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.

Read More

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

Read More

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.

Read More

The "Lesser of Two Evils" Strategy Has Failed

I’ve heard the phrase “lesser of two evils” since childhood.  The lesser evil is increasingly evil.  The strategy has failed.  The evil gets more and more extreme, not the other way around.  The claim of Fox and many Americans that compromise between the two parties results in moderation is false.  The more extreme party pulls the debate toward totalitarianism, and the less extreme party follows, with the unhappy median moving incrementally toward totalitarianism each year.  The difference that is split becomes more extreme. By thinking in terms of “the lesser of two evils” you participate in the totalitarian trend.  It makes no sense to vote for a candidate because more people have heard of him when the media is totalitarian owned and doesn’t support anti-totalitarian views.  I include Fox. Romney is light years more totalitarian than the Republican candidates of my generation; the media, including Fox, is to blame.   

Read More

Democrats Favor Profit Ban

The evidence mounts that the smartest move an American can make is relocation to another country.  Peter Schiff reveals the ignorant maelstrom that American government has become. H/t Mike Marnell

Read More

Philips Electronics Pulls Debate Funding

In this dismal, uninteresting, and tragic presidential election, the only bright spots are Gary Johnson's candidacy and his six percent polling result. Minor parties rarely get more than one or two percent. Six will be the best showing in the Libertarian Party's history and, finally, some evidence that a few Americans are beginning to reject the Progressivism that the Republican Party established in 1908 with the reelection of the first Progressive president, Theodore Roosevelt.  Johnson is the only candidate who questions the current monetary regime and favors sharp reductions in government.  In contrast, both Romney and Obama favored the largest expansion in government in our lifetimes, the bailout of Wall Street, which is no longer discussed in the pro-Fed media.

Philips Electronics is a historically Dutch firm that was founded in the early twentieth century and has been a consistent competitor to GE.  With 125,000-or-so employees, Philips is global. It does  business in more than 100 countries; its scientists and executives speak multiple languages.  Unlike GE, Goldman Sachs, GM, or Merck, Philips has little to gain from the favors of Obama and Romney.

US News (h/t Mike Marnell) reports that Philips and the venerable YWCA have pulled their support from the presidential debates because the Commission on Presidential debates  insists on excluding Governor Gary Johnson.  Manipulation by the pro-Fed establishment is  not new. In the Republican primary, the Republicans and the media cheated against Ron Paul. According to US News:

 In a letter announcing its sponsorship withdrawal, Philips wrote that it was concerned the commission's work "may appear to support bi-partisan" instead of "non-partisan" politics. The YWCA similarly wrote that it was dropping out because it is a "non-partisan" women's organization.

Americans have a diehard bias in favor of the two-party system. Given the two parties' performance, the bias is self-destructive.  Gary Johnson offers a libertarian alternative to twin advocates of Progressivism, whose ideas have caused the real hourly wage to stagnate for the past 40 years, have been responsible for increasing income inequality, have attacked economic innovation, and have cut your standard of living in half unless most of your wealth comes from stock-and-bond appreciation.

The rule that only candidates with 15% or more in the polls can participate in the televised debate evidences the diminution of democracy and freedom in the United States.  The United States has become a two-party-based oligarchy chiefly responsive to corporate interests. Given how infrequently third parties have obtained 10% of the vote, setting the bar at 15% is a clever way to ensure that, like Fox, the presidential debates are limited to unbalanced Progressivism.

Read More