The State of Our Union is…..

In a sad homage to his neocon handlers, President Bush offered up a full slate of new spending initiatives and revenue reducing plans in last night’s State of the Union address. The President proposes new government programs to address health care, defense, ‘homeland security’, and for ‘educating the children’, in addition to various increases in ‘funding’ for existing programs.


bush

Bush is clearly pushing the idea that we need to ‘invest’ more in the public sector, but a cynic might ask how long the people are willing to keep throwing more money at an investment that isn’t paying off. In fact, as investments go, investing in our government over my lifetime has been a bigger fiasco than dumping your life savings into the market six weeks ago. Both would be fiscal disasters; the difference is – in the market, I can sell my stock and cut my losses. In the protection racket that is American government, I’m forced to double down repeatedly, and thus far, just compound my losses.

IRS sucks

Of course, he throws bones to the nominal conservatives (that would be a professed conservative who has no idea what that means), proposing $300,000,000 in spending for what he calls ‘Pell Grants for Kids’. On a philosophical level, I suppose that if we are going to suffer the burden of public funding for education (and all the inherent waste and inefficiency that accompanies this construct), one can argue it might as well be extended to include schools that parents actually select for their children. I would argue that it simply expands a bad idea (public funding of education), making more waste and inefficiency likely, and probably opening the institutions on the receiving end of the funds further to the heavy hand of government regulations. Does anyone out there suppose that there won’t be strings tied to those subsidies?

At a time when we are teetering on the precipice of the financial abyss, I would offer that showing fiscal discipline would be the proper course of action. While redistributionists might laud the President’s call for increasing Aids funding by 30 billions over the next five years, the reality is that we’re talking about taking $100 out of the pockets of every man, woman and child in America to fund your do-gooding. That’s $500 for my family, and that’s money that I could use to feed and educate my children, or to generally improve our standard of living. While I have no argument with funding aids research specifically, the answer is not to take more funds from the working people of America. If this research is worth funding, make a humanitarian case for funding. More evil is wrought through your do-goodery with stolen funds than is ameliorated with the stolen loot.

This roadmap for continued deficits and easy credit means more weakness for the dollar ahead, and rising prices of most all staple commodities. The purchasing power of the lower and middle classes will continue to erode because our elites find there to be greater operational imperatives than improving the financial health of our nation. An objective observer would be hard pressed to make a case that the intention wasn’t to bankrupt us as a nation. Whether the intention or not, that is the outcome.


hot cash

We’re maxed out on our proverbial credit cards; we spend more than we make; We’re not even keeping up with the interest payments on our debt. We’re like the college student who finds himself under crushing credit card debt due to imprudent fiscal decisions, who decides that the proper course of action is to get more credit cards, surfing the debt from one to the other and racking up even more debt. Instead of biting the bullet and paying for our imprudence, we’ll just go for broke.

All of this, and a lecture about how we need to hand over yet more of our precious freedoms so that our elite masters in the far off capital can keep us safe from the terrorists hiding under our beds. The State of our Union is broke – and also stupid.


An Optimistic View

If you’re a died-in-the-wool Paulite like me, things are looking up.

Off the top, there are the recent coups in Louisiana (first, maybe second – we’re still waiting to see how that shakes out) and Nevada (2nd). In the most recent release from Rasmussen Reports for Georgia, Paul is polling at 12%, and is clearly ascendant in many of the super Tuesday states.

And then there’s the money issue. Paul has more on hand than anyone else, and the only one with prospects to beat Paul in the cash race moving ahead is Mitt Romney. But his access to a personal fortune is also one of his achilles heels. So Paul will not be making the financially driven decisions that many of the candidates will be facing. We are truly poised to join the front-runners through attrition – and that is a great way to do it!

mitts money

But wait – there’s more…. have you read about all of the endorsements and additions to the campaign team in recent days? There was the Barry Goldwater Jr. Endorsement; the Norma McColvey endorsement; the Peter Schiff endorsement (the most meaningful to me); the Tom McClintock hedged endorsement; and the Donald Luskin endorsement.

schiff

It’s hard to believe that we’ve been into the primary season for less than a month. While our route to the nomination has not been according to the normal script, we are better off today than at any other point in this campaign. We are making headway, and anything can happen. The field is incredibly weak, and Dr. Paul could be poised to break out and away from the pack. No one knows the future, but I can’t help but be optimistic. We’ve got a lot of reasons to be, and many of our competitors don’t. They’ve got to hope that they can keep the electorate away from the message through ad hominem charges of Paul being ‘unelectable’. It seems that fewer and fewer people are buying that line….. they’re just sitting on the ball and praying. They have used up their arsenal, and are hoping it was enough.

Personally, I don’t think it was. But we will see.

The Real Conservative: Paul > Reagan

I offer this video without comment, but fully endorsing the message it conveys.


You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Romney’s Faux Pas, Take 2

It seems that MSNBC posted a story about the Mitt-miscue, but quickly pulled the story. Fortunately, a savvy Lew Rockwell blogger nabbed the screenshot and saved it for posterity.

MSNBC

It seems the audio in question only came over one channel, leaving the source of the comments undetermined. It clearly isn’t just one of the moderators, as ‘Gdub’ opines in the comments of the previous offering – that would fail to explain how Russert could talk into just one of the sound channels….. it’d be a good trick if he can pull it off, though.

Obviously the author of the piece felt it worth mentioning. One has to wonder who overruled the initial decision, and for what rationale…..

—————–*Update*——————

It seems that MSNBC was able to retrieve the missing post from the memory hole, and added a little commentary:

After some of the confusion today, we are putting it back up for those that haven’t seen it. As far as figuring out the mystery of who or where it came from, that is being worked on, and we hope to have an answer soon. It puzzled us here too, and we’re looking through tape of other candidates to see if it was one of them. We’ll let you know.

We’re not holding our breath, but…. sure, get back to us.

Mitt’s Magic Ear (piece)

A strange thing happened at last night’s Republican Debate in Boca Raton, Florida.

 

Tim Russert asked Mitt Romney whether or not he would raise payroll taxes to solidify the Social Security program, standard fair for a Republican debate. As Romney pauses for just a moment, a muffled, scratchy voice says “I wouldn’t raise taxes“.

 

 

A millisecond later, Mitt repeats the phrase on cue.

 

So the question on all of our minds – does that alter the consensus opinion that Mitt knocked it out of the park? If this gets picked up by the big media, this should be enough to knock Mitt from the race.

 

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

 

Conventional Wisdom: Unconventionally Stupid

The conventional wisdom making the rounds in the last 24 hours is that we’ll be down to 3 candidates by Super Tuesday, with expectations running high that both Huckabee and Giuliani will be relegated to the sidelines after Florida. Both candidates are seeing their numbers slip as they struggle with an inability to come up with new money to power their floundering campaigns. I tend to agree with the conventional wisdom on this point. It will be down to the well-funded Ron Paul, the self-funded Romney and the un-funded McCain.

 

And to listen to the neo-conservative emmanations from the Ministry of Truth, you’d get the idea that they’re all liberal flip-floppers who don’t know what conservative means. Here, the CW is two-thirds correct.

 

On the sidelines

 

From there, I can’t follow what passes for wisdom from the conventional crowd. Mike Reagan posits that this is just the right scenario for Newt Gingerich, but Mike never really has been one to use his head for much besides sitting. You can forgive him for being a dunce, as he really is no blood relation to the Gipper, and intelligence is a genetic trait. While he might have picked up a little rhetoric spending some time with RR, he certainly missed the fundamental premise about what makes one a conservative. Here’s a news flash for you, Mike: a proclivity for bombing third world nations doesn’t make one conservative, and in light of a historical understanding of conservatism, it is actually a contra-indicator.

 

As much as I dislike Limbaugh’s inability to name the one conservative in the race, at least he is holding the line against redefining conservative so that he can avoid the indisputable fact that not only is Ron Paul the only conservative in this race, he is decidedly the most authentic conservative to vie for the Republican nomination since Barry Goldwater.

 

 

And I won’t do more than mention Glenn Beck, for whom it is all about the war. Strike that. I will make one comment for Mr. Beck: If you sell out everything that is important to conservatives to be able to kill more people in the middle east, you are not a conservative. You are a liberal hawk. That’s where you’re living, and you’ll have a hell of a time convincing the conservatives who have tuned you out of anything else.

 

 

If wanting to expand our war footprint (in opposition to the traditional conservative position) is a deal breaker for the self-appointed neo-conservative opinion-shapers, grow a set and say so. Stop trying to act as if Paul isn’t an authentic conservative – it doesn’t make your own abandonment of conservatism any less cynical. Fine – you’ve drank the ‘Islamo-fascist’ koolaide. That doesn’t mean that anyone unwilling to join you in the militaristic liturgy is not a conservative. As for your own conservatism – it died when you threw your weight behind increasing the power of the state over individual liberties in the name of security. What an indictment of you gentlemen – Mr Beck, Mr Limbaugh, and of the rest of the second tier of opinion gate-keepers.

 

You can get it back. I know you’re afraid of losing your seat at the table, but haven’t you been a spineless genuflector to the establishment long enough? You can recapture your conservative credentials, and do the nation a solid in the process. Learn to say the name of the only conservative left standing. It will hurt a little at first, but you’ll get the hang of it. Just two little one syllable words.

 

 

Test it out at home, try it with your significant other, or another close friend. After a little practice, you can gain the strength to say it in the presence of your respective audiences. And after you spend a while trying to rememeber what conservatism really is (hint – it doesn’t mean you want to kill more towelheads), you just might start to be conservative once again.

 

Just Who Is Cozy With The Nazis?

In a telling display of just what a cesspool the anti-Paul coalition has become, news breaks today that Jamie Kirchick, the current hero of the smearbund, collaborated with at least one neo-nazi in his quest to smear Dr. Paul.

 

The incomparable Justin Raimondo has done all of the heavy lifting on this issue, exposing the motive for the Reason/Cato libertine crowd’s crusade and cogently laying out the damning fact that they are deeply engaged in some heavy-petting with the same racists they have put forward as props to smear Dr. Paul.

 

Here is the infamous Don Black photo – the one that whipped the haters into a frenzy:

 

Behold Kirchick's bitch - Don Black

 

As has been well documented, this photo of the infamous ‘Storm Front’ fuhrer was snapped at an event where hundreds of people attended and got their own candidate photos. Of course, it didn’t stop the assembled cretins from thinking it was the nail in the coffin for Paul. They even found out about a donation from a neo-nazi, and got the big media to carry their smear-water. And again, it was Don Black at the epicenter.

 

Flash forward to the most recent attempt to push the ‘Ron Paul is a racist’ premise, and who do you think Kirchick’s neo-nazi pal is….. you get one guess.

 

Don Black.

 

So here we have it, folks. There is no chance that the three separate surfacings of Black are coincidental. This is the best the braniacs can come up with, and if I say so myself, they make great bed-buddies. Who would have guessed that Kirchick and his partisans would end up in this metaphorical incestuous orgy of their own – with big, bad Stormfront! It gives the whole sordid mess a redeeming sort of closure.

 

I’m glad this episode has played out this way, for now the objective bystanders can get a real glimpse into the soul of these “aging hipsters and would-be “cool kids””, and make sure we steer clear.

 

almost a journalist

 

I’ll be waiting for the fourth offering resulting from the buggery between Kirchick and Black. One would have thought such intercourse unthinkable for both parties. It is true that politics makes for strange bed-fellows.