Back in November, just before the election, I wrote about who I was not going to vote for. With rare exception the Republicans got the knife as frequently as the Democrats. On my list of those not worthy of my consideration, I included one, Steve Daines, running for the lone Montana Congressional seat to replace Denny Rehberg (who I didn’t vote for in the Senate race even though I couldn’t stand his opponent). My reasoning was this: Continue reading
Tag Archives: Election
PolyMontana and Einstein’s Definition of Insanity
PolyMontana and Einstein’s Definition of Insanity.
If you don’t like rude, disrespectful comments, refrain from reading this. I tell you it was warranted. If belligerent pride is what it takes to expose slander, hypocrisy, and ignorance, I am so sorry.
Would you agree with me that part of the problem with this country, specifically in Congress, is that people do not uphold their oaths? Well here’s a comment from that political outcast article you linked to:
The GOP was born in tyranny (I can safely say from a conservative perspective, devoid of all considerations of race, that Abraham Lincoln was this country’s absolute worst president. Obama is a playful piker by comparison. A common fallacy for the people living in each era is to think that theirs is the one that will either be the worst or the greatest, or both. Pure delusion!) and it will be that way until the day it implodes under its own weight. It is immoral, corrupt, and bloodthirsty.
I personally voted for every Republican at the county level (the ones I can trust, but also the ones, in theory, who I can keep in check, and not just with my vote; the government must fear it’s people, when it doesn’t, there is the start of tyranny; this applies equally to both parties; Obama or Romney do not have real cause to fear any constituent, let alone a bunch of hayseeds from Montana; they would gladly use any excuse, any pretense of fear, to do away with more of our rights, however), as well as for Tim Fox (a man who has done something to earn my vote) every one else on the GOP ticket got a big fat middle finger.
And if you think that makes me a traitor of some sort you have lost sight of all perspective. It is the local level that IS important, and it is the local level that SHOULD BE important. Any consideration beyond that is where the true vanity lies, that this country can be changed for the better (it can always get worse, that is the second law of thermodynamics, metaphorically) by one man at the top who has next to no accountability and all the motivation in the world to maintain the status quo regardless of what his principles may have at one time been. There may be some men with enough integrity to resign or take a bullet in the head before going down that road (those are the only three options so far as I can tell), but Romney is not one of them.
Denny Rehberg is a coward and an enabler and if he is never heard from again it is a far better thing than an oath breaker such as he deserves.
If four more years of Obama and six of Tester is what it takes to snap you and your fellow short sighted, long winded old geezers (Yes sir, you got us into this mess, so get off your goddamn pedestal) out of this game you have been playing for more than a century now, then so be it. Personally, I have serious doubts that it will.
And even were you able to accept this save for one thing: your worries that other, more moderate Montana and nationwide Republicans will just keep doing the same thing as well and never snap out of it, your fight IS and SHOULD BE with them. The only fight men with weak spines can win is against men with absolutely no backbone. I can feel mine right now, it is flexible, but it is strong. So I will continue to allow people I did not vote for and do not like to win, because, yes, I am standing on principle. You will never convince enough people with this stubborn outlook to change it. Which is why you should focus your attention on the idiots that keep nominating people we will not, and told you even before you nominated them that we would not, vote for. Face it, we have you over a barrel. You don’t like it, but all you do is whine about something you can not change.
“If you can’t beat them, join them” are not words to live by. But that is exactly what any one who compromised on Romney did. That is why I have more respect for the people that actually liked Romney and voted for him than the ones who harped on him for two years leading up to his nomination and then suddenly jumped on his bandwagon. It is revolting and it needs to be called out.
I am not normally one to abuse my host, but you really were asking for it.
Henry Moore
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein
Share this:
The October Surprise: A Missed Opportunity and What it Says About the GOP Establishment
The October Surprise: A Missed Opportunity and What it Says About the GOP Establishment.
Please note that I make an assumption throughout: That, if known about before the election, the Petraeus affair — political scandal with far reaching implications — could have swung in Romney’s favor. In theory, if we use the 332 to 206 electoral votes tally, it need to have only reversed the popular vote in a minimum of four battleground states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and New Hampshire for example) for Romney to have walked away with it.
Reading this piece I found out (and maybe this is common knowledge by now, to which I am hopefully only fashionably late) that the leadership of the Republican Party (meaning Eric Cantor, but I don’t doubt for a second he was the only one) knew about the Petraeus Affair before the election (the idea being that the scandal, including its possible relation to the Benghazi incident, which given the fact that. From this I can make many speculations. There may be more possibilities, but these are just the ones I thought of.I may not be the only one making at least some of these connections. The way I went about this may seem strange, but I hope you will be patient with me.
THE HYPOTHESES
1. The leadership of the Republican Party was told not to disclose this information to the public by the FBI. At this point they had two options;
1.a. They could have done what they were told and not disclosed the information.
1.a.1. This scenario may or may not have played out. Either way, it is clear that this information was not disclosed to the public. Why not?
1.b. They could have leaked this information through channels not traceable to themselves.
1.b.1. This scenario obviously did not play out. Why not?
2. The leadership of the Republican Party was told not to disclose this information to the public by the Romney Campaign. At this point they would have had three options;
2.a. They could have done what they were told and not disclosed the information.
2.a.1. This scenario may or may not have played out. Either way, it is clear that this information was not disclosed to the public. Why not?
2.b. They could have openly disclosed this information thinking that it would help the Romney Campaign. The Romney Campaign does not have the same authority as the FBI.
2.b.1. This scenario obviously did not play out. Why not?
2.c. They could have leaked this information thinking that it would help the Romney Campaign. The Romney Campaign does not have the resources or expertise of the FBI to discover the leaker.
2.c.1. This scenario obviously did not play out. Why not?
3. The leadership of the Republican Party decided on its own accord to not disclose this information to the public. At this point they would have had one option;
3.a. They could have kept the information to themselves and not disclosed it.
3.a.1. This scenario may or may not have played out. Either way, it is clear that this information was not disclosed to the public?
THE ANALYSIS
Given that the information was not disclosed, the still possible hypotheses are 1.a., 2.a., and 3.a., and their extensions, 1.a.1., 2.a.1., and 3.a.1. Keep in mind that the “they” is the Republican leadership and the “information” is the Petraeus affair.
1.a. They could have done what they were told [by the FBI] and not disclosed the information.
1.a.1. This scenario may or may not have played out. Either way, it is clear that this information was not disclosed to the public. Why not?
2.a. They could have done what they were told [by the Romney Campaign] and not disclosed the information.
2.a.1. This scenario may or may not have played out. Either way, it is clear that this information was not disclosed to the public. Why not?
3.a. They could have kept the information to themselves and not disclosed it.
3.a.1. This scenario may or may not have played out. Either way, it is clear that this information was not disclosed to the public?
So what we have is three possible reasons why the Republican leadership may not have disclosed this information to the Public before November 6 (Election Day).
In hypothesis 1.a., why wouldn’t they have disclosed the information? The obvious answer, if we assume hypothesis 1.a. is correct, is that the information was confidential and the FBI, who in theory could have prosecuted them, told them not to. But in hypothesis 1.b. I brought up the possibility of them leaking the information in a way not traceable to them. And I asked Why didn’t they just do this? Here, the answer may not be so obvious, so a new round of speculation and hypotheses is necessary. That will come later. Just keep the question in your mind: Why didn’t the Republican Party leadership disclose information that might have helped Mitt Romney win the Presidency?
In hypothesis 2.a., why wouldn’t they have disclosed the information? The obvious answer, if we assume hypothesis 2.a. is correct, is that they did not want to alienate the Mitt Romney Campaign. But this creates two entirely new questions. Would the Republican Leadership rather win the Presidential election and temporarily alienate their candidate, but who might later thank them for their services, or would they rather be on good terms with their candidate throughout the Presidential election but potentially have him lose and fade away from the scenery forever because of it? This question is related to later questions, so I will attempt to answer it when I ask those later questions. The second entirely new question is Why would the Romney campaign itself not wish to have this information disclosed? There are two possible answers. The first is that they thought it would backfire and look like dirty politics. The second answer I will address later. Just bear in mind the question (Why would the Romney campaign not want a disclosure?).
Back to the first answer to the second entirely new question again. I will reformulate that answer into yet another question: Why would they claim that this would backfire and look like dirty politics when it could (at least I assume) easily be made to look like the information was not leaked by anyone even connected to the Romney campaign or the GOP? The first possible answer is that they actually thought it would look like dirty politics, in which case I maintain they were unwilling to take any risks (which begs the question Why is the Romney campaign so mealy mouthed when supposedly the whole conservative movement has their backs and is counting on them to do anything to win?) or they just said that (i.e., they lied) to convince the Republican leadership to keep its mouth shut (which begs the question, one I already asked you to remember, only this time replace “Republican Leadership” with “Romney campaign”: Why didn’t the Romney campaign disclose information that might have helped Mitt Romney win the Presidency?).
Let me refresh once on the questions that I want you to keep asking yourself:
Why didn’t the Republican Party leadership disclose information that might have helped Mitt Romney win the Presidency?
Would the Republican Leadership rather win the Presidential election and temporarily alienate their candidate, but who might later thank them for their services, or would they rather be on good terms with their candidate throughout the Presidential election but potentially have him lose and fade away from the scenery forever because of it?
Why would the Romney campaign not want a disclosure?
Why is the Romney campaign so mealy mouthed when supposedly the whole conservative movement has their backs and is counting on them to do anything to win?
Why didn’t the Romney campaign disclose information that might have helped Mitt Romney win the Presidency?
I will condense these into just two questions and then move on to analysis of hypothesis 3.a.:
Why didn’t the Republican leadership and/or Romney campaign want this information disclosed?
Would the Republican leadership and/or Romney campaign rather have the White House in GOP control or would they rather continue to be glass jawed, tiptoeing, dishonest, feckless, has-been losers just so nobodies toes get stepped on?
These are the only two questions you will now need to remember. Moving on to the final hypothesis. I will remind you that “they” refers to the Republican leadership and the “information” refers to the Petraeus affair.
In hypothesis 3.a., why wouldn’t they have disclosed the information? The answer is far from obvious and by this time you have probably forgotten what hypothesis 3.a. was, so let me put it into the form of a clear, easily understood question:
Why wouldn’t the Republican leadership, assuming neither the FBI nor the Romney campaign, told them not to, just disclose the information of their own accord?
I will now attempt to answer this question along with the two I asked you to remember. For they are in essence, all the same question.
Unfortunately, I must first confess that there is, yet again, more than one possible answer. But I assure you, they lead me to the same conclusion.
First possible answer: The Republican leadership and/or Romney campaign did not have what it takes to win. Whether they were too stupid or too cowardly, they blew their chance of an October surprise because they didn’t think they could handle the disclosure of the information without either incriminating themselves or looking like dishonorable politicians. Despite of the fact that they told their constituents, and let their pundits tell their audiences that Barack Obama had to go in order to save the Republic, they refused to give all that it takes. They were undeserving of the trust that was given to them.
Second possible answer: The Republican leadership and/or Romney campaign did not want to win. They blew their chance of an October surprise because they had deliberately set themselves up for a fall from the start. As conspiratorial as this sounds, it is one of the conclusions I have reached from looking at the evidence. on the whole, it is just one possibility among many and therefore is not necessarily the most likely.
THE CONCLUSION
The GOP Establishment is a cynical group of people, which is why, though they may have wanted Romney to win (and not because they care about this country, but because they are cronies), they decided, perhaps using a cost benefit analysis of sorts, that it was much better for them, all of whom will be comfy and cozy no matter what happens in the next four years, to have this country under the Obama administration for another term and keep themselves free or prosecution, ridicule, or damage to their credibility and reputations. So they either thought there was a genuine difference between Obama (as a liberal) and Romney (as a conservative) but didn’t care because “they’ve got theirs” already, or that there was not enough difference between Obama (a moderate fascist) and Romney (a moderate fascist) for them to actually stick there neck out for Romney.
If there is one thing you take away from this it should be that these men (and women) are NOT public servants. They are thugs of the lowest order who dress, speak, and act nicely, but have no scruples and probably no soul. But I didn’t need the Petraeus Affair to help me conclude that.
Share this:
Remember, Remember! and Don’t Forget: Just Who is Co-Opting the Liberty Movement?
Remember, Remember! and Don’t Forget: Just Who is Co-Opting the Liberty Movement?.
“Remember, remember
The fifth of November
The gunpowder treason and plot.
I know of no reason
Why the gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.”
That was technically yesterday (Mountain Standard Time), though I when I started this piece I hadn’t gone to bed yet. Today is officially election day. This post is intended to bring a few things to everyone’s attention. Many people already know these things. Some don’t. Either way, as usual, I will put a little of my own spin on it.
First on the election.
On the presidential elections (I still have not voted yet today, but I think I will make it to the polls before they close), voting doesn’t really effect the election outcome unless you are in a battleground state. So I hope most people will be voting their consciences. Voting, however, does send a message, and that message for each voting block is the same REGARDLESS of the outcome. What I mean by this is, if you support someone but vote for someone else, odds are that not only will that vote have no effect on the outcome (unless, as I said, it is a tight race) in terms of who the next president is, but you are also keeping people from knowing what you truly believe. Voting to send a message therefore has much more of an impact than voting to put someone in power.
And now, the rest of the post on ongoing and attempted takeovers of the liberty movement by 1) Occupy Wall Street (this was only a minor and unintended offense on their part), 2) the rank and file of the Tea Party (originally a good thing, but now more or less synonymous with the GOP), and 3) the Kochtopus (who in my conspiratorial mind own Jesse Benton, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and a good portion of many Republican, Tea Party, and Libertarian groups, organizations, and individuals, though I do not allege that everyone employed are receiving funds from the Koch Brothers is automatically a blind tool).
407 years ago this night was the Gun Powder plot where a group of English Catholics attempted to Assassinate James I of England. All religious considerations aside (I am not a Catholic), it was an act against oppression and thus a tradition has come down to us today, mainly in England, to celebrate the anniversary. I won’t go into any details about how the Fifth of November, AKA Guy Fawkes Day is traditionally celebrated, but I do want to call attention to the man it was named after. But not the historical man because that is fairly boring. It is to the fictionalized, mythologized, romanticized, and later Hollywoodified version that I will point you. Guy Fawkes is a Robin Hood-like hero in these later accounts, and much the same he has captured many hearts and minds. Like Robin of Loxley, he stands against the existing order, the status quo, and evades the unjust authorities, but perhaps unlike him, the whole idea of tyranny. What more could I ask for?
We’ve all seen the Guy Fawkes masks, the ones that come from the movie V for Vendetta. The first people that used them as activists, perhaps to the surprise of many, were in fact Ron Paul supporters. Not the hackers group Anonymous, and not the Occupy Wall Street movement. Just like with the Tea Party movement.
Speaking of Anonymous, Guy Fawkes, and Ron Paul, check out this “leak” and the video below.
https://cdn.anonfiles.com/1351956247586.pdf
Ron Paul raised $4.3 Million on Guy Fawkes Day in 2007. Why a similar money bomb didn’t occur in 2011 is probably due to former Campaign Manager Jesse Benton’s fear and loathing of anything resembling disorder or fringe or passion.
Most Ron Paul supporters had their suspicions of Jesse Benton. Some smelled a rat early on. Other reserved judgement until it was too late.
Adam Kokesh was one in the former category. [Warning: Foul Language!]
He regarded Jesse Benton and Campaign for Liberty (under Benton’s leadership at the time) with disdain from early one, at first for what seemed to be personal reasons, but later what turned out to be a dead-on instinct.
This all reminds me of an historical episode that occurred between another Jesse Benton, and a man who might be considered Ron Paul’s role model against the Central Bank, President Andrew Jackson.
Campaign for Liberty was perhaps the first real Tea Party organization, although in a sense Dick Armey’s Freedom Works (2004), the Koch Brothers’ Americans for Prosperity (2004) Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform 1985), and the Koch Brothers’ Citizens for a Sounds Economy (1984) all deserve honorable mention.
Even Murray Rothbard can be said to have had a role, albeit a small one.
The New Boston Tea Party – Murray Rothbard
And speaking of Murray Rothbard and the Kochtopus, I suggest you read some of these links I have done many hours worth of research looking for. I have read a number of them myself. There is some really juicy stuff in there. And it should be required reading for any liberty minded person worried about the corrupting influences to be found in politics, even in the libertarian movement. I don’t know entirely what to make of it all other than that the Koch brothers have done many great deeds for which they should be praised, but all for what appear to be the wrong reasons, reasons, which have also caused them to do a great deal of more sinister things. Perhaps enough to outshine their more praiseworthy endeavors. They are corporate fascists and elitists no less than George Soros and Warren Buffet. They just have a different strategy. Perhaps the most clever and dangerous.
1969
Libertarian Cover for the Corporate State by Murray N. Rothbard
1980
The Clark Campaign: Never Again by Murray N. Rothbard
1981
http://mises.org/journals/lf/1981/1981_01-04.pdf
Konkin on Libertarian Strategy – Murray N. Rothbard – Mises Daily
Samuel Edward Konkin III “Reply to Rothbard”
http://mises.org/journals/lf/1981/1981_06-07.pdf
1993
May 28, 2007
Conference on Austrian Economics and the Firm « Organizations and Markets
March 25, 2008
How Libertarian Is the Kochtopus? « LewRockwell.com Blog
April 22, 2008
The Kochtopus vs. Murray N. Rothbard by David Gordon
May 12, 2008
The Kochtopus vs. Murray N. Rothbard, Part II by David Gordon
October 22, 2008
The Board Game of Libertarian Public Policy
January 2, 2009
Tyler Cowen: Statist, anti-Rothbardian agent of the Kochtopus | TIME.com
March 2, 2009
The Kochtopus and Power « LewRockwell.com Blog
March 6, 2009
‘Libertarian’ Hero « LewRockwell.com Blog
August 28, 2009
Cowenian Second-Bestism Smackdown
Good for Pete Boettke « LewRockwell.com Blog
March 30, 2010
Koch Brothers Fund Trey Grayson’s Campaign « LewRockwell.com Blog
re: Koch Brothers Finance Trey Grayson’s Campaign « LewRockwell.com Blog
April 22, 2008
The Kochtopus vs. Murray N. Rothbard by David Gordon
April 16, 2008
‘Reason’-Funder To Host Cheney « LewRockwell.com Blog
August 4, 2010
Radical Roots of Libertarianism by Samuel E. Konkin III | JustLive
August 30, 2010
The Billionaire Koch Brothers’ War Against Obama : The New Yorker
In Defense of the Kochtopus by Justin Raimondo — Antiwar.com
August 31, 2010
Austrians Again « LewRockwell.com Blog
September 3, 2010
David Koch Attacks Alan Grayson « LewRockwell.com Blog
September 15, 2010
October 25, 2010
Good for the Cato Institute « LewRockwell.com Blog
November 24, 2010
Liberty Central: Repo’d by the Koch brothers? | Smart v. Stupid
November 26, 2010
Libertarians Against the Regime by Justin Raimondo — Antiwar.com
January 26, 2011
January 27, 2011
‘Koch Brothers Trot Out Ed Meese To Defend Them’ « LewRockwell.com Blog
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Koch Brothers Trot Out Ed Meese to Defend Them
Koch conference under scrutiny – Kenneth P. Vogel and Simmi Aujla – POLITICO.com
February 2, 2011
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Koch Brothers Hire Arnold Schwarzenegger’s PR Operative
February 3, 2011
More Adventures With the Kochs « LewRockwell.com Blog
February 6, 2011
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Americans for [Koch] Prosperity
February 9, 2011
Monetary Policy Hearing Today: Ron Paul Versus the Kochtopus | Next New Deal
February 24, 2011
February 26, 2011
Wisconsin, Reason, and the National Conversation
March 2, 2011
On Koch Supported Herman Cain by Robert Wenzel
The Koch Bros. Love Herman Cain & Hate Ron Paul | Peace . Gold . Liberty
March 10, 2011
Murray Rothbard on the Kochtopus by David Gordon
April 22, 2011
Gary Johnson: Caveat Emptor by Justin Raimondo — Antiwar.com
May 6, 2011
The Proto-Koch « LewRockwell.com Blog
May 9, 2011
July 3, 2011
The Caravan Keeps Rolling « LewRockwell.com Blog
Their Master’s Voice | Lew Rockwell’s Political Theatre
July 8, 2011
Koch Brothers to Democrats: Stop Asking us For Money
July 22, 2011
Koch Bros. for Higher Taxes (on Their Competitors) | Lew Rockwell’s Political Theatre
July 25, 2011
Do the Koch Bros. Own Bachmann, Too? | Lew Rockwell’s Political Theatre
September 6, 2011
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: HOT: Mother Jones Releases Secret Koch Brothers Tapes
September 29, 2011
October 3, 2011
Update: Austrian economics program denied at Loyola New Orleans
October 13, 2011
Could a Tea Party Occupy Wall Street? by Addison Wiggin
November 6, 2011
That 3rd Koch Brother | Lew Rockwell’s Political Theatre
November 16, 2011
MF Global and the Koch Bros. « LewRockwell.com Blog
January 1, 2012
From Vienna With Love: The Kochtopus Warms Up to Ron Paul
January 31, 2012
What’s wrong with the Cato institute? | Peace . Gold . Liberty
February 16, 2012
“History of the Libertarian Movement” by Samuel Edward Konkin III | Left-Liberty.net
March 1, 2012
Kochs launch court fight over Cato – Mike Allen – POLITICO.com
Koch Brothers sue Cato Institute, president – Think Tanked – The Washington Post
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Billionaire Koch Brothers Sic Super Lawyer on Widow
Koch Bros. Sue Ed Crane, Cato Institute « LewRockwell.com Blog
The Kochs vs. Cato : The New Yorker
March 2, 2012
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Will Lew Rockwell Show at the Next Meeting of the Cato Board?
The Volokh Conspiracy » Koch v. Cato
The Cato Putsch | The American Conservative
March 3, 2012
‘Cato Putsch’? « LewRockwell.com Blog
Brad DeLong: Ed Crane and the Cato Institute vs. the Kochtopus!
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Beltarians versus WaPoists on Koch-Cato
The Volokh Conspiracy » Koch v. Cato — A View from Cato
March 4, 2012
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Murray Rothbard Haunts Koch-Cato from the Grave
Justin Raimondo on the Latest Cato Broadside « LewRockwell.com Blog
Bob Wenzel on the Lineage of the Cato Shares « LewRockwell.com Blog
March 5, 2012
Libertarian Ed Crane Decides to Act Like a Liberal. Will It Destroy the Cato Institute? | RedState
What Goes Around Comes Around by Skip Oliva
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: What It Takes to Get Big Support from the Koch Brothers
CATO: From Libertarian to Republican? | The American Conservative
March 6, 2012
Is It Charles Koch’s Moral Duty . . . « LewRockwell.com Blog
Charles Koch Makes a Good Point by Thomas DiLorenzo
Cato and the Kochs | The Moral Sciences Club | Big Think
March 7, 2012
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Where’s LewRockwell.com?
March 8, 2012
Charles Koch: I Am Not Backing Down « LewRockwell.com Blog
Koch vs. Cato — A Guest Post by Brink Lindsey | Bleeding Heart Libertarians
The Battle for Cato « ThinkMarkets
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: MIT Prof: The Kochs Will Not Takeover the World
March 12, 2012
March 19, 2012
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: For the Neocons, It’s Crane over Koch
March 22, 2012
Robert Lawson on Koch ‘n Cato « LewRockwell.com Blog
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: David Koch Gives Ed Crane an Employment Review
March 26, 2012
Family Feud | The Weekly Standard
April 11, 2012
April 16, 2012
April 20, 2012
Digging the Hole Deeper « LewRockwell.com Blog
Independent and Principled? Behind the Cato Myth | The Nation
April 24, 2012
How Not To Change America’s Politics: Set Up a Public Policy Think Tank by Gary North
April 27, 2012
The Think-Tank Mentality by Skip Oliva
July 7, 2012
» Lessons from the UVA, Cato Wars Kleptarchy
August 17, 2012
The Paul Ryan Selection: The Koch Brothers Get Their Man – Roger Stone: The Stone Zone
August 30, 2012
Plutocrat David Koch Not a Libertarian « LewRockwell.com Blog
Two Additional Links I can’t put in the chronology:
Interview With Samuel Edward Konkin III
One of the most interesting things (and there were many) I garnered from reading these is the Kochtopus’ love for Central Banking, despite their roots in Austrian Economics. Evokes memories of Alan Greenspan. And why the Koch Brothers put stock in Herman Cain. And why Rick Perry was derided by so-called conservatives when he called Ben Bernanke a traitor. And why their oh so brief ally Ron Paul is so hated by them and theirs anymore.
And it reminds me further of several graphics I have seen floating around on the various End the Fed sites and blogs. A stream of consciousness post like this would be seriously remiss without tying everything together with a few related images.
Do I need to spell out the connection?
Hydra/Kraken/Squid/Octopus/Kochtopus/Leviathon/Federal Government/Federal Reserve/National Bank/Petrodollar/Koch Industries/Corporations/Military Industrial Complex/Fascism Hello?!?!
Please don’t think I’m going all occult on you or anything (I do admit that I came across some pretty dubious sites looking for some of these images). I just really like mythology and history and metaphors and analogies.
Share this:
Who and What I am Voting for (and against) in Montana Tomorrow.
Who and What I am Voting for (and against) in Montana Tomorrow.
I already posted about some of the federal and state level candidates I will NOT be voting for tomorrow. I did not cover all of them though, just the worst offenders. So in addition to saying who I WILL be voting for, there are additional rationales for other not previously mentioned that I am not voting for. So here’s what my ballot will look like tomorrow:
President: Write in Ron Paul.
Vice President: Write in Andrew Napolitano.
Senator: Write in Dennis Teske.
Congressman: Write in Vincent Melkus.
Governor: Write in Bob Fanning or Ken Miller.
Secretary of State: Write in Drew Turiano, who said he would refuse to certify Max Baucus in 2014. Not Republican Brad Johnson, who is otherwise decent but refuses to apply the Montana Constitution to Senator Max Baucus, who has violated it in regards to term limits. But at one time I considered Libertarian Roger Roots (most Montana Libertarians are questionable, but Mr. Roots was someone I trusted for a long time.
Attorney General: Vote for Republican Tim Fox. The only other person running is a Democrat and Tim’s opponent in the GOP primary was nothing special.
State Auditor: Vote for Republican Derek Skees.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Vote for Republican Sandy Welch, even though it would be more satisfactory to write a note saying “abolish the public school system!”
Public Service Commissioner: Vote for Republican Kirk Bushman.
Clerk of the Supreme Court: Vote for Libertarian Mike Fellows. There is no Republican running, only a Democrat.
Supreme Court Justice #5: It is hard to pin these people down on the issues, so I may just write in a random name or pick Ed Sheehy instead of Laurie McKinnon. I did vote for Sheehy in the Primary after all.
Supreme Court Justice #6: Vote NO to retain him. No particular reason.
District Court Judge, District 13, Department 1: Vote NO to retain her. No particular reason.
District Court Judge, District 13, Department 2: Vote YES to retain him. We know him personally, which is the reason. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Nepotism.
District Court Judge, District 13, Department 3: Vote YES to retain her. She presided over a case my Dad was involved in and even though all that legal business can be annoying, expensive, and time-consuming, she handled the case well.
Clerk of District Court: Vote for Republican Kristie Lee Boelter.
County Commissioner District #3: Vote for Republican Joan Micheletti.
County Clerk and Recorder/Surveyor: Vote for Republican Jeff Martin. He is the only person running anyways.
I am just going to vote straight down the Republican ticket for State Senator District 22, State Representative District 44.
As for ballot issues I will vote:
FOR denying certain state services to illegal aliens. I don’t even think hardly any legal residents or citizens should get most state services. Voting FOR will save money.
FOR prohibiting the state or federal government from mandating the purchase of health insurance or imposing penalties for decisions related to purchasing health insurance. Voting FOR will save money.
FOR Senate Bill 423, a bill which repeals I-148 and enacts a new medical marijuana program. This one basically makes it easier for people who can prove they need it as medicine to get it, and harder for people who don’t need it. I am for full drug legalization on the national level, but for now at least am content let some of them to be prohibited and/or strictly regulated at the state level. Whether the FOR or AGAINST prevails, medical marijuana will still be in effect, just differently. My Dad voted AGAINST this, but he now says he wish he voted FOR it. Voting FOR may actually cost more than voting AGAINST, so that was something to consider.
FOR charging Montana elected and appointed officials, state and federal, with implementing a policy that corporations are NOT human beings with constitutional rights. This one is a touchy issue. On the one hand, a corporation is simply a voluntary group of individuals who ARE entitled to the freedom to associate, the freedom of speech, as well as a whole host of unremunerated freedoms loosely outlined in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. But on the other hand corporations are state sponsored, state protected entities that are already “entitled” to more benefits than actual breathing human citizens are. Until there is full equality (i.e., a corporation can be thrown in jail if it commits the same crimes as an actual person, there are no tax loopholes on the federal, state, or any other level, etc.), I do not feel that these otherwise tolerable entities have human rights. Dad voted AGAINST this but I am voting FOR it. Voting FOR does not seem to have any financial effect on the average Montanan or Montana tax revenue. But it will help to keep politicians from lining their pockets. Besides, this is not all that is at stake. In theory, this is a states’ rights issue and Montana, for right or for wrong, is standing up to the corrupt Supreme Court of the United States, who (I just gotta get my digs in) are total scumbags.
Share this:
Who I am NOT Voting for in Montana Tomorrow and Why.
Who I am NOT Voting for in Montana Tomorrow and Why.
There was a man who wrote Will DesChamps, Chairman of the Montana Republican Party, reprimanding him for not keeping his promise to see that Ron Paul got at least as many delegates (in this case 3 to 4 delegates, but ended up being zero) as would be reflected by the percentage (14.4%) of people that voted for him on June 5 in the Montana Republican Primary.
Chairman DesChamps accused the man of being a liar. I don’t know whether the one broke his promise or the other lied, but what I do know is that something Will said about the reason Ron Paul and his supporters were not entitled to have a say in the GOP was that Ron Paul tried to get elected on the Constitution Party ticket in 2008, which is contrary to fact.
So it is Will that is the liar. Ron Paul NEVER tried to be elected on the Constitution Party ticket. The Constitution Party drafted him without his consent. He was flattered but asked to be taken off their ticket. Based on the statement Will made in regards to this, I would say he is ill-informed, bitter against Ron Paul from the start, or both.
So let me issue an ultimatum to this Chairman of the Montana Grand Old Party. Let me tell him that if he does not value my vote, that his pure and sacred party, united in its treachery, shall not have it, nor shall any of his disgusting cronies, who are either warmongers, corrupt, or sleazy.
Dennis Rehberg won’t get my vote in his Senate race against Jon Tester. He voted for NDAA and the Patriot Act. He didn’t use his clout in the Montana GOP to keep 14.4 percent of the Republican Primary voters from being disenfranchised. I will be writing in Dennis Teske, a Constitution-minded Republican. Ron and Rand both endorsed Denny Rehberg, which is fine by me, I just don’t care to myself. Not that it really matters. And of course Jon Tester is a dirt bag. We all know that. Libertarian Dan Cox appears to be a stealth leftist, or at the very least not picky about who he pals around with.
Steve Daines seems to me a typical politician. A “family values” Republican who, given the timing of his campaign, appears to have been handpicked by Rehberg. He, nor anyone else, including the ones who trip all over themselves saying that Ron Paul is a personal friend, also did not use his clout in the Montana GOP to keep 14.4 percent of the Republican Primary voters from being disenfranchised. I will be writing in Vincent Melkus, who is a Marine in his twenties living in Hardin. I won’t be voting for either the Democrat Kim Gillan or the Libertarian David Kaiser. Kaiser is pro-abortion and does not want to cut defense at all.
Anyone that gives Newt Gingrich (who was charging the US taxpayer $40,000 a day in secret service detail while running for President, and was for a time, maybe still is, on Mitt Romney’s payroll) the time of day will also not be getting my vote. Rick Hill can kiss my vote goodbye. And given that he also did not use his clout in the Montana GOP to keep 17 percent of the Republican Primary voters from being disenfranchised, I will be writing in Bob Fanning*. Fanning was the only man in the GOP gubernatorial debate willing to stand up to Rick Hill on every issue. If my voting for him contributes to Steve Bullock, another verifiable scumbag, winning, so be it. Did I mention that Rick Hill is a wife-cheating name-dropping career politician? Mr. Fanning was the only Republican governor candidate who did not endorse Rick Hill. If Ken Miller hadn’t have endorsed Rick Hill I might have considered writing him instead. Libertarian Ron Vandevender was briefly tempting, but upon further research I found he was hard to pin down on several issues. And if his association with any of the other Montana Libertarians here listed is any indicator at all, I would probably find much fault with him.
And Romney, apart from being a progressive, a crony capitalist, and a shill, is also clearly an imbecile. He could have picked Ron Paul as his Vice President, Andrew Napolitano as his Attorney General, Justin Raimondo as his Secretary of Defense, Eric Peters as his Secretary of Transportation, Gary North as his Secretary of the Treasury, Thomas Woods as his Secretary of State, Lew Rockwell as his Chief of Ctaff, and Robert Wenzel as his Federal Reserve Chairman, and I still wouldn’t vote for him. I will be writing in good old Ron Paul. Barack Obama is obviously not getting my vote, and after much serious deliberation neither is Libertarian Gary Johnson or Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode.
This nation can’t be fixed until the GOP is history. I won’t miss it. Founded by protectionists, mercantilists, corporate lobbyists, central banksters, and an assortment of socialists, it was rotten from day one. It is one of the most depraved, greedy, and bloodthirsty organizations in US history. There have been several good men in the party, so I have no problem supporting individual candidates therein. Politics makes strange bedfellows, after all. For example there are a few district/county/municipal level Republicans (and one Libertarian) I am still voting for.
For more good reasons not to vote Republican this year, I suggest reading this letter to the editor by an indirect acquaintance of mine as a start, and then moving on to this blog post by Doug Wead.
*For the record, I have personal reasons why I should not vote for Robert Fanning. But I am not an Community Organizer or a Feminist so I am willing to look past them in the political arena.
The Libertarian Liquidationist 