The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label libertarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label libertarian. Show all posts

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Connect The Dots USA: “What‘s On The Menu?” Quiz


Re Post from Connect The Dots USA







Connect The Dots USA

The results are in: The majority of voters who showed up for last week’s election are downright illogical and ungrateful…

First, we saw the majority of voters in several red states support raising the minimum wage on a ballot proposition, but at the same time vote for politicians that openly want to repeal (or at least suppress) the minimum wage. In Colorado, voters once again handily defeated the “fetal personhood” ballot proposition, but then turned around and voted to promote to the U.S. Senate the guy who sponsored the same piece of “personhood” legislation in the U.S. House.

In Kentucky, the same folks who love their “Kynect” — the name for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in Kentucky — once again elected Senator Mitch McConnell who ran on repealing Obamacare (Kynect) “root and branch.” We hear Americans constantly complain about gridlock in Washington and then they turned around and vote overwhelmingly for the same Republican obstructionists. Apparently, so they will get more gridlock.

While dialing to save the Senate, I talked to Jeff in Colorado who was pissed at Democrats for not passing Medicare-for-All, so now he was thinking of voting for Republicans. Because apparently he thinks that will get him closer to single-payer? WTF?!!! Talk about charging off in exactly the wrong direction!

OK, now my brain hurts.

This “Low Information Nation” cartoon highlights the problem:

So here’s the crux of the problem: When your are ill-informed about policy and civics, you end up voting based on personality and silliness. For democracy to work again, folks need to connect their CANDIDATE votes to the POLICIES they like.

To make an analogy, do you frequent a restaurant because you like the food or you like the chef? If you don’t even like what’s on the menu, what difference does it make if the chef goes to the same church, has a nice looking family, or knows how to castrate a pig? Citizens should approach voting the same way — if you don’t even like the policy menu, then don’t vote for that policy maker (politician). Makes sense, no?

Similarly, as a graphic designer, I trust my clients hire me first and foremost because they like the design work in my portfolio. And my delightful personality is just a little extra bonus! 


Which brings us to ConnectTheDotsUSA’s “What‘s On The Menu?” quiz. On the left, you’ll see a menu of Progressive policies. All these policies are very popular with the American people in poll after poll, and yet they are considered “left-wing” according today’s political battle lines. That’s because the Republican party has moved so far to crazy town over the last three decades, dragging the political center with them. If you like the majority of policies on the left side and want a policy maker who fights for your values, you are a Lefty/Progressive by today’s standards and should stop voting Republican, Libertarian, “Centrist” or “Moderate.”

On the right, you’ll see the corresponding policy on the Regressive menu. While there is an occasional exception here and there —Ron Paul’s isolationism or Dick Cheney’s support of marriage equality because he has a gay daughter — these are the policies that Republicans and other right-wingers support in lock-step. Because many of these right-wing policies are unpopular with the American public, BIG CONservatives often resort to manipulative language to sell them. The Orwellian framing has been decoded here.


StumbleUpon

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Kochs Bristle In Response To Real Media



This past September, Rolling Stone published a piece regarding the horrors of the Koch brothers empire. 

On September 24th, Tom Dickinson published the pieceInside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire, with the following by-line. 
Together, Charles and David Koch control one of the world's largest fortunes, which they are using to buy up our political system. But what they don't want you to know is how they made all that money.
Read more

By now you should know the Kochs well enough to know they are not only two of the wealthiest men in the world, they also have a desire to reign in US government. They are Libertarian and occupy the far-right hemisphere of Libertarianism. "Libertarianism," an ideology that I strongly feel is conservative with little remaining vestiges of liberalism and individual freedoms. I have yet to meet or read about a Libertarian who manifest actual liberal views. In fact, I more often than not find staunch conservatives, bigots, racist and quick moniker-ed as "libertarian." The Kochs, the Pauls, and Jesse Ventura are classic and without question examples of my contempt for the ideology. But, I digress. 

Needless to say, the Kochs took great exception to the Rolling Stone's piece and fired off a response. There is one thing about the Kochs they will dig and manipulate (social and political) dirt by the tons, but do not like having their labor exposed in any manner. They are especially averse to attribution back to their marionette strings lined with shadowy money. 

The Kochs responded to Rolling Stone with an obvious post legal brief/public relations diatribe. The diatribe included a direct attack on Tom Dickinson. On September 29th, the surly industrial oligarch's response was addressed by Tom Dickinson: Koch Industries Responds to Rolling Stone – And We Answer Back
"Koch Facts" calls our story "dishonest and misleading." A point-by-point rebuttal.
Read more  (Including this: "The salient feature of Koch's response is that the company does not argue the core facts of our 9,000-word expose. Instead, Koch targets the messenger. Koch's top target here is not even Rolling Stone, but me, Tim Dickinson."
If you are an American who has a deep quest for accurate information and are concerned about growing US oligarchy with the Koch on leading white horses, the "We Answer Back" is classic first class journalism and a refreshing treatise regarding the Wichita oligarchs. Dickinson's 14 point retort to the Koch public relations response is  a must read.

Isn't it amazing the uber wealthy Kochs have continue a US government power grab since David Koch provided money and a body for the 1980 Libertarian party as the vice presidential candidate. An image of the 1980 platform (in brief).


I posit the Kochs have added a few anti-US government items to their List of Oligarchy. If you review the 1980 libertarian Party platform excerpt above, you will easily discern an aversion to any regulatory agencies, polices and monitoring. Haven't we seen and felt enough from laissez-faire GOP: "FREE MARKETS: No regulation." The moniker even wore thin for US conservatives as it was changed post Bush to "FREE MARKETS." When did you last hear or read a Republican speak of "no regulation?"

The Kochs are uncharacteristic in their attention to any article, comment or sentence leveled against them. They are of such privilege, they seem to have never learned that even the filthy rich and obscenely opulent cannot have it "all things Koch." 

In 2013, the Koch's public relations squad apparently requested a story correction form MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Well, the effort did not end as desired with yet another Koch trophy on their PR mantel. Pay particular attention to the segment start and its end starting at the 7:00 minute mark.



Uber wealthy "nation shapers" and "thin-skin (itis)" comes across as a bit of an oxymoron. The Kochs have no worries about scrutiny and criticism from Fox News, CNN, nor either of the major network news shows. 

The brothers escape any probing from Sunday Morning news shows as those shows are over-booked with conservatives with the singular focus of Obama Derangement.  

First Quarter 2013

Yet, their antennas raise like an angry Cobra with any level of criticism from MSNBC or "unbought' print/online media. 

US Media is owned (and directed) by six (6) corporate families. Since 1983, US media have collapsed into corporate families with conservative "overseers." If you think the last statement is a leap, think of any major US corporation that has a documented liberal executive management team. Since, corporations are "not" people and are run by uber wealthy boards of directors and CEOs, the "thought conservatives" run these entities are well within the purview of reality. Additional evidence of Us Media gone Right. Cases in point....

CBS news executives hired David Rhodes, former Fox News exec, to run its news division. Rhodes started his news career out of college at Fox News. I think it safe to assume an anti-progressive paradigm permeates his leadership vision. Hence, Lara Logan's over-the-top lie filled 60 Minutes Benghazi broadcast.


CNN's executive management change to Fred Zucker resulted in an immediate dispatch of all things progressive (Soledad O'Brien, Roland Martin and Ali Velshi as examples) and its "balance" moniker. Have you heard any CNN host speak of "balanced" broadcasting in the past two years? Have you noticed the overwhelming slant towards conservative guest on CNN? The network has full control over who appears on its broadcast segments. Watch to see the extent to which CNN books conservative guest in far greater numbers than progressive guest.  

I repeat.
"Yet, their antennas raise like an angry Cobra with any level of criticism from MSNBC or "unbought' print/online media." 
Rolling Stone and Dickinson are outside the Octopus grasp of the Kochs. To date, Comcast has not reeled all MSNBC hosts into conservative talking heads (such as Scarborough, Todd, Mitchell). Maddow and Rolling Stone's Dickinson stand as progressive journalist who have not succumbed to growing current event and political entertainment media.

It is delightful to find a couple of real journalist stand against the oligarchs, in a desert of growing subservience to the Kochs and tumbleweed media and politicians rolling around like insect collecting dollars strewn-out for performance, 






Embedded image permalink

While we are on the Kochs, we offer a Slate dot com piece relate to the Koch Cabal.





StumbleUpon

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Have A Koch!

I am a bit of a cynic and I do not believe that uber wealthy people on the Left nor the Right will work for the common good of the people. They are generally industrialist or entertainment magnates, and simply via their elitist existence, I feel they permanently separate from what we once called the "masses."  

Gov. Walker, Koch Stooge!
While I am not one for wealth envy, star worship nor celebrity curiosity, I will admit to deep concern when elitist focus their vast financial wherewithal on shaping our society not in their likeness, but shaping society such that we exist as mere pawns for their manipulation and servitude. 

Now for a bit of specificity. The Koch brothers since 1980 have embarked on shaping America in the shadows of Libertarian ideology. When I speak of libertarianism, I do not speak of classic libertarian ideology and doctrine, I think in terms of very far Right conservatives and social conservatives who identify with the word "libertarian." It seems they reach for the "libertarian" moniker to avoid the more descriptive moniker of 'conservative.'

Independent Senator from Vermont, Senator Bernie Sanders's webpage has a partial listing of 1980 campaign platform items for the Ed Clark and David Koch ticket. The list appears as classic libertarian, with a conservative twist typical of a conservative industrialist. I have previously, read Clark was recruited to head the ticket for purpose of identity and familiarity. Take a  40 year journey into our past.
Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980: 
  • “We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
  • “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
  • “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
  • “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
  • “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
  • “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence.  Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
  • “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
  • “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
  • “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
  • “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
  • “We advocate the complete separation of education and State.  Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
  • “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
  • “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
  • “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
  • “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
  • “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
  • “We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
  • “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
  • “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
  • “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
  • “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
  • “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
  • “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
  • “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
  • “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
  • “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
As you surprised the platform items, didn't appear to provide any discomfort for the nation's wealthy? How about allowing me to convince you the items literally clear a path for unfettered industrialization replete with abolishing monitoring and regulatory agencies? Of course, you notice repeal of minimum wage laws.  

The campaign platform was from 1980. Yet, even today we hear and see GOP politicians who will appear before cameras speaking boldly about their disdain for the minimum wage with accompanying words supporting elimination of the law.   

A much more recent listing of Libertarian Party platform is linked, here (to be fair).

While the horrid thought is not posted in the platform items (above) nor in the Libertarian Party platform (linked), we must never forget one noted libertarian openly espouses legalizing heroin!  Ron Paul espouses such during items when heroin use among young white suburbanites is at an all-time high. Ron Paul is pathetic and a mere digression. Excuse the digress!

As the Koch brothers tighten their grip on conservative America and pull marionette strings of GOP members of state and federal legislatures, they warrant close scrutiny. Personally, I retain one guiding thought regarding the brothers. Their father was an early member of the John Birch Society. A society that span well beyond its anti-communist charter into a much more sophisticated likeness of the Ku Klux Klan (of course without harassment, oppression and killings).

In 2012, David Koch declared an end to his Libertarianism while simultaneously staking a claim to the GOP.  David Koch is neo-Libertarian "to the Max."

Politico
Koch also said he now considers himself a Republican first and foremost — rather than a Libertarian or a nonpartisan supporter of free enterprise — despite a background in Libertarian politics and some views that are out of step with the GOP orthodoxy. 

“The Libertarian Party is a great concept. I love the ideals, but it got too far off the deep end, and so I dropped out,” Koch said. “I think the Republican Party has a great chance of being successful and that’s why I support it,” he said, adding “but I believe in the libertarian principles.”
I simply cannot imagine how David Koch could be of a mindset to see success in the GOP. The party has no claims to success as far back as Richard Nixon.

Of course, David Koch sees the GOP as a conduit to the the Koch goodies. Goodies delineated in 1980. It is also important to add major Koch support for re-segregating school systems. 

Over the past week a couple of notable and "point on" MSNBC segments are cogent and relevant.


V
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/54832854#55214845 
Additional reading and a gift of the Real Koch Facts web page. 

Economic Policy Journal: Hot David Koch I Am  No Longer

Real Koch Facts  

New York Times 
StumbleUpon

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Libertarianism: PRRI Survey, Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, The Kochs And A Recipe For Plutocracy

We at the TPI vehemently disagree!

Regardless of the perception US Libertarians are divided socially and politically, the ideology has a conservative lean that provides very fertile ground for American Plutocracy. The ideology has major money-brokers in the Koch brothers and their (secretive) Billionaires Donors Club and has a fissure into a lack of racial diversity.  Any learned person would be blind if they did not recognize via digging deeper bigotry and racism embedded the existential comings and goings of Ron and Rand Paul (document-able in his case). Despite concerted efforts to divest and separate from republicanism, I do not find enough daylight to separate modern libertarianism from common conservative republican ethos. In some cases the light is so slight libertarianism almost seems as far-right conservative doctrine. Factually, speaking, I have yet to meet a libertarian that did not come across as a conservative. If there are truly liberal conservatives, they must co-exist in a secretive society away from most publications and never on camera!

There are many schools of thought on libertartianism. The one major criticism I  can muster is, all that I read seems to avoid factoring human behavior as a critical outcome of theory.  One publication that garnered my attention is an Institute of Humane Studies publication read on US libertarianism. I feel the material is palatable and similar in content to my admittedly biased paradigm when it comes to the most visible aspects of libertarianism. 


The Institute of Humane Studies defines "libertarianism' as follows:
The libertarian or "classical liberal" perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by "as much liberty as possible" and "as little government as necessary."
The Institute's definition lends itself to serious scrutiny and questioning. What manifests "as much liberty as possible?" What level of government is the minimum level to maintain any degree of ordered in society?"

"....as much liberty as possible."  How about the liberty to run around naked with an expectation people will not report you to the authorities? More seriously, how about the liberty to deny a people access to facilities and services based on race, gender or sexual orientation?  All prospects that inordinately benefits the white male (See PRRI survey data below).

"....as little government as necessary."  Does Somalia serve as a good enough example?

The Institute of Humane Studies
Other libertarianism definitions

According to Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz, Free Press, 1997. 
Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.


According to American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000.
NOUN: 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
The Challenge of Democracy (6th edition), by Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey Berry, and Jerry Goldman
Liberals favor government action to promote equality, whereas conservatives favor government action to promote order. Libertarians favor freedom and oppose government action to promote either equality or order.

On Monday October 29, Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) has published the results of a 2700 participant survey on American Libertarianism. The survey in aggregate seems to confirm my stated premise. A quick read of the press release excerpt below, shows deep connection with hard core right-wing politicians, support for Tea Party politicians and a demographic composition that mirrors the GOP. We have extracted a few passages and data from the exhaustive PRRI Survey.

Public Religion Research Institute

Survey | 2013 American Values Survey: In Search of Libertarians in America (full pdf report)

Excerpt
Compared to the general population, libertarians are significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic white, male, and young. Nearly all libertarians are non-Hispanic whites (94%), more than two-thirds (68%) are men, and more than 6-in-10 (62%) are under the age of 50. 

The party affiliation of libertarians skews significantly more Republican than Democratic. Close to half (45%) of libertarians identify as Republican, compared to only 5% who identify as Democrat. However, half of libertarians identify as politically independent (35%) or identify with a third political party (15%), including roughly 1-in-10 (8%) who identify with the Libertarian Party. Roughly 4-in-10 (39%) libertarians identify as part of the Tea Party movement, while 61% do not. 

Excerpt
Libertarians make up a smaller proportion of the Republican Party than other key conservative groups.  Only 12% of self-identified Republicans are libertarians, compared to 20% of Republicans who identify with the Tea Party, 33% who identify with the religious right or conservative Christian movement, and 37% who identify as white evangelical Protestant. 

Libertarians also constitute a smaller proportion of the Tea Party movement than other core conservative groups. Aboutone-quarter (26%) of Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement are libertarians, compared to a majority (52%) who say they are a part of the religious right or conservative Christian movement, and 35% who identify as white evangelical Protestant. 

Libertarians are composed of a disproportionately high number of white mainline Protestants (27%) and religiously unaffiliated Americans (27%). Only about 1-in-10 (11%) libertarians identify as Catholic, and no libertarians identify as black Protestant. 
GOTW.102913.Libertarian 320x414 Survey | 2013 American Values Survey: In Search of Libertarians in AmericaGenerally speaking, libertarians are more opposed than white evangelical Protestants, those affiliated with the Tea Party, and Republicans overall to government involvement across a range of economic policies, such as raising the minimum wage, Obamacare, and increasing environmental protections.
  • Nearly two-thirds (65%) of libertarians oppose increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.00 an hour, as do 57% of Americans who identify with the Tea Party. By contrast, 57% of Republicans overall and 61% of white evangelical Protestants support raising the minimum wage.
  • Nearly all (96%) libertarians have an unfavorable view of the 2010 health care law, compared to 83% of white evangelical Protestants, 78% of Tea Party members, and 89% of Republicans.
  • On the issue of passing tougher environmental laws, libertarians and Tea Party members are generally aligned in their strong opposition (73% and 74% oppose), while white evangelical Protestants and Republicans overall are also opposed but with less intensity (62% each opposed).
Unlike economic questions, on which libertarians are generally aligned with other conservative constituencies, libertarians have a more distinct profile on social issues.

  • Nearly 6-in-10 (57%) libertarians oppose making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion, a proportion identical to the general population. By contrast, strong majorities of Republicans overall (58%), Americans affiliated with the Tea Party (58%), and white evangelical Protestants (68%) favor making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion.
  • Seven-in-ten (70%) libertarians favor allowing doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to help terminally ill patients end their lives. Americans who identify with the Tea Party are closely divided on this question (49% favor, 51% oppose). By contrast, strong majorities of Republicans (58%) and white evangelical Protestants (70%) oppose this policy.
  • More than 7-in-10 (71%) libertarians favor legalizing marijuana. By contrast, approximately 6-in-10 Republicans (61%) and Tea Party members (59%), and nearly 7-in-10 (69%) white evangelical Protestants, oppose legalizing marijuana.
  • Unlike most other social issues, libertarians remain socially conservative on same-sex marriage. While a majority (59%) of libertarians oppose same-sex marriage, they are significantly less opposed than Republicans overall (67%) and than other conservative-leaning groups such as Tea Party members (73%) and white evangelical Protestants (80%).
Methodology in brief:


The survey was conducted among a random sample of 2,317 adults (age 18 and up) living in the United States and who are part of GfK’s Knowledge Panel. Interviews were conducted online in both English and Spanish between September 21 and October 3, 2013. The margin of sampling error is +/- 2.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. 
PRRI  Survey Press Release: Linked (a worthy read)

Excerpt
Notably, libertarians hold more negative views of Democrats than they hold positive views of Republicans. Nearly 9-in-10 (89 percent) libertarians have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party, including nearly two-thirds (64 percent) who have a very unfavorable opinion of the party. A majority (57 percent) of libertarians have a favorable view of the Republican Party, but a substantial minority (40 percent) have an unfavorable view of the GOP.


Among voters who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, support is spread fairly evenly across the potential 2016 presidential field in a head-to-head question. Eighteen percent prefer Governor Chris Christie, 18 percent prefer Congressman Paul Ryan, 15 percent prefer former Governor Jeb Bush, 14 percent prefer Senator Marco Rubio, 11 percent prefer Senator Rand Paul, and 11 percent prefer Senator Ted Cruz.

  • Among libertarian voters who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, Paul (26 percent) was the most popular potential candidate, while 18 percent prefer Cruz, 16 percent prefer Rubio, and 13 percent prefer Ryan. Fewer libertarian voters prefer Christie (10 percent) or Bush (6 percent).
  • Among Tea Party voters who identify or lean Republican, Cruz is the most preferred candidate (22 percent), followed by Rubio (18 percent), Ryan (14 percent), and Paul (13 percent). Roughly 1-in-10 Tea Party voters prefer Bush (11 percent) or Christie (12 percent).
  • White evangelical Protestant voters have less clear candidate preferences than libertarian and Tea Party voters. Among white evangelical Protestant voters who identify or lean Republican, top preferences include Ryan (19 percent), Christie (16 percent), and Bush (15 percent), while roughly 1-in-10 prefer Rubio (13 percent), Paul (11 percent), or Cruz (10 percent).
End PRRI Survey

As I think of libertarianism the following information comes to mind. We dug deep regarding Ron Paul's racist 1900s newsletters and located Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard comparable to a 105 millimeter artillery shell landing on granite hill side.

Lew Rockwell has since posited to separate libertarianism from far-right conservatism. His efforts fail to soak into my very biased mind.


Ron Paul and the roots of modern-day libertarian/conservatism.



Excerpt
 Follow this...
.....But in the 1990s and 1980s, anti-government sentiment was much less mainstream. It seemed contained to the racist right-wing, people who supported militia movements, who obsessed over political correctness, who were suspicious of free-trade deals like NAFTA. 
Rothbard had tremendous influence on Lew Rockwell, and the whole slice of the libertarian movement that adored Ron Paul.
But Rothbard and Rockwell never stuck with their alliances with angry white men on the far right. They have been willing to shift alliances from left to right and back again. Before this "outreach" to racists, Rothbard aligned himself with anti-Vietnam war protestors in the 1960s. In the 2000s, after the "outreach" had failed, Rockwell complained bitterly about "Red-State fascists" who supported George Bush and his war. So much for the "Rednecks." The anti-government theories stay the same, the political strategy shifts in odd and extreme directions.


As crazy as it sounds, Ron Paul's newsletter writers may not have been sincerely racist at all. They actually thought appearing to be racist was a good political strategy in the 1990s. After that strategy yielded almost nothing - it was abandoned by Paul's admirers.



Read more:  (Same link as above, provided here only for sake of attribution)


"Outreach to the Rednecks", the linked article provides what appears as a detailed expose about the genesis of the Paul Newsletter horrors. The newsletters apparently generated great amounts of income for the Paul organization.
Murray Rothbard
Murray Rothbard, libertarian theorist
At that time a libertarian theorist, Murray Rothbard argued that libertarians ought to engage in "Outreach to the Rednecks" in order to insert their libertarian theories into the middle of the nation's political passions.
Reason Dot Com: Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newletters
Excerpt  
The most detailed description of the strategy came in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992 Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement." Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an "Outreach to the Rednecks," which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. (Duke, a former Klansman, was discussed in strikingly similar terms in a 1990 Ron Paul Political Report.) These groups could be mobilized to oppose an expansive state, Rothbard posited, by exposing an "unholy alliance of 'corporate liberal' Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America."

If this piece is in any way peaking your curiosity, or validating your previous perceptions of liberatrianism, you may want to read this Salon Dot Com piece.







StumbleUpon

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Ryan and Cantor Grace The Stage At Secret Koch Event!

Eric Cantor (left) and Paul Ryan are pictured. | AP Photo
The meeting featured talk of emerging GOP Senate primary challenges, sources say. | AP Photo
The Rachel Maddow Blog


Steve Benen via the Rachel Maddow Blog is reporting Paul Ryan (former VP candidates) And Eric Cantor (House Majority Leader) secretly attended the annual Koch Brothers retreat. It is also being reported each fulfilled speaking roles.  
Rep. Paul Ryan, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez secretly spoke to wealthy donors at the Koch brothers' recently concluded summer gathering on the outskirts of Albuquerque. 
The 2012 vice presidential candidate and No. 2 House Republican are return participants to the twice-annual seminar.... A spokesman for Cantor's office declined to comment, while Ryan's office did not immediately respond to questions. ~Steve Benen August 8, 2013
Eric Cantors office declined to comment?

Paul Ryan's office, "no immediate response to questions!" 

What we know about the Kochs (in brief):

The Koch Brothers: are two of the wealthiest people on Earth.
We recognize the Kochs Brothers has the GOP at the end of their Over-sized money-clips.  The Kochs are so much an overseer of the GOP, Herman Cain declared in 2008, he was "...their bother from another mother!"  Cain had to know what we know about the Kochs. Therefore, we posit Cain's very public schmoozing (to keep it clean) was strict to facilitate influxes of cash. 

There is little doubt the Koch funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has it fingers on every state legislature in the nation. Some states more than others, but nonetheless, the pour money into the development of legislation (for the betterment of corporations) with subsequent hand-off of legislation to state legislators. There is something outright sinister ans self-serving about ALEC.  We find it truly revealing the LEFT has no such legislation developing adjunct to government. 

How could such high level politicians and elected officials spend time and effort sneaking around at events sponsored by the likes of the Kochs. Is there anything int he abbreviated list above that would give you cause to suspect the Kochs have the "interest of the people" at the core of the expenditures?

Do you now see why people like Cantor will avoid all jobs bills from the LEFT, while personally sponsoring a bill to eliminate "over-time" pay for hours worked over 40 hours per week?   Cantor stated overtime has an impact of family life and contributes to taking parents away during critical child rearing stages.  Is it a stretch to imagine industrialist like the Kochs would love to see over-time out of the Fair Labor Standards Federal register?   Since we are there, do you seriously think corporations large medium or small, will suddenly stop forced over-time to meet demand?  Cantor says fill the  (pay) void with Compensatory time-off. Cantor must believe the majority of Americans watch Fox News! 

Do you now see why the House has held 40 votes on repealing Obamacare?

How about all the climate or environment issues voted down by the House republicans? 

And, how about Mitch McConnell's declaration of one-term for Obama?

When high level politicians hobnob with the worlds wealthiest, it is not possible to avoid thinking of the politician major focus. 

Maybe, just maybe that is one reason Barack Obama catches hell from LEFT leaning industrialist for not hobnobbing. 




StumbleUpon