no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

On Moot Points: “47%” and the Romney Campaign

September 20th, 2012

I know Mitt made a foot-in-mouth statement about the “47%”, something that goes like this:

There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement … And they will vote for [Obama] no matter what …

The liberal faction of the mainstream media has a hard-on over this statement like it’s the writing on the wall, the beginning of the end for the Romney campaign. Even though his base – and that 47% is represented largely by southern “Red” states, I don’t think this really matters to them, and consequently to his campaign.

Taxes by state, percent of non-payers

You have to ask yourself do they give a shit? and more importantly do they even know or understand the difference?

Probably not, to both questions. I’d wager most people with zero tax liability still think they’re getting ripped off by The Man (and to an extent they are, but that’s a topic for another discussion). And the vast majority of people — no matter their party affiliation — are dangerously uninformed on matters of economic principles. They would be shocked, as I suspect Romney would also be, to learn that despite the argument that “the rich pay almost all of the taxes” (which is nominally true), that “the rich” are far greater beneficiaries of (corporate) welfare and redistribution than are the working poor.

Also, there’s the pesky fact that the 47% is basically bullshit.

At the end of the day, whether Mitt implodes doesn’t matter. In the charade of “election year politics” and the quadrennial popularity contest that elects the President, it does. But the point is that doesn’t matter. At all. In the grand scheme of things, your corporate masters don’t care whether you pick Obama or Romney as long as you pick Obama or Romney.

Would he still make this sacrifice if he knew he wasn’t protecting our “freedom”?

September 3rd, 2012

The child this young man holds in his arms, by my guess is probably only a few weeks old. The tears he’s hiding behind his hands are very, very real. The pain he must feel in his heart, in every fiber of his being, unimaginable.

The caption reads: "This Dad is about to be deployed and is having to say goodbye to his newborn baby girl. Sacrifices like this are made every day, and may we be reminded, that our FREEDOM comes with a cost, and our soldiers and their families are paying it."

As is all effective pro-war propaganda, this image is indeed a stirring one, putting the spotlight on those he leaves behind, portraying his noble sacrifice for the greater good rather than the deception that puts this young man in harms way and daily threatens any chance of ever seeing his baby again.

Would he still make this sacrifice if he knew he wasn’t protecting our “freedom”? That he wasn’t “making the world safer” for that precious baby girl of his? That he is merely a pawn in some rich man’s wars?

I doubt it.

The only reason he’s leaving this little girl is because he’s been lied to.

And if we owe them anything it’s not gratitude or respect, not worshi ppingthe lies they’re fighting and dying for, but rather to inform and remind of these deceptions in hopes that some, even one of them will do the right thing, instead.


Obama’s Kill List Reveals the “Anti-War” Left Are Fucking Poseurs

June 5th, 2012

As others have noted, during the Bush regime there was a popular anti-war sentiment among those in the “left” or “progressive” camps. Well they were all fucking poseurs hijacking an otherwise noble ideology.

From this faction, who I presume would gladly present Bush’s head on a pike, we have heard nary a peep since Obama took office, even though as David McElroy notes, Bush’s controversial drone program has been greatly expanded, and as highlighted by some propaganda-masquerading-as-news last week, the litmus test for whether a drone strike is justified essentially amounts to whether it killed anyone, since the newspeak definition of “militant” is circularly defined as anyone killed by a drone strike.

Barack Obama, mass murderer and war criminal

Barack Obama, mass murderer and war criminal

Napolitano comments on Obama’s secret kill list,

Since 9/11, the United States government has set up national security systems that function not under the Constitution, not under the Geneva Conventions, not under the rule of law, not under the rules of war, not under federal law, but under a new secret system crafted by the Bush administration and personally directed by Obama, the same Obama who condemned these rules as senator and then extended them as president

The silence now reveals all the anti-war rhetoric as nothing more than partisan pandering, proving beyond doubt that it was never really about being anti-war.

And proving that, in times of conflict all for-profit media is essentially state-run propaganda recyclers, our independent and unbiased news media continues to report on such “facts” e.g., : U.S. drone strikes kill at least 18 suspected militants in Pakistan.

US drone strikes stoke public anger in Pakistan

US drone strikes stoke public anger in Pakistan - via BBC

It would also be worth noting that “The Pakistani government and parliament have repeatedly asked the U.S. to stop the strikes,” including a summons of the US envoy to Pakistan. You bet your ass they’re pissed off. Wouldn’t you be?

If any country on earth launched UAVs to send missiles in to American households it would be considered an overt act of war and would be met by the full force & fury of the U.S. Military.

Double-standard much?

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics