Debt doesn't matter -- Part II

Limited government Conservatives and Libertarians are being pushed to the margins as the economy gets worse. Not enough Americans understand the principles of hard money, free markets and the necessity for government limits enough to realize why they should support those in government who advocate for economic liberty and limits on power. Progressives are winning the culture/class war and pop culture is more influential than political philosophies that a relative few understand. Jon Stewart, Bill Maher and Steven Colbert will influence more votes than Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Justin Amash.

As the economy gets worse, it's good for Progressives who will frame Republicans as misers who protect the rich, penny pince and couldn't care less about the poor, the oppressed, the lagging middle class, women, the environment, so on and so forth. Progressives will continuously frame their agenda as a human agenda -- they're, of course, more concerned with employment, a healthy environment, gender equality and social justice than debt. Krugman and other economic experts will present charts and reasoning why debt and deficits don't matter. Once the public no longer cares, either, about the debt, and as they get anxious for job creation and economic growth, they will be ripe to submit to the Progressive plan for recovery. As I wrote earlier, National Healthcare will be pushed when Obamacare falls apart, and the State will push FDR type programs to put people back to work.

A Progressive government can continue the deficit spending by making deals with China and India and Russia. Our sovereignty will soon be at risk. When Republicans stand up and warn about the debt and approaching unfunded entitlement liabilities, Progressives will show how their plan for economic growth will bring in more revenues, and how other we and other emerging countries are interdependent, and Progressives will convince the public that the wealthy have to pay more (not a hard sale). All this is already in progress -- it will only become more urgent as the economy gets worse. Progressives can't afford for the public to realize the truth about the economy-destroying nature of statism. Progressives will prod media, unions and all the special interest groups to take to the airwaves and streets to make the case. This could backfire on Progressives if they can't control the radical Leftist groups, but media is expert at putting the best face on Leftist protest. Van Jones and the troops are ready for the battle. It's coming to a head in 2014.

As I've written, Progressives have the advantage because the State is gaining complete control of education, and media is still influential and on the side of Progressives and statism. The public becomes more pliable and apatheitc toward the Constitution as time goes on, despite the Tea Party reaction. The entertainment industry will do all they can to push the Progressive message, creating a sense of urgency. Progressives have to marginalize limited government and free market advocates. Once the Rand Pauls and Mike Lees are marginalized, Centrists will fold, telling the GOP establishment that the Republican Party might lose the House because of Tea Partiers, but this will finally shut the Tea Party down and allow the Republicans Party to prepare for 2016 or 2020. Centrists are the modern useful idiots. If the Rand Pauls and Mike Lees are marginalized, it's over. Progressives will control and change our government into a social democratic machine which will make a grand bargain with other nations to take the global "village" in a different direction. More later.

Up with Chris Hayes 11/4/2012 -- More about evil Republicans

The crew on Up with Chris Hayes talked about money in the elections. Of course, they talked about Republican money in the campaigns and how evil rich people are trying to get their way. They talked about community organizing on the Left and how this is superior to GOP door to door efforts.

The show was actually a snoozer, and Josh Barro, who's supposed to represent some sort of opposition to the progressive point of view which dominates the show, was mostly a bump on a log. Josh surely wants to keep this gig, so he can say only so much. What was truly amazing though was when Katrina Vanden Heuvel compared Russian employers who tell their employees how to vote, with threats of firing them, to the Koch brothers. It's not surprising that Vanden Heuvel said this, because she's a vicious person when it comes to partisan politics, but what was mildly surprising, or perhaps disappointling, is that no one, including Barro, said anything about this claim.

Plus, no one on the panel, when everyone was talking about the evil nature of Super Pacs that inundate tv with political ads, brought up the fact that MSNBC, which puts on Hayes's show, provides ads for Obama through their regular programming all day long, and that MSNBC's negative shots at Romney are 3 times the amount of Fox's negative shots at Obama. No one brought up the money spent by unions on Obama's campaign. No one brought up the extreme bias all throughout MSM for Obama and Democrats. Hayes has one of the most one-sided, biased programs on tv, so he has no standing at all to criticize Super Pacs or rich partisan donors to Romney's campaign.

Morning Joe 10/24/2012 -- It's the system stupid

On Morning Joe today Scarborough started out complaining about the lack of content in the presidential campaigns. It's actually the Obama campaign that has failed to provide any content -- they are still talking about romnesia -- it's sad. For some reason Scarborough has this deep need to criticize Romney along with Obama so that he doesn't look biased toward the Right, but MSNBC is so biased toward the Left, that it would hardly be bias if Scarborough would say something truthful about Romney. Scarborough said that Romney is not talking about the size of government, regulations and the debt. What? Romney and Ryan have talked about these issues over and over and over. Scarborough is obviously listening only to MSNBC snippets of Romney's speeches taken out of context. Scarborough should feel good about the content coming from Romney, since Scarborough calls himself a small government conservative who relates to libertarians. It's not true, but he says it, so you think he'd at least stay in character. He forgets, though, that he's pretending to be a "small" government conservative, and his centrist establishment true-self comes out.

Later on in the show David Resnick from the New Yorker came on with breaking news that was truly surprising -- the New Yorker is endorsing Obama. Wow, I didn't see that one coming. Scarborough rightfully lit into Resnick because the New Yorker started out talking about how Obama had to bring the country back from the shame of the Bush years. Scarborough said that Obama has practically continued Bush policies, then the two got into a heated debarte about Obama, Bush and Romney, especially regarding the ongoing Afghanistan War and drone warfare. Resnick defended Obama, but also defended the New Yorker by reminding Scarborough of Jane Mayer's articles in the New Yorker criticizing Obama's use of drones. But Resnick is still on the Obama team because Romney will be worse. Resnick didn't say how Romney will be worse, but he and Scarborough both agreed that in the foreign policy debate Romney appeared to simply repeat what he'd been coached on. Romney did fine in the debate, and it was Obama who seemed coached on one line zingers. But this whole argument is empty, even though after the heated exchange they all patted themselves on the back for having a serious discussion, unlike the candidates. Not really.

Resnick and Scarborough, like most in the political realm, argued over which gang of statists will control the country not as badly as the other. The fundamental issue that they both avoided is the statist system itself. It's why it hardly matters anymore who is elected, except for a few issues one party will address as a priority over the other, but whatever president goes into office is rolled by the statist system for the most part, then uses the system to implement their pet projects, but the State becomes more powerful and the government more interventionist. Until we address the systemic problems, it hardly matters if Obama or Romney is in office except to political insiders who will gain or lose from one or the other as President. My hope is that Romney and Ryan are serious and will address the statist system -- if they don't then it becomes clear that a viable, revolutionary, third party is needed to break up the system.

Oh, yeah, and for comic value, Resnick was insulted because Joe included Resnick as being on the Left. Scarborough forgot all the nuance, you know. Hilarious.

Morning Joe 10/17/2012 -- Media have no integrity whatsoever

 I tried to watch Morning Joe this morning, but it started out so predictable and shamelessly biased I became sick to my stomach. I've realized for a long time that major US media sources are biased, but the arrogance with which they misrepresent facts with impunity is still startling and maddening. You would think that enough people of integrity would be left in media to fight against the bias, but apparently there is no integrity left in MSM.

As predicted, Democrat-biased media proclaimed Obama the victor. Morning Joe, including Scarborough, proclaimed Obama the victor, and Mark Halperin went so far as to say Romney's botched attack on the Libya tragedy takes the issue off the table. Incredible, simply incredible. So, after Obama and Crowley ganged up on Romney, with Crowley pulling the transcript at Obama's command, Crowley having the transcript at her fingertips, Obama and Crowley went on to say that Obama called the Libyan attack on Ambassador Stevens a terrorist act from the start. This is a blatant lie, and Halperin is saying that because Romney wasn't able to fully reveal it as a lie, because Crowley, the moderator, and Obama blocked him, the issue is off the table -- so, media will not pursue it? Journalists will not call it a lie? Halperin will not pursue it as an issue? Morning Joe will not pursue it as an issue? The President of the US lies to tens of millions of Americans on national TV, and because media sources say he wiggled out of it, he gets debate points and it becomes a non-issue! This is how low media has sunk. This is pathetic.

Everyone at MSNBC was crowing about Obama dominating the debate. Mika on Morning Joe started out talking about how Romney was intimidated, and Joe Scarborough criticized Romney for being tough with Crowley because she is a woman and with Obama because respect should be shown to a President. What? Why should anyone show respect to a President who disrepects the office and shows no respect for the intelligence of the American people? And why does the fact that Monica Crowley is A woman have anything to do with how tough Romney reacted to her? Most of us paying attention who aren't lackeys for Obama predicted media would call this for Obama no matter what, but this is surreal.

Perhaps Morning Joe will redeem itself later in the show, but the way it started prevented this viewer from finding out. A new low for Morning Joe.

Morning Joe 10/15/2012 -- The polls can be volatile except when they favor Obama

At the end of last week, pundits were showing their scepticism regarding polls that had Romney leading, but one poll this morning from ABC/Washington Post was talked about on Morning Joe as evidence of Obama's commanding lead in Ohio, and Ohio is the only state that matters, you know.

The narrative starting this week is that Obama stopped the bleeding from the poor debate performance and has to do fairly well in the next debate to maintain his path to victory. This has been the most transparently biased election I've ever witnessed. MSM no longer even pretends they aren't biased. NBC, ABC, The Washington Post, they are all 24/7 operatives for Obama.

With the polls weighted toward higher Democratic Party participation, and with independents who feel bad about not voting for Obama this time saying they support him, and with the changes in communication technology, the polls have simply become political tools to give the impression that Obama is winning.

The business community is actively fighting against Obama's re-election, as are the unemployed who want to get back to work, and the employed afraid of losing their jobs. Republican turnout will be huge, but they aren't all Republicans -- many are usually apolitical Americans politicized by lingering economic stagnation and fear that an interventionist government will double down on interventions if Democrats gain power for 4 more years. There's a war building up between the private sector and the public sector, with media and Leftists of all stripes included in the public sector ranks as ardent supporters of political means over economic means. Although the public sector is big, the private sector is still bigger. Even if Obama wins because the nation doesn't want to kick out the first black President, Congres is likely to go heavily to Republicans. The problem is that this President thinks he's a Monarch and will unilaterally get his his agenda through if he can.