Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

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.

29 Comments

  1. john in cheshire says:

    I’m praying to God that Mr Obama is defeated on 6th. November. If he is defeated, it could be the start of good finally taking a stand against evil.

  2. Paul Marks says:

    I know all the Perry (of Samizdata) arguments about how the economy is going to collapse anyway (regardless of whom is elected) in 2013 and beyond – and if Romney is in, the free market will get the blame and the socialists (and the “libertarian” left – i.e. the Black Flag people) will be happy and sharpen their fangs.

    But as John says – this is a battle against evil, Barack Obama is evil (he was trained to be so from his most early years).

    And that tends to trump any “but in the longer term” considerations in my mind.

    If there is going to be an economic collapse (and I agree there is) I do not want this person anywhere near “Executive Order” powers.

  3. John says:

    But Obama is ahead in the electoral college race.
    And that counts more than head-counts.
    Gore got a higher percentage of the popular vote but lost to Bush with a 271/266 electoral college vote.
    First to 270 wins.
    Obama is estimated at 300 now.
    We’ll see.
    With Romney nothing much will change except tax cuts for those that don’t need them, tax cuts for companies to salt more away in privacy jurisdictions and cuts in healthcare for those that need healthcare (a bit like here really….with GP per-patient budget to be cut by over 50% as soon a CCG start operating)

  4. Julie near Chicago says:

    I agree with Paul…this is not about electing Romney: First and foremost it’s about not letting outright evil take over lock, stock and barrel.

    At the moment, Benghazi is the perfect example. Do you really think Mittens would have decreed “no help”? No he would not, and nor would Pres. Bush (be it known)–however hampered he may have been by various considerations and circumstances, and misled by both his education and his advisors (“State Department”).

    The thing to remember is, Obama actively wants to destroy the country. And he couldn’t care less if people get hurt–physically hurt–or murdered in the process.

  5. Bod says:

    Really John? Would those tax breaks be for those “people who don’t need them”? I presume you’re referring to the be-monacled, spatted guys who go home every night and wallow in swimming pools full of $100 bills?

    Or might it be my boss’s wife, who’s sitting on about $30 million in startup money to build a business that will employ at least 80 staff for three years (all of whom will pay taxes), who dares not launch the buisiness with the expectation of regulatory capture hanging over her head?

    Or maybe ‘plutocrats’ like me who, while clocking in for 40-a-week, sees no benefit in investing his 401k assets in equity markets, through concerns that the market is being systematically undermined by the manipulations of quasi-government institutions, who have been utterly suborned by the actual US Government?

    Or maybe you’re talking about the 750 Billion in Medicare funding that’s been realloocated in order to benefit the young (who arguably, in a vibrant economy, are likely to be able to afford their own birth control medications) instead of the older people who actually funded the program.

    You wanna smash the relationship between business and government? Be my guest; but it sounds to me like you’re more interesting in rounding up kulaks for the gulag than confronting the problem.

    The relationship between government and business is not symbiotic, it’s parasitic. The treatment is to pour salt on the government, but on the host.

    The Romney/Obama question is well-defined by Julie. It’s a choice between someone who may destroy us, and someone whose OBJECTIVE is to destroy us.

  6. Bod says:

    Ugh. fat finger problems.

    s/but on the host/and not on the host/

    p.s.
    Really – the OWS is so ‘last year’. The correct venue for bleating about ‘companies salting away profits in offshore havens’ would be something like an SEIU or AFL-CIO pot-luck. Incidentally, if you check out where such paragons of virtue invest their senior members’ assets, you’ll find it’s in the very same firms they slander in their press releases.

  7. NickM says:

    John is right. Obama will win. Is this good or bad? Well all I care is Gary Johnson does OK. Benghazi was a disgrace. I don’t believe Mitt would have done anything abought it. The last time I was in the Us embasy (London) they had armed marines fo F’s sake. In London. That was under Clinton. They didn’t have ‘em in Benghazi at the consulate. Jeez! But I doubt anyone in the mix no would have done differently. Like healthcare – O’s biggest domestic policy decision (forget the bail-outs and stuff – O just carried on Bush II policy) where O took R’s policy lock, stock.

    It’s tweedle-dum and -dee time. All that will happen if Romney gets in is an absurd assault on contraception and abortion and such. There are people who want in the USA who do really want the Republic of Gilead.

    The great tragedy here is of course by being virtually identical on issues like health, wars and bail-outs the Republicans have increasingly turned to (sometimes) bizarre social conservatism to create clear “red-water”. Whatever you think of these issues they are not *the* issues.

    “It’s the economy, stupid”. Then we can talk about gay marriage or whatever after that is sorted. We can talk about that after we get the fuck out of the ‘stan. We can talk as much as we want. We can send out for pizza and talk about it but frankly gay marriage is unstoppable and reproductive freedom is a done deal. And yes, I’m queasy about abortion but when conservatives appose HPV vaccines (Google “Total pelvic extenteration”) and the pill and stuff well, fuck ‘em.

    But really has Romney got a grip on the deficit or does he just want the faithful to pray for gold from heaven because his mob have made it vastly more difficult for a raped kid to get an abortion and his God looks kindly. And don’t fucking get me started on creationism in science lessons.

    Vote Johnson. It’s our only hope Obi!

  8. Julie near Chicago says:

    Let me be perfectly clear. *sour expression*

    Neither Pres. Bush nor Gov. Romney is a cruel man. Whether or not what they do proves to be in the best interests of the country (by which I do mean, “of the individual persons who together constitute the people of “the country”), I see absolutely no reason to believe that either of them is cruel; that is, unmoved by, or actually desiring, the suffering of others. I think that either of them would bust his rear to avoid visiting pain of any sort on the people in their charge. I think that either would take it upon himself to help an injured person–even if it meant walking out on his golf game and there were no reporters around. And I believe that both wish our country well, however misguided their actions might prove to be.

    I do not think that any of those things can be said about the present incumbent.

    I do not think that the present incumbent cares at all what hurt he does, if he is even aware of it.

    To have a man like this dictating our circumstances at a time when exquisite wisdom, common sense, self-control, and gallantry will be required in order to keep from wrecking all our lives…!

  9. Bod says:

    Silly Julie. You missed out the opportunity to complain about Mitt hatin’ teh gheys, and wearing magic underpants.

    I always thought that the point is that people should be assumed to be innocent until their actions prove they are not, rather than their guilt being determined by the inspection of chicken entrails – but such analytical rigor appears to be suspended at present.

  10. Julie near Chicago says:

    By the way.

    “Wars.”

    Do you really think O’Bluster would have gone into Iraq? Really? REALLY???

    Would Romney have taken part in Libya? I think that’s highly doubtful. I suppose he might have been duped into being sort of supportive of “the Arab Street” in Egypt–at first anyway–but I understand he was pretty well schooled about the Muslim Brotherhood some years back, by Frank Gaffney, so it’s not obvious to me that he’d have bought the “democracy in Egypt” idea complete with silver-foil wrapper. Especially considering that Mubarak was, after all, an ally…and under him, Egypt was not utterly, completely anti-Israel.

    But there’s just no reason whatsoever that I can see why it was ever in our interest (however warped the calculations) to go into Libya. Khadaffi was one of the few dictators who’d rethought his posish awhile back and decided to try to keep the West off his back by not being TOO difficult. Or so I understand. Sure, American sympathies are always with The People, Who Want Democracy, but how stupid do you have to be to believe in the strength of the Arab Street in Libya after the example of the Egyptian debacle? I don’t think Romney’s that dumb. And if he had somebody decent for Stte–like, say, Bolton–I don’t think Libya would have happened.

    But the current incumbent had to go meddle in Libya–for the very reason that Romney (or any American American president) wouldn’t: That Khadaffi was sorta-kinda relatively interested in not getting the West all riled up at him, whereas the incumbent is playing on the MB’s team. Remember: Obama is batting against America, not for her. And no, this is NOT “ODS” (“Obama Derangement Syndrome”). This is a sensible conclusion based on what I believe to be the facts.

    No, I don’t think Romney wants War War War, and nor did Bush. That’s more propaganda out of the mouths of the left–especially the MSM–and backed up by the “anti-war” and “left” libertarians.

  11. Julie near Chicago says:

    *Sigh*…Bod…it’s not that I forgot the chicken entrails–it’s that I ran out, so I’m entrails-deprived until I can get to the local Santaria outlet again…. :>((

  12. Bod says:

    That’s why *we* didn’t go into Libya, Julie. Obama did. Alone.

    Remember, no congressional approval. It was some kind of ‘kinetic policing procedure’. Try and keep that in mind, people, when you get the “Bush was an evil genius who tricked Congress into a War with Iraq “. Even if it were true, the subsequent actions were duly ratified by the representatives of the people.

    Obama never took Libya to the peoples’ representatives at all. No respect for the constitution. That should disqualify the current executive to anyone who believes in the rule of law.

  13. NickM says:

    Am I alone here in thinking the US didn’t go into Libya. Britain and France did (with enormous US logistical etc). That’s the take-home from that. Euro-Nato can’t win a fist-fight in it’s own back yard without the USA on board.

  14. johnpd says:

    Bod, ‘No Congressional Approval’ is a fine tradition in America.
    Korea was a ‘Police Action’, which apparently needed no approval from Congress.
    Vietnam was the next example, but the consensus was breaking down by then, leading to mass student protests & the grotesque events at Kent State University.
    Grenada followed, despite intellectuals, journalists & authors having warned against the dangers of a supposed democracy conducting unsanctioned military ventures.

    The reason this is possible is not just the oft quoted ‘Military Industrial Complex’, though they share some of the blame. The primary reason is that the US is the most militaristic society on this planet. Deep in their psyche they believe they wear the white stetsons of the good Sheriffs of this world. Their right wing fundamentalist preachers advocate burning the Koran, & bringing on Armageddon so ‘The Saviour will return for Judgement Day’. (YCNMIU) The black hat Islamists will be duly tried & hung. The savage redskins of Al-Qaeda will be exterminated, no reservations for these Loony-Toons. The military industrial complex is a symptom of this mindset.
    They are the pistol in the holster which the US loves to draw & shoot around this world.

    The UK has just refused the US permission to use the UK as Aircraft Carrier One in it’s planned assault on Iran, for it’s oil.

    The biggest project not put before Congress is UN Agenda 21. 20 years on, almost 50% of US land is not under private ownership. Alabama has just banned it, & other States, Cities & Counties are following.

    Google it, research it. Get a glimpse of the Marxist future the UN & it’s backers have in mind for your children & grandchildren.

    Obama is totally complicit, Romney represents a slight & temporary setback.
    Time to focus slightly farther ahead.

    We live in interesting times. :)
    JD

  15. NickM says:

    johnpd,
    “Blood for Oil”. An utter myth. Buying oil is invariably cheaper than fighting for it. Iraq, Libya (or Iran) nhave nowt to do with oil in terms of US foreign policy. And militaristic? Not something I buy about the USA. A matter to consider here (there are others such as the historically small size of the US military until WWII*) is the USA has a volunteer military. The DPRK has 13 years of compulsory military service. From 17 to 30.

    *Consider the P-38 fighter, Kelly Johnson’s first masterpiece. A great fighter. Enormous efforts during WWII had to be expended because it initially wasn’t designed for mass-production because the USAAF was expected to order a mere 50. That is the traditional US mindset.

  16. Single Acts of Tyranny says:

    Er, the lesser of two evils (if you believe Romney is that) is still evil.

    Romney/Ryan will be more or less identical to Obama/Biden. Sure they have different cronies and predelictions but the fundamental meme of ignore the constitution, overspend, tax like hell, big government, fiat money, keep on borrowing, kill people then kill more, have the government in absolutely everything. monoploy on coercive force and violence inititation will be the same under both of ‘em.

    We all know this to be true.

    We will never get change until we vote for it; the ‘lesser of two evils’ nonsense merely perpetuates the lie that is the two party dictatorship masquerading as choice. No-one is so hopeless a slave as he who does not understand that he is a slave. This is voting for a change of over-seer, nothing more.

  17. CountingCats says:

    the US is the most militaristic society on this planet

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

  18. Julie near Chicago says:

    “Change of overseer,” yeah, well, one overseer lets us out from time to time on Sunday afternoons, and it’s always possible we can make a break for it then.

    The other “overseer” has it in mind that we should specifically NEVER be allowed out–and who specifically intends to impoverish us all–to literally grab all our stuff–so that we’re dependent solely on Its largesse.

    Furthermore, it’s not the Republicans who are out there with legbreakers in the form of the SEIU and similar gangs. It’s not the Republicans who are urging dead people and their dogs and, of course, non-citizens, to vote early and often.

    So, really, cheer up, SAoT. The odds are that we’ll get the Sith and bin-Biden-here-too-long and assorted Czars, regardless of how we vote.

    Because it’s not who votes, nor how they vote. It’s who counts the votes.

    I would really like to get the people who think like that out of office and locked up in Alcatraz, where they belong.

  19. Tim Newman says:

    “Blood for Oil”. An utter myth. Buying oil is invariably cheaper than fighting for it.

    *Applause*

  20. Single Acts of Tyranny says:

    Julie,

    I am honestly a cheerful person, I just see nothing in the current western social democracy as any cause for optimism. The ship is going down regardless of who is elected because whilst some are a bit better/different they all buy into the big-state initiation of violence model to enforce compliance.

    Same for us here, the Europeans, the Aussies if Gillard is anything to go by. They are all over-spending, corrupt, murdering criminals. Each would jail you if you don’t give them money, each would ship your kids of to die overseas on the back of lies, each hides and protects corruption and theft either in themselves or their friends and are crony influence peddlers.

  21. Julie near Chicago says:

    Acts,

    Even more than that, you’re an *intelligent* person, I know; and I didn’t mean to come all over prickly at you. :>)

    There’s no question that the ship is sinking. We are holed, and taking on water fast, and unfortunately it’s not just one hole–there are lots of smaller and medium-sized ones, along the length and breadth of the ship, and it’s hard to see how we’re going to have either the materials or the manpower or even the knowledge of where the holes are, so as to patch them before we sink.

    However, blowing out one entire side of the vessel–doesn’t seem like the best way to handle the situation. I mean, has everybody got a lifeboat? and enough food and water on each to survive until the lifeboats reach land? And are we sure there aren’t any small craft out there patrolling the waters so as to round up the survivors and either shoot them or drown them?

    It’s not about voting for Romney! It’s about voting OUT the Sith, so as to BUY TIME. Time to gain influence, to sell our ideas, to get our message heard, and to get our own people into office. On the school board, especially. But also on the town council, the county Board of Supervisors, the State Legislature…even into Congress, the Senate and the House. We do have a few there, after all. Michele Bachmann. Rand Paul. A few others.

    As for the Social Democracies…I hate the very idea. It’s revolting. And it’s appalling.

    But it’s not the same thing as the Camps, the Gulag, the Killing Fields…. It simply isn’t. And what we all have to do is work like blazes (as best each of us can figure out) to dismantle the Social Democracies before they reach their logical end, which IS the Gulag (at best). If that’s possible…and for reasons of motivation (morale) we have to believe it is possible, or at least that it may be possible. And if it’s not possible–we’re screwed.

    Thought for the night: The road to Hell may be paved with good intentions (Romney, et al.), but evil intentions are the vehicle that will get us there.

  22. Single Acts of Tyranny says:

    Julie

    You might be on to something with the local thing. I have been vaguely considering how to get the ideas out and put into practice outside of blogging.

    A post may follow.

    The Sith ~ ha ha………

  23. Paul Marks says:

    Bod and Julie have beat me to it.

    And I am not really interested in debate on this anyway. “But Romney is no good….” so what, the time for that talk was the Primary contests (too late for complaints now). As for Gary Johnson – the only role he will play is helping Obama (if he really cared about the United States, or civilisation in general, he would not be a candidate).

    I am “thinking with my gut” (and I have a mighty belly – as so many middle aged men do).

    I am off to Israel in a few hours (railways and flights permitting).

    But I wish I was in the United States – fighting it out in Wisconsin or in Ohio.

    Victory or death.

    And that is literal – for Barack Obama will not allow States to leave the Union peacefully.

    And Executive Orders (and so on) will turn the new “United States of America” into a place that no decent person would want to be a part of.

  24. Julie near Chicago says:

    Paul,

    Have a lovely time in Israel. Bon voyage!

  25. johnpd says:

    Nick M,
    You’re looking backwards, Nick, & I’m trying to look forwards.
    America was hoping to sit out WWII, & profit from manufacturing armaments.
    They were forced to come in because they saw Japan overrunning the Pacific, The US source of raw materials. But that’s 70 odd years ago.
    N.Korea parks so many men in it’s military because it’s economy is frozen, & in world terms, it is militarily insignificant.
    The US has a military capability larger than I think it’s next ten rivals put together.
    It is definitely the most militaristic society on this planet.
    But all this is of secondary importance.
    UN Agenda 21 is aiming at a huge reduction in world population & the US is complicit.
    They dont care about blood being cheaper than dollars. They regard people as a cancer on the planet, way in excess of ‘sustainable’ numbers, & they can print as many dollars as they want.
    As they are.
    Even David Attenborough is saying we have too many people producing too much CO2, which he says is acidifying the oceans, & killing off coral reefs.
    If we have excess numbers, fine, let’s deal with that. But let’s not leave our children & grandchildren in a Marxist Gulag.
    Julie sees the path we’re on.
    We live in interesting times.
    :)
    JD.

  26. Bod says:

    Surely the hallmark of a ‘militaristic nation’ would be one that flexes its (presumably superior) strength in order to advance its national interests. So while America’s military *capacity* exceeds that of the next ten nations, I have to say that if establishing global supremacy is the objective, it’s really not using its resources to their true potential.

    I guess my biggest ‘huh’ is why you needed to prepend ‘Even’ on your sentence about David Attenborogh. It comes as no suprise to many of us that he’d ascribe to such a view.

    Regarding some of the other comments, I guess that we could sign on for Agenda 21, which would presumably mean a lot less children (and maybe no grandchildren) have to suffer the indignity of being residents in a Marxist Gulag.

    Oh, and you forgot the Bilderbergers again.

  27. johnpd says:

    Bod, the UN project is not about ‘National Interest’, it’s about a one world govt.
    Part of the project is the impoverishment of the first world, ie US, EU & UK etc, & the enrichment of the third world to parity.
    This is what we are seeing in the huge debts built up in US, EU & UK.
    This ‘Economic Crisis’ is set to run for years, & I guess living standards will drop in UK ~20%.
    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against One World Govt, as long as it’s a loose federation.
    I’m not against sustainable population numbers.

    What I am against is the Marxist Eco-Fascist tools the UN is achieving it’s aims with.

    UN bureaucrats slipped in the resolution giving us the IPCC 1988 Global Warming Scam. In 1995 UN bureaucrats falsified an IPCC report to read that ‘there was now a discernable human influence’ on climate. They did this after the scientists had gone home.
    UN bureaucrats gave us UN Agenda 21 without reference to Congress.
    This is the executive leading the legislative, or ignoring it.

    Put bluntly, what the fuck is the point of agonising at length over who is being elected, when the most important policies are being chosen & implemented by bureaucrats? Ones who are profoundly anti democratic?

    I had David Attenborough down as swallowing the Global Warming Scam. I was surprised to hear him say that CO2 acidifies the oceans & kills coral reefs.
    I was way more surprised that he openly said that all the major problems in the world would be alleviated with a smaller human population.

    If you sign on for Agenda 21, look forward to no private property, & no families.
    The State will own everything, the State will raise your kids. Good luck with that.
    If recent history has taught me anything, it’s that Marxism produces misery, & can only be sustained by barbed wire borders & secret police. You want that for your kids? Why do you think Alabama has just banned UN Agenda 21?

    You’re obviously way more interested in cheap shots around the edge, than in the important points I’m trying to raise.

  28. Paul Marks says:

    Many thanks Julie!

  29. Paul Marks says:

    By the way – to be fair to johnpd.

    Agenda 21 is real.

    That is one “conspiracy theory” that is not a theory. The documents exist and (although they are not written in the stark language that johnpd uses) and they are endorsed by governments. Including the British government.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: