The Lesser of Two Evils Won

As a libertarian, I'm glad Obama defeated Romney.  Obama was a dismal candidate, but Romney was worse. Obama is a liar who claims to be a friend of the poor but who uses public power to subsidize the super-rich.  Obama initiated an unpopular socialized medicine scheme, and then, through a destructive cap-and-trade bill, attacked private home ownership--especially of the poor.  Obama has consistently subsidized the stock market at the expense of the average American, and he has attacked fundamental American freedoms through the NDAA, which intensifies Bush's Patriot Act.  Given Obama's ugly policies, policies that are harmful to the average American, the Republicans should have had no trouble defeating him.  Moreover, the economy has been dismal, with high unemployment and instability.

The bailout and Obama's healthcare act energized the rank and file of the Republican Party in 2009 and 2010.  I will never understand, then, what possessed the GOP to nominate a candidate who, as governor of Massachusetts, had adopted a healthcare act comparable to Obama's.  As well, Governor Romney had made a fortune working in the same financial industry that the multi-trillion dollar bailout subsidized. Romney made his $200 million because of Federal-Reserve-Bank subsidization. Make no mistake about it: Private equity in today's form is a primary beneficiary of Federal-Reserve- Bank monetary creation.  Romney is a product of crony capitalism, a corporate welfare baby.  As well, Romney stated that he aimed to initiate a trade war, an economically illiterate path, with China. 

Having thought long and hard and having interacted with Republicans in my region over the past few years, I have concluded that the Republican Party is not for me.  The Democrats are evil, but as totalitarian, murderous, and destructive they may be, the Republicans are worse. The Republicans have been present throughout the implementation of Agenda 21; they have fostered Federal Reserve Bank socialism; they have degraded American education; they have adopted as much regulation as the Democrats.  They claim to oppose big government, but they have consistently expanded it. A so-called political party, the GOP, like the Democratic Party, is a corruption machine.   As a representative of the big-government wing of the GOP, Romney was a worse candidate than Obama. 

That the Republicans couldn't conceive of a way to defeat Obama is a symptom of their commitment to centralization, to  big government, and to any and every scheme by which they can loot the public till.  

It is good that Romney lost. He ran a dismal campaign.  His socialism matches Obama's, and he would have contributed as little to the nation's welfare as Obama will.  Add to it that Romney has benefited from the federal government's thieving Federal Reserve system, and I am happy as anything that he has lost. 

Romney-and-Obama Supporters Are Good Germans

 I am voting for Johnson not because he is not the lesser of two evils.  I am voting for Johnson because he stands for freedom, while Romney and Obama stand for totalitarianism.  Romney favors tariffs, a significant increase in government.  If your aim is to reduce government, Romney is the greater, not the lesser, of two evils.  

The same was true of Reagan in 1980.  He claimed to be for small government, but he did not reduce government, and he opened the door for massive increases in local taxes through his new federalism, whereby he downloaded programs to the states. Carter had stopped inflation by appointing Paul Volcker as Fed chairman (who implemented monetarist policies starting in 1979); he had deregulated the airlines and trucking.  Reagan reignited inflation and a 25-year stock bubble through supply-side economics, instituted new regulation in areas like human resource management, and did NOT reduce the federal government.  Can you  claim that Reagan was the lesser of two evils?  With the Republican-conceived $29 trillion bailout of banks, the Republicans' bunkum has grown old.   There has been no bigger expansion of the state than the Republican-conceived $29 trillion bailout of 2009. To support Romney is to support socialism.

Choosing between Romney and Obama is choosing between two candidates who support the Federal Reserve Bank’s swap of $29 trillion in real assets for banks’ failed investments. The Fed’s printed money comes out of my pocket--it is stolen.  

I oppose both thieving gangsters:  Romney and Obama.  Neither Romney nor Obama are the lesser of two evils. They both represent significant, direct harm to me and to this country;  their supporters participate in their national socialism, just as the good Germans did under Hitler.

Presidential Debate II: With Bums Like These, America Will Lose

Tuesday night's presidential debate frightened me. Two big goverment losers, neither in touch with the ideas of freedom on which the country was founded, advocated extremist, crackpot ideas. Two friends of banks avoided any discussion of any issue that mattered. Romney, with his China bashing and advocacy of tariffs, opposes freedom.  Obama, with his ignorance of the history of and reason for the Second Amendment, is a clown.  What is especially striking about Obama is that he went through three years of Harvard Law School, claims to have specialized in constitutional law, and is ignorant about the Constitution.  With these two clowns, America is in trouble. Making matters worse, the organizers of the debate, reflecting an increasingly totalitarian America, excluded the only worthwhile candidate: Gary Johnson

The Enemy is Progressivism, Not Obama: Dinesh D'Souza's 2016

I just saw 2016: Obama.  Dinesh D'Souza is right: Obama is a traitor.  Nevertheless, the film's lack of historical perspective is troubling. D'Souza's ignoring history allows him to exaggerate Obama's importance.  Moreover, D'Souza colors his facts wrong.  For example, indebtedness that has arisen during Obama's administration is not new.  The president who threw the U.S. into a pattern of heavy indebtedness was D'Souza's former boss, Ronald Reagan.  Moreover, the bigger financial problem is the Republican-and-Democratic-supported bailout.

D'Souza claims that Obama is using debt to bankrupt us. He forgets that Reagan's supply-side economics was just a variation of Keynesian economics. D'Souza forgets that it was Nixon who took us off the gold standard and so permitted the past 40 years of Fed plundering; he forgets that it was George W. Bush, supported by both McCain and Obama, who initiated $29 trillion--more than twice the American economy--in Federal Reserve subsidies to banks. Obama's indebtedness is tiny in comparison to the Fed's 2008 and 2009 bailouts, which the Republicans as well as Obama conceptualized and continue to support.   

Traitors linked to Wall Street and the Council on Foreign Relations have been running America for a century. The Republicans have plenty to answer for, such as Prescott Bush's and other Brown Brothers Harriman associates' funding of Stalin and Hitler as Anthony Sutton outlines in his history of Skull and Bones.  Sutton describes how David Rockefeller met on a regular basis to trade ideas with a Soviet ambassador at a time when it was illegal to do business with the Soviets. The CFR favored trade with and subsidies to the Soviet Union at a time when billions were being spent to build defenses against them, and more than  50,000 Americans died in Vietnam.

In other words, the disloyal, internationalist pattern started with Woodrow Wilson, JP Morgan, and Bernard Baruch, and continued through David Rockefeller and the investment bankers of today.  Obama is a symptom of Federal Reserve-based capitalism, but D'Souza paints him as a radical new cause.  It was George H. W. Bush's administration that signed the anti-American, anti-colonialist UN Agenda 21. If anti-colonialism is new to the highest levels of American policy making, as D'Souza claims, why did Bush sign Agenda 21?   It is true that Obama is aggressively implementing Agenda 21, but if the Republicans oppose it, why did Bush adopt it? What did Bush mean by new world order, a phrase taken out of the history of Progressivism and Skull and Bones, and does Bush's new world order differ from Obama's in more than a few details?   

Since the beginning of Progressivism in the late 19th century, the Progressives have posed false dichotomies, aiming for a synthesis that differs from both thesis and anti-thesis. The roots of Progressivism were in the nineteenth century German universities where the first American Progressives, such as Daniel Coit Gilman, creator of the modern American university, were educated.  Left versus right, liberal versus conservative,  and Republican versus Democratic  serve to divert attention from the synthesis:  massive rents paid to special interests and Wall Street via the Fed's counterfeiting mechanism.  Both Democrats and Republicans have consistently excelled in paying them.  The political synthesis that will result from totalitarians like Obama and Romney is totalitarianism, but the way to fight it is to step outside the conflict and destroy its pretended universality, not to demonize Obama.  The kind of false dichotomy that D'Souza offers is part of the totalitarian trend.

The points that stick in my throat are Obama's apparent anti-Zionism, hostility to Israel, and hostility to the British.  An America that transfers tens of trillions of dollars to banks will not be of much help to Israel in any case.