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