL: “I Believe That Obama Murdered My Son”

A father and a mother used the word "murder." A brother said he won't second-guess decisions made in the heat of battle.

The families of three Americans killed in the Sept. 11 U.S. consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya, are offering widely different reactions to recent reports that U.S. personnel issued several requests for help that were turned down.

Patricia Smith, the mother of slain State Department employee Sean Patrick Smith, is now blaming President Barack Obama for her son's death.

[...]

More

Voting

"If I were to vote,
I'd vote for Ron Paul,
But since voting is for suckers,
I don't vote at all."

- Michael W. Dean

G.W. Bush, setting trends since 2001.

G.W. Bush, setting trends since 2001.

---

Original Page: http://mikebilly.com/post/34872655966

President or Godfather? Obama Tells Voters to “Take Revenge” on Romney

Another reason not to vote...

This just in from the campaign trail today:

ETNA, Ohio — The Romney campaign ripped President Obama after the president suggested Friday that supporters take "revenge" by voting against the Republican nominee.

During a speech in Springfield, Ohio, Obama talked about the Clinton administration and its economic plan that "asked the wealthiest Americans to pay a little bit more." Then he mentioned Mitt Romney, drawing boos from the crowd.

"No, no, no — don't boo, vote," Obama said. "Vote. Voting is the best revenge."

What??

Lets take a moment and see how exactly dictionary.com defines "revenge" (emphasis ours):

re·venge   [ri-venj] verb, re·venged, re·veng·ing, noun

verb (used with object)

1. to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, especially in a resentful or vindictive spirit: He revenged his murdered brother.
2. to take vengeance for; inflict punishment for; avenge: He revenged his brother's murder.
verb (used without object)
3. to take revenge.

noun

4. the act of revenging; retaliation for injuries or wrongs; vengeance.
5. something done in vengeance.
6. the desire to revenge; vindictiveness.
7. an opportunity to retaliate or gain satisfaction.

Punishment. Vindictiveness. Retaliation. Revenge. All words that should naturally lead us to think of that new civility the left is preaching about. And apparently the President also wants to associate voting with that new civility as well, at least as they define it.

Hearing a sitting President speak in words and tones on par with dialog from a Godfather movie is pretty concerning, and shows that cool exterior he has become known for is definitely melting away rapidly as he draws closer to an election day which more and more appears to be serving as a termination notice for the 44th president. It also makes one wonder about the following recent comment reportedly attributed to White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett:

"After we win this election, it's our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don't forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won't be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go."

I'll say up front that I am 70/30 against this actually having been said as detailed above, at least without having some taken out of context. But in light of Obama's most recent comments about exacting revenge on his opponent, versus beating him in a democratic process that our nation has practiced for two centuries to ensure peaceful transitions of government, well — lets just say I won't be surprised if we find out Ms. Jarrett really was talking more like a family Consigliere than a Senior Advisor. Then again, in the La Cosa Nostra that is the Obama Administration, Consigliere is probably a more accurate description of Jarrett anyways.

The post President or Godfather? Obama Tells Voters to "Take Revenge" on Romney appeared first on Say Anything.

---

Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/SayAnything/~3/CWEi-6yf938/

Anti-Communist Romney campaign in Latino markets

From Eric Dondero: Just released two days ago. It doesn't get any better than this for libertarians. This is a stridently anti-communist ad linking Obama with Communists Hugo Chavez and even Che Guevara.

As much as I appreciate opposition to a violent regime, Guevara became more of  a proponent of violence than an activist for defense and dissent. No better than Obama or Romney. Shame, that...

Who supports Barack Obama? Mariela Castro [Fidel Castro's daughter] will vote for Obama... And those in support of Obama sent out an email with a photo of Che Guevara.

It's running in mostly Hispanic markets such as South Florida.

---

Source

Cancer or Cure?

Bastiat Institute

I'd argue that voluntaryism and restriction of the authority of the state is actually not experimental, but that unlimited state power is the experiment, and it's failing on economic collapse at a time.

Complacency in Voting

I don't believe that complacency is in our nature, but that when times get difficult and choices become complicated many people tend to fall back into a groove, or a false dichotomy. I believe that these reasons are why we see the choices in this year's presidential election. It's hard not to fall into the divisive politics of the season, but seeing the nearly identical lines these two hold regarding foreign policy, I don't know how collapse can be avoided.

I don't consent to what's going on, so I don't vote to encourage it. I used to try and ignore it, but I can't anymore. And I think that more and more people are waking up to the reality that central governance through any system eventually leads to where we are today. Government by nature is corruptible, and some men are as well, and the latter tends to infect the former.

Withdraw your consent. Don't vote.

Gary Johnson Launches First TV Ad Touting His Dovish Foreign Policy

With less than two weeks remaining until the presidential election, Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson is airing an ad in select markets touting his dovish approach to relations with Iran. In the ad Johnson speaks over a computer simulation of a drone strike before speaking directly to the camera, imploring viewers to "Be Libertarian with me for one election."

Johnson's campaign wouldn't specify how much the ad buy is costing them but did say they have another ad that does not deal with foreign policy that will go up in select markets in the coming days. According to Johnson spokesman Joe Hunter, the late ad buys aren't because of a sudden surge in campaign cash but are part of their long term campaign plan.

The ad was created by Evan Tweed, Johnson's ad man from his gubernatorial runs in the late 90s.

---

Reason

Both Romney and Obama Are Dangerous

Mitt Romney is dangerous. Barack Obama is dangerous. Neither of them want to leave you alone. Neither of them want to end needless and atrocious wars overseas. Neither of them will dare espouse an original thought. Both are pawns. Both want to use government force to their advantage.

But go on, get emotionally attached and vote for one of these stooges who couldn’t care less about you. Oh and, of course, blame those of us who resist the nonexistent urge to cast a vote for Tyrant A or Tyrant B.

Both Romney and Obama Are Dangerous | David Kretzmann

It's good to see more and more folks seeing the reality of the situation...

The Irony of Springsteen

 

So, Bruce Springsteen stumps for Obama. Not surprising, but rather ironic, given the reaction to being cut off by London curfew. He complains about government intervention into the lives of individuals, but then supports a candidate who does just that. Imagine that...

Romney, Obama Duel On Foreign Policy

It's not much of a duel if they take the same position...

Mitt Romney said Monday in his third debate with Barack Obama America is seen as weaker worldwide, a contention the president flatly rejected.

In their final debate before the Nov. 6 presidential election, Romney blamed Obama for what he said has been "a pretty drastic reversal of our hopes" for the Middle East since the outbreak of the Arab Spring uprisings.

The Republican nominee said while "we can't kill our way out of this mess," if elected he would "go after the bad guys to make sure we do our very best to take them out of the picture."

He said the policy the United States must pursue "is to get the Muslim world to reject extremism on their own" to reverse "the rising tide of chaos."

[...] 

More: http://personalliberty.com/2012/10/23/romney-obama-duel-on-foreign-policy

Obama and Romney Are the Same: Americans Should be Concerned About Foreign Policy

No matter who wins in November, Americans will in fact have to face four more years of conflict, and a Middle East without an American military presence is but a distant memory.

---

Original Page: http://www.policymic.com/articles/17409/obama-and-romney-are-the-same-americans-should-be-concerned-about-foreign-policy

Presidential Candidate Arrested At Presidential Debate

 

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama may have come close to brawling at yesterday's "town hall" "debate," but only one would-be president got arrested:

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and running mate Cheri Honkala were arrested outside Long Island’s Hofstra University ahead of tonight's debate.

After being denied entrance to the campus because they lacked credentials, the two candidates sat down in the street in front of the university with an American flag on their laps, the Long Island Report explains. They were led away by police officers after refusing to move.

Score one for Stein. If there's one thing I want in a president, it's a willingness to go to jail.

Presidential Candidate Arrested At Presidential Debate - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Obama, Romney and Education

How would a second Obama term look in terms of education? What about a Romney Presidency?

Are there great differences between the presidential candidates on education? What would a Romney presidency mean? A second Obama term?

Neither man was asked about No Child Left Behind, easily the most intrusive federal education effort in our history. They weren't asked about the seemingly inexorable move toward national education standards; the growing body of evidence about the importance of early education; or the coming teacher shortage, to mention just a few of the pressing issues Americans might have been interested in hearing about.

---

More: http://bigeducationape.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-romney-and-education-taking-note.html

Meet a science committee that doesn't get science

In general, we only become aware of a politician's position on scientific issues during the campaign season. And, with a few exceptions like energy and climate policy, they rarely become campaign issues for anyone other than presidential candidates. So for the most part, it's rare to have a good picture of what our elected representatives think about science and technology.

If only that were true this year.

And from the Show-Me (how to think) state, we have another reason that government is always the last option for anything. 

Missouri's Todd Akin, a Representative running for Senator, made headlines through his bizarre misunderstanding of biology, specifically that of the female reproductive system. Overcome by his desire to believe that pregnancy (and thus abortion) shouldn't be an issue for rape victims, he infamously claimed that the female body could somehow block pregnancy in the case of "legitimate rape."

I'm not sure if this falls more under science, religion, or politics, or whether three have collided at an intersection, leaving little recognizable of any higher thinking...

---

Original Page: http://arstechnica.com/staff/2012/10/editorial-meet-a-science-committee-that-doesnt-get-science/

V for Voluntary, Motherfucker

I recently noticed that Lysander Spooner lived until just one year shy of the abolition of slavery in Brazil, not that he was as focused on issues outside of the United States as he was in his critical words and actions at home, doing his damnedest to promote liberty through education where it was considered utmost for a healthy, voluntary society. I'd like to think that his works (and those of his peers; Mises, Bastiat, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Hayek, Woods, Block, and many others) continue to be influential on the necessity for economic and civil liberty To maintain a free society. 

It's a conspiracy! Let's leave each other alone and promote respect in a voluntary society. We could do it in a few days, if we'd just let go of the false Left-Right dichotomy of separation and control (Divide et Impera, as the Romans called what we still see today), and just give in to morality and reason. Continuing to do the same thing while expecting differing results is how Einstein defined insanity. Rather acute, no?

People are born with natural rights, and many of America's own founding fathers recognized this (yet sadly abandoned those principles shortly thereafter) in their framing of a document which  intended to restrict state infringement upon those natural rights, yet none of signed nor are bound to who do not hold public office or civil position. If it were a contract, all those who signed it are long dead. Yet our collective pockets are plundered against our will to fund various immoral activities in our name. Yet we consent to this? I can not with a clear conscience. 

And to those who do? How is statism working out for us? Maybe it's finally time to try something different. I promise you'll like it, if you understand morality. 

Voting is nothing more than a tug of war, pushing on others to relieve our own burden, swinging back and forth on a pendulum, never really getting anywhere. Yet, over time, our collective burden increases gradually, and our liberties suffer. We harm ourselves in our attempt to harm others. Beware the double edged sword. Legal plunder is nothing to tolerate at any level. It is masturbation without pleasure. 

As Mises said, "economics is far too important to be left to the economists." In his worldview, government only decreases economic efficiency as its intervention and scope of government increase. And without economic liberty, civil liberties suffer greatly beside their counterpart. 

Imagine that...

'Sesame Street' to Obama: Take Down the Ad

The clown car of mishaps coming post-debate from the Obama campaign has just its nadir. Not only is the media mocking Team Obama's "absurd" "smallness" with today's Big Bird attack, but just a few moments ago, "Sesame Street" posted a statement demanding Obama take the ad down:

Sesame Workshop is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization and we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns. We have approved no campaign ads, and as is our general practice, have requested that the ad be taken down.

Backlash complete.

Can we talk about the economy now? Gas prices? Four American assassinated by al-Qaeda? The collapse of middle class incomes? The rise in gas prices?

---

Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BigGovernment/~3/Nq19MCU_c8A/Sesame-Streets-Demands-Obama-remove-Ad

Obama was right, "if you don't have a record to run on, you make a big election about small things." The problem is that this applies equally to both parties these days, with the Obama campaign being no better or worse than Romney. It's all about the art of distraction with the candidates, focusing attention away from real issues, at silly little divisive issues that make no difference in the long-run.

 

Public broadcasting is less than a percent of the defense offense budget (read: wars of aggression), so it's quite reasonable to assume that they will both attempt to avoid that topic by focusing on something like a man in a yellow costume amusing children. I can't support of funding Sesame Street or the military industrial complex through involuntary taxation with a clear conscience. I'm not sure how voting for other people to make those decisions for us can be a greater moral position. That position becomes what Bastiat warned us against; legal plunder.

The More Things Change...

When I grow up I want the government to have the same problems it has today
I want to vote for the lesser of two evils
I want to be lied to
I want to be apathetic
I want the ozone layer to be completely gone
When I grow up I want to be disillusioned, disenchanted, disenfranchised
When I grow up I want politicians to ignore me


Ralph Nader 2000 - When I Grow Up commercial - YouTube

Have you vaccinated your children yet?

Wouldn't it be great if science were finally able to eradicate superstition and ignorance throughout the world?

I don't even think I would miss the Republicans.

The Immoral Minority: Have you vaccinated your children yet?

Re-elect Obama

Conscience of a Conservative

If excessive failure is the problem, then maybe a double-dose of failure is just what the doctor ordered?

Intrade Implies At Least 65% Odds Of Major Fiscal Contraction Post-Election

While certainly not always correct; the InTrade markets trading on the various outcomes of the Presidential have become increasingly liquid and active in recent weeks. As Morgan Stanley's Vince Reinhart cleverly notes, by analyzing the odds for control of the Senate, the House, and the Presidential winner, one can arrive at some rather useful insights into the conditional probabilities of various tax-and-spending-related outcomes.

Critically, he notes that while Obama is a 75%-25% favorite to win the vote, control of the House and Senate appears most likely to remain split.

There is a joint 50% probability of an Obama victory and split government - which inevitably means more gridlock and a likely charge over the fiscal cliff.

On the other hand, conditioned on a Romney win, there is a 15% probability that the Republicans end up with control of the House and the Senate - which almost inevitably means the 'new' government will enact the front-laoded spending cuts they have been putting forward.

This leaves us with at least the combined 65% probability of drastic cuts to spending or rises in taxes which will weigh heavily on the aggregate economy early in 2013.

Intrade Implies At Least 65% Odds Of Major Fiscal Contraction Post-Election | ZeroHedge

I Don't Mind If You Keep Voting, But Do You Mind If I Keep Laughing While You Do?

"It is the continuing decline in faith in the politicization of society that has, for well over a year, made the 2008 presidential race the preoccupation of the mainstream media. The media must continue to advertise the products and services of the establishment owners, just as it does for the sellers of prescription drugs and other nostrums. Still, the outcome of the 2008 election will confirm the truth of the proposition that it really doesn't matter for whom you vote. Regardless of whether Obama or McCain prevails, the government will be re-elected, and will continue to increase its powers over you. Should you remain dissatisfied with the behavior of the system, the media will be right back to begin its campaign on behalf of 'Election 2010,' urging you, once again, to continue supporting the process that continues to frustrate your expectations. In the words of Emma Goldman, 'if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.'''

~ Butler Shaffer from the LewRockwell.com Blog

There are some questions that tend to recur whenever one talks to almost anyone outside the realm of radical libertarianism. Actually, these questions seem to recur not only in debates with statists, but also in debates among those who share a radical libertarian, i.e., market anarchistic, point of view. One such question is the sanctity of the democratic process, voting and all that.

I love this position, and it makes me have less faith in voting than ever. It also makes me more convinced that voting itself in not only ineffective, but immoral, and I thus can not use such a method to inflict my will upon others without their consent.

Is voting a necessity for a free society or simply busy-work for the unwashed proletariat, completed while the rulers continue to do what they've always done? Russell Langcore's recent column reminded me that this question has, thankfully, pretty much been decided among radial libertarians. However, he also reminded me of a couple of issues that almost always come to the fore when one discusses voting.

A Really Short Answer for a Relatively Short Question

Here's the question: Do I vote? Here's the answer: No.

While some folks would argue that he's no philosopher, I'll still take George Carlin's argument on non-voting as excellent justification. (I realize that I may be in the minority on that.) I cannot think of a single scenario whereby I might vote in a national election such as that for president. Not one.

Voting is immoral in that the act of voting is empowering individuals to act our our behalf, yet those representatives tend to act in their own interests, using the force of the state to direct their will. I can not condone using force against any individual, hence I can not support a system which uses force against anyone where I would not do so myself. Funny, I never heard this bit by George Carlin, yet it is the correct position regarding the failure of electoral politics.

I don't care who the candidate is. I don't care what issues to which he seems to gravitate. I don't care about his record, his leadership qualities, the apparent first-lady-ness of his wife (or her husband), his insider-ness or his outsider-ness, his race, his height, his weight, how well he speaks, how wonderfully he photographs, the nation of his birth, how likely it might be that he's fun to drink with, or his appreciation for unique uses for a fine cigar.

They're all aggressors, despite any misconceptions and media bias

More importantly though, given two other observations, voting strikes me as an incredible waste of time for anyone who is ultimately interested in two rather vital issues: personal liberty and personal responsibility.

First of all, under the U.S. "first-past-the-post" electoral system, one is assured of only two viable parties. Secondly, with the use of a secret ballot, one is assured that no one will assume personal responsibility for the actions of their ostensible candidate or his party. Every voter is automatically absolved for doing that which his vote suggests that he is doing: selecting the implementer of the policies he supports.

We get to cast guilt onto those who we vote for, so or hands are clean when our government bombs the innocent residents of some foreign land for opposing American empirical policies. It's not our fault, but we'll vote those crooks out next election and vote in others who probably won't do anything remotely like that again. I'm sure of it.

When I say the U.S. system guarantees only two viable parties, I'm simply citing Duverger's Law. While there may remain debates about whether or not there are exceptions to Duverger's Law, the U.S. system seems not to be one. (This is a striking irony given how rarely the resulting pseudo-kings obey any laws after they are elected!) When I say that there will be no responsibility for the action of either party, I am referring to two other phenomena.

I believe that Duverger's Law distills down to less than the likely two-party system, but to a single party which eventually collapses and leave a stateless society. I think it's an eventuality, as no population chooses to remain oppressed indefinitely. It is simply a matter of time before the common people rise up against tyranny, no matter how colorful and pleasant it looks, and strike down the idea that government is necessary in any regard.

One, the inherent incentives of a coercive state virtually assure that only those who ascribe to either megalomania or theft-is-good as a paradigm will survive the electoral process. The overwhelming bulk of the money necessary to elect a candidate is given with 'strings' attached to it. Lobbying is widespread because it works. But much more importantly, everyone who contributes to a candidate hopes that their candidate will enact their version of control over everyone else, and everyone knows it! There is no other alternative for a coercive state.

At least the likely eventual dollar collapse will help bring an end to electoral politics, at the unfortunate cost of productive markets which will have to go through a transition back to a trade system using tangible goods and items of value, which do not include fiat currencies. Every fiat currency eventually devalues to the level of zero. It's another unavoidable eventuality.

Two, people who vote are quick to distance themselves from the guy to whom they gave their support. It seems to me that if your candidate lies, cheats, steals, or gets a whole bunch of people killed, you--the voter who supported him--might share some blame. (I also realize that with the amount of graft in the U.S., even if no one voted, the 'elected' cretins would probably still find a way to keep spending money and killing people.) With the secret ballot, everyone can claim to be disappointed with the guy they actually helped elect!

I think that the candidates distance themselves from the campaign promises that helped them achieve public office faster than their supporters lose faith in those for which they voted. George Carlin was right on this point as well. Imagine that...

Becoming president is a viable quest only for those too stupid to know better or too smart to not realize the availability of responsibility-free power and plentiful stolen cash to the holder of the office and all his friends. Notice I said 'viable' quest. There may be those who would use the incredible power of the office for good. Frankly though, I rather think the Presidency of the United States is rather like the One Ring from Tolkien's classics. It eventually corrupts all who possess it, even if they were initially pure of heart. I won't comment on my own cynicism regarding the existence of any such person. Let's just say that 40-plus unrepentant rights infringers and counting is enough evidence for me.

Conclusion

While I have conveyed my view, better erudition than mine is available. There is a plethora of non-voting--both pro and con--and general free market prose already out there. A rather awe-inspiring (although still somewhat incomplete) bibliography in testament to that fact, put together by Johan Ridenfeldt, with some additions from yours truly and others, may be found below. (Please note that some of the essays listed are "answers" to others. The listings are in alphabetical order, regardless of intended target.)

More: I Don't Mind If You Keep Voting, But Do You Mind If I Keep Laughing While You Do? | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty