Peace and prosperity

 A complete about-face from the last 10 years would be a renewed focus on peace and prosperity. This old term deserves a dusting off and re-introduction to the American consciousness. As Obama plays deceitful small ball with the MTV crowd, Romney's talking about big changes. The 21st century got off to a floundering and tragic start, and for the last decade politicians have tried to out-bluster one another regarding the War on Terror. The attack in Benghazi doesn't help jumpstart a campaign of peace and prosperity, but it can.

It should be clear to everyone that we have no business with an embassy in Libya. America should have never intervened in Libya, and we don't need to be there now. We'll have to find those responsible for the deaths of four Americans, but the real lesson is that our presence in Libya is a mistake of the past. America needs to transcend the insanity of the mideast and remove our military, letting everyone in the region know that we've changed directions and will be concentrating on our economy and our national defense.

As we limit government from intervening in our economy, government will have more energy and resources to build the world's most sophisticated defense. We can comfort those who want a strong stance against terrorists by assuring them that our defense will be designed for 21st century threats, such that the world has never known, and certainly much more technologically advanced than the terrorist groups' efforts. But for the sake of the American spirit, our nation has to move from war, violence and tough talk to a desire for peace and prosperity. Someone has to lead the world back from the brink. Despite the conflicts in the mideast, the world has been relatively peaceful for a long time, and we don't need to go backwards. The Left has neglected the anti-war faction in America, but the Right can take it up with a modern non-interventionism that I have to believe most Americans are more than ready for underneath all the lingering anger related to 9/11. It's time to move on with our eyes wide open and our guns loaded if needed.

Morning Joe 10/23/2012 -- Obama arrogant and mean-spirited

Of course the Morning Joe crew gave Obama the win in the debate, but that means absolutely nothing -- it's like a mother always giving their child the win in any contest the child enters regardless of how the child performs. The problem with biased reporting is that credibility is lost and no one pays attention to the analyses. I watched most of the debate and Obama appeared mean-spirited. I think Obama's team knows that they are losing, and given the mean-spirited nature of Plouffe, Axelrod and practically all of Obama's operatives, getting mean and nasty is all they know. It looked like Obama had been told he has to destroy Romney's image of a good guy, that all the trash they've already thrown out to destroy Romney hasn't buried him so they must throw more trash.

I'm not sure what winning by points means, but this is how the MSM describes Obama's wins -- it must mean that Obama has to win in their narratives so they will give him extra points to call it a win. Romney always looks like a better choice whenever they are compared, and Romney revealed his real self last night by assuring the nation we've had enough war. Romney told Obama he can't kill his way out of the mideast bogs. This is true. Romney will maintain a strong defense, and Romney will project strength abroad, but Romney will not be a war Presdient. It's time to turn back to our economy and let the private sector create economic recovery. The long national nightmare of social democracy, statism and political wars has finally brought much of the American public to awareness. We have to change our direction.

Romney misses a foreign policy opportunity

Romney had a chance to distinguish himself from Obama and Republican neo-cons by calling for the US to leave the mideast, but, as I knew he would, he took the safe way out. Every man or woman who dies in Afghanistan is one more stain on our nation. To say we must stay and protect the people there from radicals is ridiculous. We owe the people of that region nothing. We owe our military the responsibility to act wisely with military force, and staying in Afghanistan is anything but wise.

When Romney blusters regarding Iran and nukes, what does Romney propose we do with Iran if they continue to create a nuclear weapon? This is Israel's problem, and Israel has told us that they can handle their problems. Iran doesn't want war with the US, but they can cause a lot of mischief by playing with us over the nuclear threat. Iran is not a threat to America. That region has to deal with its own problems. I doubt Turkey wants Iran to get a nuke. We need to back out and take care of our myriad problems before we fall apart. I seriously doubt that any country in the mideast wants the US to use its full force in response to a nuclear attack -- the radicals might act crazy at times, but they aren't that crazy.

Romney is falling into the neo-con trap that ruined Bush. I don't want to hear how dangerous the world has become, and how we must stay involved in the mideast to control the situation. Our history of intervention in the mideast is filled with horrible results and with smart but misguided people claiming we must control this or that -- we can't control the mideast. We're being controlled by the mideast.

Update on Monday, October 8, 2012 at 06:52PM by M. Farmer

http://thedailybell.com/28130/NATO-Preps-Civil-War-in-Afghanistan

Anti-statism

As I write about the State now and this coming month, it's appropriate that 9/11 is in September, because one major obstacle to limited government is the State's insistence on the sacrifice of liberties in order to maintain safety and security. The State has many rationalizations for expansion of power and control. When I say "State" I'm referring to common statists who are a part of the State machine. I will go into more depth later regarding what I think makes up the State.

These posts on the State will be short, and they might not flow logically, just thoughts on the modern nation-state as they come to me. Each day as I listen to the news I'm spurred to consider some part of the State and what supports a powerful State -- interventionist government. It occured to me this morning as I watched cable news and listened to pundits discuss Clint Eastwood's clunker of a speech, if you can call it a speech, it's this type of silliness which is used as a partisan weapon that keep serious discussions at bay.

The State is expanding at an alarming rate and the debt approaches 16 trillion dollars. Unemployment, if the truth be told, is effectively around 20%. We're bogged down in Afghanistan and hawks are rattling still more sabers at Iran and Syria. The Fed is misguiding capital and preventing the existence of a free market -- there are many, many problems, but in the political realm intellectuals are discussing Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair. America needs a revolution.

Later today I will write more about 9/11 and the mideast as it relates to the American State. There's a lot of nationalist hoorahing lately, and it's fine as long as it relates to peaceful economic growth, a great defense system and the potential for great and widespread prosperity, but if it's a reaction to make Americans feel powerful and in charge militarily, then this is not good. It ought to be obvious to everyone that military intervention in the mideast is one of the State's power plays that is now draining us financially and morally.

No time for Republican statists

Rick Santorum has made it clear that he distinguishes himself from libertarians and Goldwater Republicans, thus, representing a statist form of Republicanism much like what the Bush presidency became. If you take away Nixon's underhanded activities, Santorum is also like Nixon, a statist through and through. Most life-long politicians who've either served in office or became lobbyists are statists -- it's all they know. The statist doesn't have a clear understanding of the private sector because their entire careers have been in relation to what government should do in the private sector -- what incentives DC can use to control the private sector, what controls are necessary, what should be restricted and what should be rewarded. The statist can no more imagine a free market than a true entrepreneur can imagine depending on politicians for direction.

Santorum not only represents social conservatives, which, despite what media say, have very little influence, he mainly represents the faction of the GOP that craves power for the sake of State power. There's a small but growing faction within the GOP that wants to gain power in order to limit power, and this primary will come down to a battle between the two. Santorum is being spanked by the Right when he gets too moralistic, but I haven't seen enough Republicans reject him for the right reason -- he's a statist. Romney might have become overzealous as a fixit man when he was governor, but Romney understands the private sector. Romneycare was the result of Romney having to come up with a solution when healthcare was already under the control of government, so he pragmatically came up with the best solution he could get passed -- with all the other regulations he had to contend with, it was no surprise that he rationally felt a mandate was necessary. I think Romney has learned that the problem we have now is how to roll back government control, not how best to work within the control. Santorum hasn't learned, because he doesn't understand how the economy works, or doesn't care how it works -- Santorum is concerned with the Big Picture of government doing the right thing to guide people in the right direction, to escalate wars in the mideast to win the War on Terror. Santorum is a frustrated soft/benevolent-dictator and chicken hawk who needs an army to boost his delusions of grandeur. I can see him in the Oval Office all alone practicing his salute in the mirror, visualizing being before his army as they stand ready to obey his commands. Uh, no thanks.