The ongoing war between Centrists and Constitutionalists

Am I saying that Centrists want to do away with the Constitution? No. I'll explain later. First, here is what Centrists are saying about the few Constitutionalists in Congress --

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2013/04/08/joe-scarborough-gop-supports-rapist-s-rights-over-parent-s-rights.

Margaret Thatcher died, and, compared to today's politicians in the US, she was a solid rock of principles, determined to beat back statism -- the Iron Lady versus the current bunch of Plastic Squishes, you choose. You'll hear a lot about Thatcher in the next few days, but you won't hear any analyses regarding our imploding political realm.

Centrists, Liberals and Progressives are rushing to the feeding trough in a frenzy to divide purchased voters while the nation's economy unravels. We're in a downward spiral similar to the one Britain was in when Thatcher temporarily conquered Leviathan and bought Britain more time to exist. All of Europe is presently re-learning the lesson Thatcher taught them.

In America, except for libertarians, Austrian economists, a few limited government reps in Congress and a few Tea Party organizations, we're ignoring all economic, Constitutional and liberty lessons. Those who promote free markets and limited government are outnumbered, and even in the GOP there are Teddy Roosevelt type Progressives like John McCain fighting against the few limited government conservatives. Libertarians are practically nowhere to be found in Congress. The Republican Party as a whole rejects libertarianism and Austrian economics.

Do GOP Centrists want to do away with the Constitution? No, they just won't consider it if it blocks their pragmatic political designs to assist the Democratic Party in maintaining State power. They'll save the two party, statist system at all costs.

Can libertarians win back Bill Maher?

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/06/is-bill-maher-right-that-libertarians-ha

Surely this isn't what Gillespie is asking, because Maher is such a despicable person, I'd hate to think libertarians believe it's important to have him on board. Gillespie surely means how can libertarians convince civil libertarians who are really statists that economic freedom is vital to libertarianism.

I don't know how libertarians can convince statists that free markets are preferable to central planning if the evidence of the last few decades hasn't convinced them. To be the type of "libertarian" Maher says he was, is to be anti-religious right, basically. Maher is so far from libertarianism, what Gillespie should ask is if Progressives can be converted to libertarianism.

I don't think so. If Maher hasn't investigated libertarian economics deeply enough so that he would feel stupid accusing all libertarians of being Randoids, then he's not serious about libertarianism. I know Gillespie headed off such dimissals, but I don't know why he felt the need to do so, seeing as how Maher's mindset is so un-libertarian. It makes me wonder how serious Gillespie is regarding libertarian ideas and free market principles. The libertarian buffet is closed. Our economy is in such danger, there's no room for the liberaltarian mind games, unless you're trying to keep a guest slot open on Maher's show. How close-minded of me. I'm sorry. Maybe Maher would accept us if we just try harder. Oh boy.

Austrian economists and libertarians were right

http://mises.org/daily/6398/The-US-Corporate-State

Austrian economists and libertarians were saying all along that the housing boom was created by Fed fairy dust and government willpower, and that when the boom became a bust the bailouts were the wrong solution. Yet, in our strange Orwellian political realm, the (non-existent) free market was blamed for it all.

As Rockwell makes clear, both political parties caused the boom and bust and supported the bailouts. I don't know how many Americans really understand what happened, and is still happening now with the Fed doing the same things it did before during the last boom and bust, but maybe Stockman's book will reach many of them. As I wrote the other day, Thomas E. Woods, Jr wrote the same type of book a few years ago, but maybe Stockman will reach more readers. This all has to be understood, although it might be too late.

Grand Government Bargains

The political talk now from political news outlets is about whether the Presidents "charm offensive" was sincere, and, if so, did it work. Most of the pundits are staying positive, although one White House spokesperson reportedly said the dinner with Republicans was a joke, and they did it only to please media who criticized Obama for not building relationships with the Republicans in Congress.

Republicans who attended the dinner, and Paul Ryan, who attended a separate lunch meeting with the President, all said that the dinner was positive, and that they think they can get something done. Budgets are being offered, now, and only the President hasn't sent one in, but he says it's coming. The President says his budget will concentrate on fairness, not just balance, and that he will not cut government spending on the backs of the poor, the elderly, the middle class, the young, and so forth. This leaves the very rich, and it's impossible to reduce the deficit much by taxing the rich.

President Obama is not really concerned with cutting government spending, because he sees government spending as vital to the economy. Obama also believes, like all statists, that government has to control the economy for the good of the people. In order for government to control the economy, and for there to be economic growth, so Obama thinks, government has to be properly funded. Government has regulated businesses for decades, and the Fed has attempted to guide economic activity through manipulation of the money supply and interest rates. When government wanted to expand home ownership, various actions were taken to push banks to loan money to consumers that banks would not loan to before. The requirements to get loans were relaxed at the insistence of government officials, and banks that didn't comply were accused of discriminatory lending and forced to play the game. The Fed did all it could to get interest rates low and keep them low. We all know now what happened - there was a housing bubble and a crash.

Investors and consumers and business owner and entrepreneurs and everyone involved financially went through the dotcom boom and bust then the housing boom and bust, so now the economy is stalled, as no one has confidence in government management of the economy. Certain Big Businesses will play the game, because they have money, connections and talent smart enough to play and profit. Some Big Businesses have gone to the global market to make their money. But, in the US, small businesses have been hurt, and they're frozen in uncertainty. Government, however, sees this stagnation as an opportunity to control even more of the economy and to stimulate the economy with more government spending.

Consumers, entrepreneurs and investors aren't starting up businesses like they would if they had confidence in the rules of the game and if they knew the costs of doing business, but no one knows what government is going to do or cost businesses going forward. Obama and the statists in government need more money, and they are determined to get it any way they can. They would just drive up deficits without any thought of controlling spending, but the public is making too much of deal about debt, and politicians are afraid that other countries might start demanding more financial responsibility, even though the US is given more latitude to spend than other countries. Obama has been forced to show some signs of financial responsibility, but what he wants to do is take more money from the private sector and spend it on his agenda.

Although Obamacare is in trouble due to it's problems with implementation, it will go forward, as will Dodd-Frank, even though it's been stalled by special interests pushing back. Obama now wants to expand State-run education and alternative energy production. Alternative energy, if Obama and the Progressives have their way, will be State-guided. If the Progressives have their way, alternative energy will be heavily subsidized, thus creating the strings to make energy production one more economic activity under the control of the State. The State now controls education, finances, healthcare and soon it will control energy, among all the other regulated activites in which government has it's many hands. This means that the State effectively controls all major economic activity. Now that cyber warfare is a big concern of the government, and seeing as how Google and Facebook have close government relationships, I expect the internet and technology to be next areas over which the State expands its control.

Libertarians and limited government/Constitutional conservatives have warned of the State's natural tendency to expand power and control once limits on power are removed. Because limited government proponents have fought against State expansion of power, they are vilified by the political establishment -- statists in both parties are now attempting to marginalize any libertarian influence in government. Let's hope that the inspiration generated by Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and a few others will continue to grow. If there is no opposition to Progressivism, the State will destroy our economy and keep us bogged down in military conflict after military conflict. The State renders the people pliable by spreading fear of an enemy. The "enemy" will shift from this to that. Americans have to wake up, educate themselves, and take charge of their government. The Grand Bargain you'll hear about soon is no bargain except for the political players and their cronies making the deals.

Morning Joe 11/12/2012 -- Petraeus and the FBI, Limbaugh and Beck

On Morning Joe today the main topic during the first segment was the Petraeus resignation regarding an affair with his biographer. The story has expanded to the initial investigation this last summer by the FBI regarding an allegedly threatening email sent from Paula Broadwell, the Petraeus biographer and apparent mistress, to another lady who had contacts with the FBI and requested an investigation which apparently led to Broadwell then to Petraeus.

Joe Scarborough and the Morning Joe pundits don't beleive that the President didn't know about the investigation until after the election, but this is the story from the White House. Scarborough thinks that the FBI overstepped boundaries and were too enthusiastic to bring down the CIA head honcho. John Heilemann counseled caution blaming the FBI of misconduct until all the facts are known. Good luck with us ever knowing all the facts, but Heilemann is right -- it's impossibile to make a judgement at this point. It's amazing how all this smoke surrounds the White House, though, yet no one ever sees a fire in the White House, and the White house always denies any knowledge of a fire.

The Morning Joe crew also took another opportunity, and this will most likely be a constant smear campaign, to trash talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Beck. Limbaugh and Beck and the rest are being accused of lying to the base by convincing them that Romney would win. As I've written before. I listen to Limbaugh and Beck regularly, just like I listen to Maddow and Schultz and Matthews regularly, and what I heard over and over from Limbaugh and Beck is that Romney would win if the voters that could and should turn out did turn out. Republicans voters were cautioned over and over that if they take a position of apathy Obama will win. This is the reality of the talk show hosts, and Scarborough is dishonestly joining the smear campaign waged by bitter spin-meisters like David Frum who are hurt that they have no influence in the GOP. Frum looks at Limbaugh and wonders how someone who has no advanced degree, who is not part of the DC inner circle, can have so much influence. It drives Frum and Scarborough crazy, and they often mention how much money Limbaugh and Beck are making -- disgraceful!.

Limbaugh and Beck are not the problems in the GOP. Republicans have not mounted a true opposition party in the last several decades, if they ever mounted a true opposition to statism, which I don't think they have. This is the problem. Now the Centrists want Republicans to marginalize the limited government/libertarian faction of the party by demonizing Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity then associating the limited government/libertarian faction with the "crazies" on the Right. I think I have a good idea which players are hurting the GOP, and they look like the same old establishment types that have always hurt the party and the nation. Centrists like Scarborough will give lip service to the libertarian faction of the party by calling himself a "small government" conservative, but when libertarian ideas are front and center the smears and attacks surface and the status quo is protected. The Centrists pretend to have this Reaganesque worldview, but they always push the Big Government Reagan, not the Libertarian Reagan, which was mainly rhetorical, but it inspired a lot of Americans who were later disappointed when under Republicans control government still expanded State power and enlarged the debt. The same thing is happening now. The Centrist reactionaries are beating back the libertarian faction. Ron Paul wasn't given the voice and respect he earned in the primaries. Romney and Ryan tried to bring some libertarian influence into the campaign, and this is mainly why Centrists remained cool on Romney, didn't help him win, and why Frum had an ebook ready the day after the election results describing why Republicans lost.