Stop the partisan nonsense

I'm sick of Obama apologists who jump in to spin any situation which might reflect poorly on Obama or the Democratic Party. I'm also sick of Republican partisans who never see any wrong within the party. The present media defense of Obama and Democrats, unlike the media criticism of Bush, is unconscionable and dangerous to the health of the nation. The criticism of Bush was unfair at times, but it's best to have a too sceptical media than a media which is partisan and biased and complicit in corruption.

Let's pretend that what has happened in the last few years happened under a Republican president, or an independent president, or a Libertarian president, or that we all decided we'd have a group presidency made up of all political philosophies, then look objectively just at what has happened in the last four years. The media investigated Bush's two terms thoroughly, so we know what went wrong then, but now there are cover ups after cover ups. The latest is the Libyan embassy and death of the ambassador -- what happened and why? No one in government is investigating. This is incredible. An alternative media source is investigating Fast and Furious while the MSM neglect their journalistic duties. Our interventionist government, regardless of which party is in power, is running roughshod over the American people, and it protects a State that is corrupted with power and drunk with the allure of more control. From warrantless wiretaps  to drones to immoral wars to support of radicals in the mideast to loans made to cronies to the recent payment made manipulating Lockheed's announcements of layoffs to union favortism in the GM bailout -- it goes on and on with little hard coverage from the media and hardly any opposition from the Left.

Those who say we need moderates to work out solutions regarding how government can run the country miss the point. We don't need better technocrats to manage the economy and society -- we need limits placed on government power. What we're witnessing now is only tangentially related to Obama, because it doesn't matter who is president. If power is not limited, the State expands its control, and in its anti-social fashion suppresses freedom and repels all opposition to its power. Obama may or may not be a corrupt power-monger, but it doesn't matter because government has to have limits placed on the powers it possesses. Individuals come and go --we can't depend on the intentions of each individual who enters the office of president -- there has to be limits to government power regardless of who's in office and how moral or immoral the person might be. A Constitutional system has to be in place to prevent  power corruption, but the system is broken and Constitutional limits have been removed.

We have to, as a people, remove consent to be governed by this type of government under a statist system. I don't know how it's to be done, but if we send enough representatives to DC who promise to limit power, and if we diligently hold them to their promises, then we have a chance of making peaceful change happen. If we ignore the problem and vote on likablity and whether or not we'd like to have a beer with the candidate in question, or if we vote because we are party-loyal, or if we vote based on a single issue, then it's pretty much over for liberty in America.

Up with Chris Hayes 9/15/2012 -- Do they even believe what they say?

Chris Hayes was out this morning and Sam Seder took his place. Reza Aslan and a few other foreign relations experts were on --- they first talked about the mideast riots, but only as a prelude to Romney-bashing. MSNBC is absolutely the most biased, dishonest, phony news outlet in major media. Granted, a lot of their programs are opinion shows, but now all the shows have opinions and they are all alike with the same Democratic Party talking points.

The experts all pontificated on how ignorant Americans are regarding mideast complexities. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm beyond tired of being told how much I don't know about the real mideast. The ironic part was that the guests talked about how the rioters are a very small faction among millions who aren't radicalized, then later in the program a real Egptian lady was interviewed, and she said the media (the government) was using the anti-Islam film as a way to stir up hatred and violence. Yes, I see, it is complex. The moderates want to agitate poor radicals to hate America and Israel even more. So far, though, I fail to see what I've misunderstood.

It appears that the money we give Egypt and Libya could be used to protect our embassies, at least. But in all this madness, and in all of Obama's convoluted messages, the one thing that is truly despicable is Mitt Romney's response. What was his repsonse? It hardly matters.

Morning Joe 9/13/2012 -- Now Yemen

On Morning Joe today, the crew took more pot shots at Mitt Romney for his criticism of Obama's response to the Egyptian/Libyan riots. Romney spoke to the issue before the ambassador  in Libya was killed, but now pundits and political operatives are saying Romney should have waited to make a statement because of the deaths, showing how incompetent he is in foreign affairs. This is not about Romney.

GOP moderates are even using Romney's statement as a political weapon. The bigger concern is the waste of lives in the mideast as America keeps a presence in the region. J. Christopher Stevens is a high profile tragedy, but his death is no more tragic, nor his life more valuable, than the thousands of young soldiers and innocents who have died in the mideast wars.

Richard Haas and Joe Scarborough were discussing this morning whether the radicals rioting are supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, and whether the governments in Libya and Egypt are moderate, whether they are our allies or enemies. This is insane. The people in these countries are irrational. These countries are unravelling and it's not our problem. John McCain was interviewed on Morning Joe today, and it's sickening to listen to him speak of Egypt and Libya as countries we should help because they are vital to our national interests. McCain would intervene in every mideast country it seems, but McCain's vision of spreading democracy is a failed vision. These countries are free to live as they please as long as they don't attack us. America being in the middle, always stirring the pot, even if unintentionally, is not helping or making attacks less likely.

America has been intervening in the mideast and nothern Africa since the beginning of our country and our interventions have caused more harm to us than benefit. In this region where irrationality reigns, there are no solutions or benefits, only corruption, betrayal, violence, blackmail, religious intolerance and hatred. Maybe there are moderate elements in the mideast who want to live in modernity and trade peacefully with others, but they aren't in control. We have to leave this region and stop pouring money into it, especially when we're broke. 

Now radicals in Yemen are attacking the embassy there. It's time to leave.

Morning Joe 11/4/2011 -- If only we could deal with the debt problem

The Morning Joe crew today attempted to avoid Cain-bashing, but they couldn't help themselves. I suppose it's so offensive to the political class that Cain is surviving his blunders, history and media attacks, they are livid and unable to control their disdain. In the old days, Cain would be toast be now.

The guests this morning were Mark Halperin, Eugene Washington, David Gregory, Madeleine Albright and Gillian Tett from Financial Times. Mika and Joe had a recurring argument over raising tax rates on the rich vs eliminating loopholes. Scarborough revealed why the traditional, moderate Republicans are irrelevant. Republicans like Scarborough have valued compromise and political solutions over principled, philosophical positions based on sound economics and the virtues of limited government and non-intervention. Scarborough patiently explained to Mika why she is wrong about raising tax rates. Scarborough said that raising tax rates on millionaires might make her feel good but it won't raise anymore revenues, and that if loopholes are eliminated, then more revenue will flow into the government coffers. To Scarborough, this is the compromise which will generate a political solution, but to what end? The difference between Democrats and the New Republicans, as I understand it, is not how best to increase government revenues, but whether more money should be transferred from the private sector to government. Scarborough is simply looking for a way to "get something done" and he loses the argument, because Mika rightly asked "Why not do both?" Scarborough had no answer because he doesn't understand the fundamental issue which is spending is out of control and spending cuts are necessary, not schemes to transfer even more money from the private sector to government.

Given the premise that Scarborough conceded, Mika is correct -- if the goal is to find a compromise which will raise the most revenues, then eliminate loopholes and raise tax rates on the rich. Then, much more revenue will flow into government. If Republicans don't represent a true opposition to progressivism, then why change regimes in 2012 -- let's just go with the Democrats, raise revenues and make empty promises regarding spending cuts in the future when the economy is in better shape.

It was also reported that Obama is attending the G20 summit to provide his wisdom to Greece and Europe on how to handle the debt problem. As someone said, this is beyond ridiculous. Besides, debt is a symptom, not the fundamental problem. Obama made a statement that debt is the basic problem which the G20 faces, but this isn't true. The failure of statism is the biggest problem facing the G20. Welfare States are imploding, and unless they can embrace free markets and limited government, no new wealth will be created, and the decline of these States will continue. Gillian Gett said that the problem in Europe is not an economic problem but rather a political and cultural problem -- this is not totally correct either, unless she means that Europe needs to put political solutions and cultural ignorance aside to deal with the economic crisis which will make politics and culture meaningless when they collapse under a mountain of debt.

It's amazing that all these bright people on Morning Joe can't get to the fundamental problems and solutions -- they talk in circles regarding symptoms which have caused a downward spiraling loop for decades. They deal with symptoms and the problem gets worse, so they deal the new symptoms and the problem gets worse, on and on, with no one attacking the fundamental, underlying disease -- statism.

Albright praised Obama and NATO for the Libya operation, and the Morning Joe crew agreed, but this is madness. Obama and NATO went after one tyrant and stirred up a hornet's nest of tyrants, then left. An objective analysis would wonder if the cure is worse than the disease, and if the stated goal of protecting innocent Libyans will eventually lead to more deaths of innocents than Ghadafi would have caused if left in power. And the political class wonders why their manipulations aren't working in the Information Age.

Arab Spring hopes meet reality

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/28/arab-spring-optimism-gives-way-to-fear-islamic-rise/

http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/28/reasontv-libertarians-without

There's been much hope regarding the Arab Spring uprisings, and many westerners hoped that this represented a movement to gain freedom and dignity, but warning signs were present from the beginning. Religious irrationality was severely underestimated as westerners considered the protesters through a liberal mindset. This projection of liberalism on mideasterners failed to understand the depth of Islamist belief and the unwillingness to separate State and Religion. Liberal-minded westerners also underestimated the power of radical Islamist groups over the people of the Mideast (I'm including northern Africa as part of the mideast region). While Egypt is not Libya and Libya is not Tunisia and Tunisia is not Syria, on and on, the reality of the region's embrace of religion over secular government and liberalism is common. As long as the people of the mideast, or the great majority, are subservient to religious authority, these nations will evolve toward overarcing regional control through Islamist law.

There's been much talk of moderate Islamism in America, but the reality of the mideast is Islam, period, and as long as the Islamist religion governs, there will be no freedom. The only way this mideast system can work is through forced obedience to irrational laws that are antithetical to freedom. We can hope for better according to our beliefs of what creates human flourishing, but I think it's time to leave the affairs of the mideast to those living in the mideast.