Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Election 12

Back in Britain.

I have been back in Britain a few days (it feels like years), my impressions are….

“Evening Standard” on the late night-early morning train from the airport.

Weird article attacking “golf club Nazis” (for such clearly Nazi things as likeing Monty Python – no the article made no sense to me either). I have now remembered that this article was supposed to prove that “Citizenship” classes-tests should teach immigrants how to claim government benefits.  No I do not know why that is supposed to be a good (not a bad) thing  – or what it has got to do with Monty Python.

Odd letters to the editor saying they supported the government’s policy of reducing state spending (what reduction in state spending?) but wanted more spending on X, Y, Z – such as railways to places which already have railways going to them.

A big article on the “living wage” idea, which showed no idea of what a labour market is – and how trying to increase wages (with no increase in productivity) can only increase unemployment. But quoted various “leading conservatives” as being in support of the “living wage” concept, as a way of fighting the multinational corporations (why would a conservative want to do that?).

And an article by Mr Cameron on “keeping the spirit of the games alive” – but I could not bring myself to read it.

Back in Kettering told that Holocaust memorial day was used as an excuse for death-to-Israel speeches (killing six million Jews in the 1940s was wrong – but killing another six million Jews now would be good, because Jews are Nazis or something…. a bit like the golf club people?).

Visit London – go round bookshops. Leftist books are the ones pushed forward (on bits of board) or turned to face the customers. Pro free market books very rare in the London bookshops anyway. Do the shareholders in Waterstones, W.H. Smiths, and Foyles know that the staff (including the managers?) want them robbed and murdered?

And why do people employed in comfortable bookshops hate “capitalists” and “capitalism” anyway (it is something to do with the shareholders likeing Monty Python? or are they Jews? or perhaps they play golf?). Anyway the people in London appear to be very prosperious – try to force down “credit bubble city” thoughts….

Lots of students – perhaps this “education” thing explains a lot…..

Try to see the film “Zero Dark Thirty” in Kettering – but it is only on late at night in the cinema. So they can say that there is not much call for it? Something I have noticed before with non P.C. films – they are either not shown at all in the local cinema, or they are shown only once a day and an irritating time.

Notice that leftist newspapers (such as the “I”) still have special stands at the local supermarket or (like the ultra Keynesian “Financial Times”) are raised on boards to make them more visible than other newspapers. Why?

Leftist magazines also still pushed and non leftist ones not. Even “Time” magazine (which is not even a British magazine and has no British news in it) put in favoured position – for no reason.

British television and radio news (and television and radio comedy) scream, gag, slump to floor…….

Oh yes – I almost forgot…..

Hour long speech (loud enough to be a speech anyway) on the train to London from a young person who worked in the Cabinet Office (amongst other places) about how he went to see Barack Obama sworn in again – and had the words “Barack Obama” written into his flesh. Supposedly Comrade Barack is a great leader for “our people” (the gentleman had an English accent) and lots of words about Barack Obama’s skin colour (which was the same as that of the person giving the speech).

Does this chap understand that he is a racist? Or does he have some some sort of Frankfurt School way out of basic logic?

Anyway his friends seemed most impressed by his words. And he did make a couple of references to things other than Mr Obama’s skin colour. For example the importance of “networking” to gain money from the state (I suppose the word “networking” is a word that modern people use for “corrupt influence”) and how much money (1.2 million) a friend of his had raised for the Obama campaign.

Oh, of course, also how people joined the “public sector” to “help people”. The young gentleman was expensively dressed – so clearly the “public sector” (the taxpayers) have helped him, and his “networking friends”.

Vote for Gary Johnson.

Here’s a handy cut-out and keep reminder of why whether it is Obama or Romney it matters not the mote in the eye of a weasel.

(Apart from to the assorted vested interests and corporations who have been cosying up to Dumbo or Eeyore).

I don’t think Allen will mind my theft here!

Please don’t vote for the lesser of two weevils. That way nothing changes. Please don’t vote “Anyone but…” because that perpetuates the vile farce. I know Johnson hasn’t a water-boarding cat on Titan’s methane seas chance of winning but sometimes that is not the point. A modest boost for the Libertarian Party is a result. It’s a start and it has to start sometime. Let that be now.

Is Romney anywhere near being a small-government conservative let alone a libertarian? No he isn’t. So why are some people on this blog hoping for him to win? This is supposed to be a libertarian blog so why are writers and commentators so keen to hope, when they get off the cattle truck, to able to choose to go down the trap to the slaughter manned by the guy who’s better with the humane stunner than the other? Jumping the fence instead almost certainly won’t work – this time – but is this the point? Why not vote for the Libertarian Party candidate and be damned and not feel icky coming out of the booth? Why not just be yourself! Isn’t that at the core of the liberty?

Isn’t that what any genuine democratic process has to be about – saying what you really want, not what the duopoly wants?

Isn’t it always better to do what is right than what seems expedient? In the long-run anyway. You never know what might happen. It might even just work out, eventually.

Live Free and Die Hard.

Vote Johnson. Make yourself known as a Libertarian. Why claim to be a libertarian (or even Libertarian) and write posts or comments to that end and then not support the Libertarian candidate?

You know it doesn’t make electoral sense (in a way) to vote for Johnson but you know it’s right and you know where the journey of a thousand miles starts. In the dark but at least heading towards the light.

No vote is wasted if it can be built upon. Eventually. But people have to start voting for what they really want otherwise what is the point?

No vote is wasted if it is cast from the heart and the head. And if enough people do that… It starts, slowly, but it starts. But you have to stand-up and be counted and not just bellyache on blogs until the 11th hour and then you rally round a “major” party because you either have never really been a libertarian or you don’t care or you just want one of the “biggies” less than the other. They might not be the “biggies” for all time but it takes one person at a time to change that. And isn’t individuality rather than the herd what we are all about at our best?

(Again from Allen).

Support Mitt Romney – says Paul Marks.

Yes I know this means that Governor Romney is doomed. My support tends to have that effect…

I also know that I have been attacking Mitt Romney for years.

However, the endorsements of Comrade Barack Obama by Mayor Health Fascist Bloomberg, and the vile Economist magazine, are just too much.

If they are on one side – I just have to be on the other side, saying a “plague on both their houses” will not do.

Perhaps I just see (and hear) things differently from other people.

Presently there is a lot interest in Barack Obama’s you-forgot-the-mike-was-on comments to the Russian Prime Minister. All about how November was his last election – and after it he, Comrade Barack, would be able to….

Most people (apart from the msm – the BBC, who normally broadcast Comrade Barack’s every word, do not seem to making much of these comments) seem to be seeing the comments as evidence of Barack’s “weakness”, I do not see them that way at all.

I see them more in the way of the Emperor in “Star Wars” saying “soon the Rebel Alliance will be crushed and then we will….” hardly “weakness”.

However, it was Comrade Barack’s previous comments in Korea (ones that were widely reported) that really showed me that I see the world (the basic data) totally differently from other people.

Barack said that North Korea had missed “forty or fifty years of progress”.

I would have thought that people would at least say that “the Korean War was 60 years ago”, but no one seems to have said even that.

And what is this stuff about the North Korean problem being a lack of “forty or fifty years of progress” anyway?

Is Barack saying that North Korea is like the world of 1962?

The world of De Gaulle, “Supermac” and Jack Kennedy? The “never had it so good” world?

North Koreans are dependent on food aid – without which they would starve to death. That does not sound like 1972 (forty years) or 1962 (fifty years) to me.

The problem of North Korea is not a lack of X number of years of progress.

North Korean is NOT “stuck in a timewarp” back in 1962 (or in freaking 1862 for that matter).

The problem with North Korea is SOCIALISM.

I do not expect Comrade Barack to say that. After all he is a life long Marxist – and Frank Marshall Davis would be very vexed, in whatever part of Hell he is currently in, if young Barack betrayed the Red cause by saying that the problem with North Korea is socialism.

However, I did expect someone to point out that the problem with North Korea is NOT lack of X number of years of progress, that it is NOT in a “timewarp” back in 1972 or 1962 (or 1952 or any other date). That North Korea is a socialist slave state. But no – it was all…. wise Barack points out that North Korean is stuck in a timewarp forty or fifty years ago.

This is even how Fox News reported Comrade Barack’s comments.

I despair. I used to think that the problem was that other people did not see the same data (the same information) as I did – but it is increasingly obvious that when we (me and they) see the SAME data, we interpret it totally differently.

What’s Wrong with Mitt…

Unlike my piece on Rick I’m going to focus here not on what I think but what I think the Republicans think…

He looks presidential: nice teeth, great hair (with those statesmen-like flashes of grey at the temples).

I don’t for the life of me understand why he isn’t romping it. The man has succeeded at pretty much everything he’s tried (even converting the French to Mormonism!) and his personal life seems squeaky clean*. Perhaps what Evan Thomas wrote about him comes close to explaining his relative lack of popularity, “came off as a phony, even when he was perfectly sincere.” In particular his change of position on abortion does seem genuine. “Changing my position was in line with an ongoing struggle that anyone has that is opposed to abortion personally, vehemently opposed to it, and yet says, ‘Well, I’ll let other people make that decision.’ And you say to yourself, but if you believe that you’re taking innocent life, it’s hard to justify letting other people make that decision.” Well, that seems fair enough. Though if too slickly delivered could easily (and has been) spun as glib and opportunistic.

Reading his potted biography on Wikipedia it frequently stresses that Romney has throughout most of his life before politics been essentially pragmatic in his outlook. I think this is interesting as it places Romney in a very different position from the likes of Santorum who love him or loathe him is certainly principled to a fault. Whether Romney has taken his pragmatic outlook to the point of being unprincipled upon entering politics is a moot point. As I noted above the reasons for his change of position on abortion seem at least plausible. The real question though is as to whether Republicans see it that way and I suspect many regard his lack of adamantine principles (whether this is real or imagined) to be a fatal flaw.

I suspect his faith is not an issue. Or if it is’s a bonus because it’s easily the most “interesting” thing about him. That and his taxes but the only people really interested in that are the IRS…

So, that’s my take on the Romney conundrum. I suppose there’s a couple more things to say. The first is that his relative unpopularity (and the rise of Santorum) seems to represent to me a peculiarity of US politics – the whole travelling circus that is the primaries. Romney is the only Republican candidate who can beat Obama and the Republicans seem to have lost sight of that in face of Rick and Newt and Mitt and the other Rick and whoever else there was engaging in a prolonged slanging match. And, yes, I do believe Romney is the only one who can win. A great many of the same people who believe that an Obama second term is the end of civilization as we know it seem vehemently against the one man who can stop him. A paradox perhaps?

The second is also rather odd. I thought I’d struggle to find anything to say about Romney and I haven’t. Whether any of it is to the purpose is another matter!). When I sat down with the laptop to write this all I could think of is one line and it’s what I’ll end on because when I think of Romney (which I don’t do often) it still returns to me. It is something Oscar Wilde said about George Bernard Shaw:

He hasn’t an enemy in the World and his friends don’t like him either.

PS I’m also aware my going easy-ish on Romney could be seen as an endorsement. It isn’t. There just isn’t too much dirt to dig.

*Despite his first son being bizarrely named, Tagg. The other kids have normal names so that outbreak of Palinitis was nipped in the bud…

What’s Really Wrong with Rick.

Rick Santorum in his own words.

On libertarianism…

In an NPR interview in the summer of 2005, Santorum discussed what he called the “libertarianish right,” saying “they have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone…”

No, I don’t believe people can go it alone that indeed what civil society is for going back to the days Ugg who was good at fishing made a deal with Ogg who was good at hunting to their mutual benefit. But that isn’t what Santorum is talking about is it? He expressly mentions government here.

On contraception…

“I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. And I think we’ve very, very harmful longterm consequences to our society. Birth control to me enables that, and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.”

I strongly suspect he isn’t talking about the side-effects of the pill when he says “harmful to women”. Certainly because he goes on about society immediately. He mentions society three times and country once in that paragraph. Let’s re-write it…

“I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to the poor. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that free-markets are something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. And I think we’ve very, very harmful longterm consequences to our society. capitalism to me enables that, and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.”

… And behold the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the authoritarian “right” and the authoritarian “left”. Both simply want to impose a worldview on a thing they call society and both believe government has a driving role in that. Try you’re own re-write – smoking, drinking, drugs, big-cars…

Anyway, back to what he actually said.

Well the thing that immediately springs to mind is it is incredibly patronising. Leaving that aside (it’s too easy a target) note how quickly he leaps from contraception to sex outside marriage and promiscuity. His attitude to contraception as an enabler of sluttishness is much the same as a mullah who believes the lack of a hijab encourages rape or those who want to ban firearms because people get murdered or beer because people get drunk and start fights. This is a depressing view of humanity. It’s essentially Hobbesian and, if we go back to the first quote, clear Santorum see government as the Leviathan to control our “urges”. Different authoritarians worry about different urges of course but they still see it as the duty of a government to control them (or try. It is always the antithesis of civil society and deeply corrosive to how individuals (or organisations or businesses) interact. Culture and society evolve (Santorum isn’t too keen on Darwin either) bottom-up, not top-down – recall my example of Ugg and Ogg trading food above!

I guess partly what I’m trying to say is that a “social conservative” isn’t just conservative in a moral sense in terms of individual conscience (and surely conscience is one of the most individual things we have) or the beliefs and rules of whatever religion they do or don’t belong to but also a believer in society as an entity in and of itself in much the same way any good Marxist is.

Quotes from wikipedia (but they and many similar can be found all over the web). Just be careful Googling his name!

PS. My next post ought to be “What’s Really Wrong with Mitt”. but that’s like fisking the Cheshire Cat. Perhaps that ought to be my start-point.

Will Romney have the ability and the courage to do to Barack Obama what he has done to Newt Gingrich?

I am not a great admirer of Newt Gingrich. He has indeed had a bad personal life (although not as bad as is often claimed), and he says nice things about dreadful people (“Teddy” Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, “F.D.R.” and so on) which is hard to take from an historian. So I can understand why, for example, Glenn Beck can not stand Newton Gingrich.

However, it is not his real flaws that have defeated Gingrich – hardly anyone went to vote in Iowa (where Newt was well ahead – till he suddenly was massively behind) or in Florida (ditto), saying “what Gingrich says about Teddy Roosevelt is totally wrong – I can not vote for a man who says nice things about Teddy Roosevelt”.

Newton Gingrich was defeated in Iowa and Florida (and Florida really is as important as people say it is) by a TIDAL WAVE OF SMEARS.

In Iowa Gingrich ran a “positive campaign” (all about his plans for a 15% flat rate income tax and so on) and was well ahead – till suddenly a vast wave of millions of Dollars of “negative ads” hit him over the head.

And in Florida he was hit over the head again – by the most expensive Republican primary campaign in the State in history. Gingrich was outspent between 3 to 1 and 5 to 1 (depending on how one calculates it).

And what did the ads say?

They said that he took money from Freddie Mac (will actually it was his company, – but sort-of true so far), and then at once the ads used the words “charges ethics violations” (as if the ethics charges were about the Freddie Mac contract – which is not true, the ethics charges were BS smear campaign similar to what the left did to Sarah Palin some years later).

And then the ads end with “resigned in disgrace” as if Gingrich had been guilty of all these (undescribed) “ethics charges”, and had then resigned. Actually he was innocent of virutally all of them (and the thing he was “guilty” of was absurd – saying he was Speaker of the House when he went to give some lectures at a college and HE WAS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE) and did not resign the Speakership till YEARS LATER.

So the ads were, basically, B.S. – but they WORKED.

They were on all the time – millions upon millions of Dollars (thanks to Goldman Sachs and so on – for, inspite of his wealth, Romney does not fund a lot of this campaign) and Gingrich could not compete (no great finanical industry support for him, the plan to audit the Federal Reserve, put the Wall Street credit-money junkies  into a panic).

O.K. Romney has won by big money and a smear campaign – but that is not my point.

My point, my question, is as follows…

Does Romney have the ability and the courage to do to Barack Obama what he has done to Newt Gingrich?

Well Romney lacks the ability – he will not be able to outspend Obama in the way that he outspent Gingrich.

The Obama forces will spend at least a BILLION Dollars on their campaign. They will reverse the money advantage that Romney has just had. And the “Progressives” (the early 20th century American Progressives were often what were called in Europe “Fascists” – but the modern ones are dominated by Marxist doctrines), will lie without shame about Romney. Expect to hear lots of tales about Mormanism and so on – they will be lies, but that DOES NOT MATTER (does anyone think that the “mainstream” television stations,  i.e. all of them bar Fox News, will call the Obama forces on anything they do? actually, of course, they will help Comrade Barack and co as much as they can).

And the courage?

Will the Romney forces have the courage to tell THE TRUTH about Obama in the way they dishonestly SMEARED Gingrich?

Will they run ads about Barack Obama’s life long Marxist associations and background?

His many years of active friendship with terrorists such as Mr and Mrs Ayers? Remember the Weathermen organization was still murdering people as late as 1981.

Will they run ads that show the material in such books as “Deconstructing Obama” (which shows, amongst other things, that Bill Ayers is the real author of “Dreams From My Father”), and “Radical In Chief”, “The Manchurian President” and “Red Army” – all showing Comrade Barack’s life long far left activities.

Will the Romney forces even run ads about Mr and Mrs Obama’s (and their friends and associates) financial corruption?

Will the material in such works as “The Case Against Barack Obama”, “The Culture of Corruption” and “Gangster Government” be made into television ads?

Will the Romney forces show true passion, true HATRED?

Or will it just be more boiler plate from milktoast Romney – such as we had yesterday.

“President Obama was elected to lead, he has chosen to follow, and now he should get out of the way”.

What the bleep does that even mean?

Does it mean that Barack Obama has been inactive as President? If so it is not true and (more importantly) not effective – because the things he has done (wild “Stimulus”, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, having Bin Laden killed, having lots of other enemies killed, and so on….) are too well known to pretend he has not done anything.

Of course it is a bit difficult for Romney to attack Barack Obama on POLICY (as Romney is the only Republican candidate who does not even want to get rid of the Department of Energy – and then there is the little matter of Romneycare, and Romney’s support for the “Stimulus” and so on…. and Romney can not really attack the Credit-Bubble Federal Reserve either, as he supported its antics), but he does not have to waste everyone’s time with silly nonsense about Barack being inactive.

However, I can hear the political consultants now….

“You must not hit President Obama with tough ads and specific charges – as that would be RACIST, and people like Barack Obama as a person, and his nice family…”.

The same advice that these people gave to JOHN MCCAIN in 2008.

So we are likely to see a campaign that it is a massive financial DISADVANTAGE (not the massive financial ADVANTAGE that Romney has had all his life), and a campaign that specializes in weak, meaningless, waffle. Rather than hard hitting charges to make people STOP “liking Obama as a person” – by exposing him as the scumbag he is.

It is possible that Romney campaign against Obama will not go well.

And, please people, do not mention other candidates against Comrade Barack – these “other canidates” have vastly LESS money than Romney has (let alone the Barack Obama forces have), and will show no more courage in putting on real negative ads (with real HATE filled charges) than the Romney campaign will.

Remember ads about policy DO NOT WORK – otherwise Gingrich would have won Iowa (he was ahead when the ads were about policy – then they turned negative and he was destroyed).

What works is spending LOTS OF MONEY on negative ads that are HATE filled (designed to inspire hatred and contempt for a person – this works even against a person who was previously liked, see Florida).

In the case of Barack Obama the charges would actually be TRUE – but I very much doubt that the Romney campaign (let alone any third party candidate) will have the courage to run them. Fear of being called “racist” by the media will prevent that.

Oddly enough there was one man who might have had the courage to run ads denouncing Barack Obama as the Saul Alinsky style scumbag that Barack is.

Newton Gingrich – who, for all his faults (which are all too real), actually has some courage (some old plain grit) to stand up to charges of “racism” from the media. But he has just been destroyed.

Now we must all “rally round Romney” (to fight Comrade Barack and the Red forces – with their plan to utterly exterminate, sorry “fundementally transform”, the United States and, indeed, the West as a whole) – but rally round with little hope.

A straightforward suggestion.

There is endless complaint (and has been for years – from the msm and so on) about some rich people in the United States “only” paying 15% of their income to the Federal government (because they pay capital gains tax), whereas other people can pay as much as 35% (as they pay income tax).

It is much more complicated than the above – because, for example, there are many tax allowances with the various rates of income tax that capital gains tax does not have (so NO Warren Buffet – your secretary does NOT pay a lower rate of tax than you do).

But, O.K. – say the income tax should not be higher than the capital gains tax, say that is “unfair”.

Why does that mean the capital gains tax should be INCREASED – why should the income tax not be CUT?

Sorry Ron Paul but a “zero” rate of Federal income tax for everyone is not possible without a Revolution (and not the peaceful one you have in mind), but a 15% top rate of income tax (with State income taxes on top – no more deducting your State income tax from the income you present to the Federal tax collectors, rich leftists please note – and I do not see why local, State and Federal govenment bonds should be tax free either, why should lending money to the government get special tax treatment?) is perfectly possible.

After all the Federal government would stil have the Social Security tax (sorry “contributions” – although FDRs lawyers said it was a tax when it was challenged before the Supreme Court) and Corporation Tax and …….

So a flat rate 15% income and capital gains tax would be perfectly “fair” and would not require a Revolutionary transformation in the size of the Federal government (just a bit of serious cutting).

“You are only saying the above because it is the centre piece of the Gingrich campaign”.

Not at all – I have supported a “flat” Federal income tax for 30 years.

And the candidate it would most help is MITT ROMNEY – as he would not have to worry about his tax returns anymore. He could just say “yes I pay 15% – SO DO YOU”.

Al Hunt is a C*** – but actually it is the “mainstream” media in general.

The ulitimate establishment show on American television, where business leaders as well as political leaders (and …..) go to be guests and get asked softball questions is the “Charlie Rose” show of “Public” (i.e. taxpayer financed) television and Bloomberg television. Bloomberg being the financial news operation created by Michael Bloomberg the establishment Mayor of New York, who has been a member of both political parties and an “independent”, and spends his time inventing new regulations and taxes especially on cigarettes, fatty foods and so on….

I watched part of the Charlie Rose show yesterday, and Mr Rose asked Al Hunt (a Bloomberg “journalist” who also has his own show – yes it was one establishment media person asking another establishment media person questions) “which is more optomistic?” Mitt Romney or Barack Obama – the point being that the person who presents the more optomistic vision of the future tends to win American Presidential elections.

Instead of answering the question Mr Hunt said the following…

“What is is interesting is how similar they are. Mitt Romney is a son of privilege, whereas Barack Obama comes from a very different background – the son of a father from Africa and a mother from Kansas. But both are very intelligent and policy wonks. And both are wonderful human beings without a whiff of scandal about them….”

This is what the media call being “unbiased” – after all Mr Hunt said they were both nice people and so on. But look more closely at the messages Mr Hunt was actually sending out.

Romney a “son of privilege” (a nice class warfare point in semi Marxist agitprop language), Barack Obama very different background – accept that his background is not quite as Mr Hunt implies.

Barack’s father may have come from Africa but was from an important family (and later bacame a minister in the government) – and, more importantly, was a socialist whose ideals Barack dedicates himself to in “Dreams From [note it is "from" not "of"] My Father” (this book was partly written by Comrade Bill Ayers – but Barack approved it, see Jack Cashill “Deconstucting Obama”). The mother was “from Kansas” – oh how sweet! How “Wizard of Oz”! Accept that she lived the vast majority of her life nowhere near Kansas – and (like Obama senior – indeed this is how she met him) was also a socialist – and one with an intense hatred of the United States (which she passed on to her son in daily three hour long indoctrination sessions before he was even old enough to go to school – and this is before she sent him back to the United States for further training from Frank Marshall Davis).

“Still very different from Romney” – but not in “PRIVILEGE”, far from a life of poverty, Barack went to exclusive private school in Hawaii, and then on to Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law. And in each case he got in, NOT on merit – but by INFLUENCE (wire pulling). The family (oddly enough) had all sorts of far left academic friends who could…..

Barack Obama may be “very intelligent”, but there is no evidence of this in his school or undergraduate work. As for his work at Columbia (a thesis on Soviet policy) we are not allowed to see this (surely it could not be a pro Soviet work? what a shock that would be) – so its worth is hard to judge. But I suspect that the Comrades at all the Marxist conferences Barack attended in New York loved the work (even if they did not write it for him).

As for Harvard Law School there is only one published work from there – a short piece on abortion law (standard “liberal” boiler plate that reads as if it had been copied from a reference work). This does not stop Barack being made an editor of the student law review – and then being given a job at the University of Chicago teaching Constitutional Law (even though he had never published anything on this).

You try getting a job at an elite university without either a doctorate or a list of publications. Go on – try.

So hardly a life without privilege. And please do not forget the job at the elite law firm – where the only work he seems to have done is political training (rather than much court work) for organizations like ACORN. Spending the rest of his day with his feet on the desk (no I am not making that up) trying to write “Dreams From My Father” before giving up and handing the work over to Comrade Bill Ayers (who he likely first met in Marxist circles in New York before Bill went back to Chicago, where they both sat on the boards of various charitable trusts which they looted for “the cause”) to finish for him.

Go on, you behave like that at work in a high paid professional post – see what happens to you.

“Policy Wonk” – actually the Centre of American Progress and the Apollo Alliance (and on and on  – all the standard rent-a-Red people) write the details of Barack’s stuff. He has never shown any real interest in the details of policy (the policy “wonk” stuff) the “cause” (destroying “capitalist” America and the evil West in general) is what interests him, paper work is for lesser mortals.

As for “no hint of scandal”   – actually the financial corruption of Mr Obama (and Mrs Obama, and their associates) is extensive. See “The Case Against Barack Obama” and “The Culture of Corruption”.

I am no fan of Mitt Romney (to put things mildly) – but see how the Mr Hunt has set things up.

The real Barack Obama has vanished. No mention of his Marxism or of his financial corruption – on the contrary he is a lovely man whose mother came from Kansas (heart of the heartland). And he is so hard working (not the lazy man he actually is), and he had humble origins (which he did not) and has had to do everything for himself,  all his life – in fact he has had everything in his life given to him on a plate and has never done a day’s work in his life.

“O.K. Paul so Mr Hunt is a C*** – what of it?”

Because he is TYPICAL.

The propaganda he comes out with is the standard stuff that people (even supposedly informed people – who watch business television stations) are given, EVERY DAY.

When you really grasp this (and the implications of it – in terms of far left control of the media and so forth) it will show you just how bad things are.

Rick Santorum in his own words…

This is him talking about his book It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good.

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom*, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

Rick, my friend, there is (or was) such a culture and I’ve been there a few times and it is called the United States of America. And it worked because nobody “went it alone”. One of the cherished principles of the libertarians you clearly despise is voluntary co-operation. We call it “civil society” and it tends to self-organize. For example when my wife and I are away my neighbour looks after our cat and vice-versa we’re on bunny watch. It is the most natural thing in the world. It doesn’t require statist aresholes like Santorum to “make it so!”

He is deranged. He wants to impose the Republic of Gilead. But hey at least he’s fiscally sound and good for the economy! Er… not exactly.

Santorum’s voting record shows that he embraced George Bush–style “big-government conservatism.” For example, he supported the Medicare prescription-drug benefit and No Child Left Behind.

He never met an earmark that he didn’t like. In fact, it wasn’t just earmarks for his own state that he favored, which might be forgiven as pure electoral pragmatism, but earmarks for everyone, including the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere.” The quintessential Washington insider, he worked closely with Tom DeLay to set up the “K Street Project,” linking lobbyists with the GOP leadership.

He voted against NAFTA and has long opposed free trade. He backed higher tariffs on everything from steel to honey. He still supports an industrial policy with the government tilting the playing field toward manufacturing industries and picking winners and losers.

Both quotes are from the Cato Institute which is a well known hot-bed of Trotskyite agit-prop! At the risk of a self-Godwinning he’s verging on fascist. I mean, “The Common Good”. Cripes! And can anyone answer me this one? Seeing as the USA is (by most European standards) very religious anyway why do people like Santorum feel God (of whatever flavour) is not enough by Himself to command the believers but they need the likes of Santorum too? I mean why? It’s distressing to an individualist like myself because you get this all the time. We are all grown-ups (apart from the kids and they can’t vote) so we can follow our own consciences as we see fit and according to whatever religion we do or don’t believe in anyway. The hubris of the man is staggering. I mean you’d think being commander in chief of the US military and chief of the executive branch of federal government was enough but he also wants to be a supreme moral guardian. I actually think far from aiding religious faith Santorum and his ilk are utterly corrosive to it.

A tip of the feline enumeration rod to commentator PeterT over at Samizdata.

*If I ever find Ricky in my bedchamber he will never stand for anything again. Not even to urinate.


It may be a flash in the pan, it may be dawning recognition. Whichever, it is pretty spectacular, and he has nothing to lose by being forthright.


5% to 17% in two weeks.

Go Herman.

I make no apology for being partisan

And it ain’t even my election.

Go Herman

%d bloggers like this: