Oracle of Reason

Faith's empire is the world; its monarch, God; its ministers the priests; its slaves the people

Month: May, 2012

May 23, 2012

The Idiocy of Conspiracy Theories

It amazes me that, even the most highly educated people subscribe to the idea of various conspiracy theories.

Among the more popular ones are: 911 was an inside job, Israel funds Hamas, the supposed coming of the North American Union and the implementation of the Amero will be coming soon thanks, in large part, to The Fed’s orchestrated depreciation of the dollar.

There are also conspiracy theories related to Watergate, Travelgate, the John F. Kennedy assassination, the activities of the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group, black helicopters that symbolized the military takeover of part or all the United States and so on and so on.

Worst of all, proponents of such ideas have the audacity to state that, by not buying into their speculation, I, and others who do not buy into their stories, were willing to buy into state lies and be slaves.

So, as a way to express my disgust with such claims and to disprove conspiracy theories in general, I dedicate this essay to all of the idiotic and irrational conclusions many people subscribe to in hopes of pointing out the error of their ways and so they reclaim their rationality once and for all.

A conspiracy theory is nothing more than that: a theory. Usually based on speculation and a culmination of many historical and actual events tied together that share common characteristics in hopes of proving a particular point against the official story but with little or no evidence, overall, to back up the proponent’s claims.

To accept a conspiracy theory without overwhelming evidence requires the acceptance of other unprovable claims. For example, one would have to conclude that almost everyone in government are able, at will, to secretly plan large or small scale attacks or plots and maintain operational security without leaks or any kind of transparency.

But for someone to accept the conspiratorial view of reality, people in government are viewed implicitly as demonaic, able to keep unrelenting control of secret, diabolical plots which are very complex, require multitudes of people, and sometimes involve the killing of perfectly innocent Americans.

The overall theme of conspiracy theories themselves are, in many ways, similar to religious belief.

Many people believe that instead of or in addition to an all powerful supernatural diety creating, manipulating, or planning people’s lives instead there are groups secretly working in tandem within the backrooms of governments to create, manipulate or plan people’s lives and the events of life on earth with the help of like-minded politicians.

This is not to say that all people who work in government are entirely innocent either and I am still dismayed at much of the erosion of things, like our civil liberties, that have occured at the hands of judges in our nation’s courts who are in place to protect the very rights and freedoms were are supposed to enjoy without encroachment.

But the results of things, like judicial decisions that erode our rights, are the result cultural factors that have lead many to believe that people can have their cake and eat it too and not the result of backroom planners manipulating and controlling certain events at will.

The simple truth is that none of the allegations made by pundits of conspiracy theories ever come true and never will. Many of the theories make good plots for fiction novels or movies, but to accept these ideas, one has to ignore clear evidence that other plots and schemes by government officials have not succeeded and have been uncovered.

Conspiracy theories should not be taken seriously since they deal in speculation and not facts.

Leave a comment
May 15, 2012

Dimon Down but Not Out

Just recently one of the nation’s largest banks J.P. Morgan Chase posted a $2 billion loss. As a result, Obama’s regulatory lapdogs are already licking their chops using Chase’s losses as a reason to pass more rules on lending and credit institutions making it harder for them to invest in markets in order to enhance their financial standing.

To his credit, Jamie Dimon has been upfront and honest about the whole ordeal. He has admitted that the bank made mistakes but his only crime is that he trusted people under him to do their jobs. Chase is making efforts to restore public confidence in the form of seeing to it that the people under Dimon who oversaw the investments in question will be disciplined. Ultimately is not Jamie Dimon’s job to micromanage his subordinates and what is laughable about this whole ordeal is that the politicians took credit when the economy was good but now that it has gone bad or a major financial institution suffers a (admittedly) major loss they scold the very institutions (i.e. banks) that help keep the economy running and helped it prosper before the downturn. Despite the economic crash in 2008 thanks to Jamie Dimon’s leadership Chase rose above all of the other banks. Now that the bank takes a loss despite being financially healthy overall politicians and bureaucrats look to the event as proof to exert more control of a situation that they made possible to begin with.

Naturally leftist bloggers are in an uproar about the whole ordeal. David Dayen a blogger at FireDogLake states the assault on the taxpayer should end while implying that with the losses Chase took with its derivative investments that the taxpayers will soon bail them out. Never mind that that there were no government funds involved in these trades.

In 2008 Jamie Dimon and other bank chief executives were forced to take Troubled Asset Relief Program (i.e. TARP) funds when he and other bank CEO’s were called into a meeting with Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson soon after the housing market crash and banks took major losses as a result. Once the CEO’s were seated in a large conference room in the U.S. Treasury building they were bluntly told by Paulson that none of them would leave the conference room without signing a document put in from of them to accept money from the program. Dimon was later quoted as saying even though Chase was financially healthy he had no alternative but to take the money since for him not to could put the bank at a disadvantage. Not surprisingly, he called the entire ordeal traumatic to say the least. A short time later Chase and 9 other banks were able to get out from under the rules associated with TARP by repaying the money they were given.

The selective memory and hypocrisy on the part of critics of financial institutions never ceases to amaze me. Initially even I had concerns with the program passed by Congress to give the U.S. Treasury authorization to issue money to the banks. In hindsight the TARP program made sense since it helped continue with the flow of credit banks could give to their customers. Without credit, the entire economy would have collapsed and, despite it’s flaws (like restrictions on executive compensation) TARP was, in fact, a recapitalization and not a bailout as many critics contend.

In terms of the investments, as Dimon points out, the bank’s balance sheet diversified enough to take into account if not outright withstand surprises such as this. Banks hire people who are knowledgeable about risky investments to manage a firm’s investment portfolio so the institution can be profitable overall even if it takes losses in other areas of business. However, thanks to Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley Dimon’s job isn’t just about managing financial risk but also fending off political risk for his company. It is entirely possible that since keeping interest rates low banks and credit unions make up the losses with fees on other products they offer, respectfully. However, they can still offer products while being able to invest in vehicles (like derivatives) so they can remain profitable keeping losses and even fees to a minimum.

I do invest in the stock market but have no knowledge about credit default swaps. From what I have read of them and if the losses Chase took on investing in them are any indication the vehicles can be extremely volatile. However, I am sure they can be very profitable if one knows how to invest in them which is evidenced by Chase CIO Ina Drew’s role in the company. Before all of this, she masterfully managed the investments that helped Chase remain profitable. Sadly, she is one of the ones whose jobs ended up on the chopping block. Financial institutions, like banks, invest in derivatives due to the overall high returns they can pan out. That’s what Ina Drew did and did very well. Sadly, due to this single misstep she and others under her suffer for it.

Fortunately, Jamie Dimon was retained by Chase stockholders and had an enhanced compensation package approved. Like it or not, CEO’s like Dimon are hired by companies to make and keep them profitable. Chief Executive Officers work very hard in order for their company to achieve and maintain profitability and earn every dollar they get. As a result of the salaries and benefits afforded to them CEOs live elaborate lifestyles because they (rightly) can afford to do so. There is nothing wrong with being wealthy but critics of CEO’s (like Occupy Wall Street and labor unions) reel against them and the wealth they earn because of the moocher mentality they subscribe to.

Back in November Jaime Dimon has had a meeting with Republican Party Presidential front runner Mitt Romney and other candidates for the Republican nomination for President. As a result of recent events he now calls himself ‘barely’ a Democrat. Who could blame him? Obama has been openly hostile to banks and now with his re-election coming up looks to financial institutions for support even after browbeating them for the sin of making money.

You cannot have an economy without financial institutions available to lend and invest money. They not only serve their customers but also themselves in order to exist. Profits are a prime component of a capitalist system and banks play a vital role not only in the ability of people to save and invest but also to borrow and lend too. Unfortunately, because of the economic debacle we are in banks are unfairly looked at as clearing houses of debt or the enablers of the economic slump. This is not an accurate association since the choice to take on debt is ultimately the choice of the consumer. If there is any blame to go around I lay it at the feet of the Fed as the enabler who attempted to manage the Business Cycle by injecting massive amounts of credit into the banking system that created the artificial prosperity our economy experienced after the Dot-Com bubble burst and later resulted in the quasi-depression we are in now. Ultimately, bankers exist to provide valuable services in terms of lending, savings, and investment that cannot normally be taken on by individual people.

The scolding the President has given to financial institutions is a divide-and-conquer strategy on the part of the Obama Adminsitration and his comrades-in-arms since Obama ultimately hopes to profit with political contributions since he is the incumbent President. Obama’s scorn for banks is indicative of how Ayn Rand described how America’s persecuted minority is the businessman:

Only businessmen—the producers, the providers, the supporters, the Atlases who carry our whole economy on their shoulders—are regarded as guilty by nature and are required to prove their innocence, without any definable criteria of innocence or proof, and are left at the mercy of the whim, the favor, or the malice of any publicity-seeking politician, any scheming statist, any envious mediocrity who might chance to work his way into a bureaucratic job and who feels a yen to do some trust-busting.

Attempts to demonize banks and when those who work for them make mistakes like what happened with Ina Drew and the scorn leveled at Jamie Dimon are an attempt by nihilist Leftists to attack capitalism from another vantage point which translates into an overall attack on life itself.

Update 05/22: Despite the bank’s $360 billion investment portfolio, a class action lawsuit has been initiated by investors against J.P. Morgan Chase due to the $2 to $3 billion losses that occured.

Leave a comment
May 7, 2012

Jack Welch is Right

The Wall Street Journal recently hosted a forum on Women in the Economy. The event was attended by Women executives in which the conference centered around the role of women in the work place and how to eliminate cultural barriers to women advancing in the work place.

During the forum Jack Welch pointed out that if women want to get ahead in business they should over deliver. Performance is it, Welch remarked. Not surprisingly, after Jack and his wife Suzy made their comments, there was a very negative reaction on the part of audience members. One audience member stated that while she agreed with Jack Welch’s sentiments, she went on to state: But we can all do more to help people understand their unconscious biases. Another attendee stated that the meritocracy Welch spoke of was fiction and that his mentality resulted in the single biggest obstacle to women’s advancement. A woman board member who was in the audience commented that Jack Welch’s advice was not tailored to how women can attain parity in today’s male-dominated workplace.

All of these comments, including the reaction from the audience, is attributable to the influence of feminism (which is an extension of multiculturalism) in the work place. Like multiculturalism, feminism rejects objectivity in favor of groups in this case gender. Women are cast as being victims of male oppression in which and are declared to fail to obtain jobs and promotions only because of their sex but regardless if a woman is qualified for employment or not. The only oppression committed is on the part of feminists who use legitimate claims of discrimination as a means to mask their true hateful, neurotic, irrational interests and intent which ultimately grounded in hatred of men.

I will never forget the blunt statements of prominent feminists whose comments (to this day) have not been denounced by mainline feminist groups or individuals. Ms. Magazine Editor Robin Morgan is quoted as saying: I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them. Catherine MacKinnon who said: I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig. As a result of the lack of denunciation of such comments, actress Sharon Stone was prompted to state: The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.

As a whole feminism not only demands that certain qualifications be suspended in order to accommodate women. Feminist’s claims of pursuing justice for women ring hollow since the comments quoted from The Wall Street Journal article demonstrate that many women in business and in other fields of employment want to have their cake and eat it too. They want an easy path to employment with guarantees of jobs and wages which results in wiping out any semblance of who truly deserves to be hired. An employer instead will result in keeping the true reasons for the rejection of an applicant to themselves and look only to satisfy legal requirements.

When Carly Fiorina was head of Hewlett Packard she was kicked out not because she was a woman but the company was doing poorly under her leadership. When HP’s Board of Directors proposed giving department heads more leeway in terms of decision making and she resisted, the Board made moves to kick her out, respectfully. This is not to say discrimination does not occur. But if Carly Fiorina’s situation is any example, when you take a job you are expected by the employer to (at minimum) do what the required tasks are. If you really want to get ahead one must accurately judge their work-life balance and performance and not put the expectation on employers since to do so makes women a liability rather than an asset to a firm.

The straight talk made by Jack and Suzy Welch should be cheered and not jeered. If the comments made by the female executives made at the conference are any indication there is a semblance of entitlement brewing or present among women that has been fostered by the feminist movement. Rather than giving feedback to businesses on how to more accurately or objectively judge women by their qualifications, the feminist movement instead resorts to shackling business with laws geared toward recognition of group rights as well as litigation in the name of pseudo-egalitarian goals. As a result, consentual agreements and free association between parties (male or female) risk being obliterated in the name of an abstract higher concept known as equal rights.

The influence of feminism as such seeks to empower women over men with entitlement based on unrealistic expectations and by threat of force while enabling physical coercion against the existence of others.

Leave a comment
May 4, 2012

Liberty, Capitalism, and Anarchy

No debate has taken place in the libertarian movement more than the minarchy-anarchy debate. It is almost a given that at some point in their exchanges, libertarians will debate on which political position is the correct one usually leading into whether or not it is moral to vote. Most likely any such debate on the topic will also include the argument from anarchists that government is the root of all evil.

Rather than debate the merits of their assertion, anarchist libertarians will instead resort to Orwellian means refusing to identify that they follow consistency as intrinsic rather than grounded in reality. The term minarchism is attributed by Samuel Konkin III in which he used minarchist as a way to smear libertarians who subscribed to limited government. Anarchists also insult minarchists with the term limited statists. But are they?

Anarchists assert that since government is a monopoly on force that it is only in an anarchistic society that the true exchange of goods and services can be achieved. Their rejection of government is based on the premise that it is the only entity that can use force against citizens for the enforcement of taxation, restriction of trade and personal freedoms, and creation of monopolies and unfair competition via charters, grants, and subsidies.

While it is true that in a free society government has a monopoly on force a proper government (like what is seen in the United States) protects individual rights according to objective, philosophically validated procedures from its constitution down to its laws and regulations. Reality and man’s nature require a government to protect us against any kind of physical aggression including also the right to self defense in the event access to government courts or police is not available.

The major flaw in anarchist thought is their overall claim that governments always violate the very rights they are created to defend. Therefore, as logic would suggest that governments must be abolished. Furthermore, they see laissez-faire capitalism (rather than individual rights) as the foundation of a free and industrialized society.

What anarchist libertarians also fail to identify is the difference between anarchism and capitalism. While anarchism is the absence or abolition of government, capitalism is an extension of individualism that recognizes man’s right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness (i.e. individual rights). What guarantees individual rights in a capitalistic society entails having a government that has objective laws and a legal system along with consistent, easy to understand legal procedures and rules of evidence. This is the legal structure the United States and many Westernized countries have.

To the best of my knowledge, the existence of contradictory laws, customs and rules are things anarchists still have not adequately addressed. For example, whose laws shall prevail in a contract dispute or case involving an act of fraud? What standards shall be followed to determine the applicable procedures that should govern a particular case? In disputes involving a Muslim who subscribes to Sharia Law and non-Muslim which person’s legal system will govern it? Can the non-Muslim petition for a change of jurisprudence if they would prefer the case litigated elsewhere? What will be the court that will give the final decision should neither party agree with another court’s conclusion? How would conflicting jurisprudence among different legal systems be worked out? By what standards would conflicts be resolved?

Anarchism not only lacks specifics but is also a form of faith grounded in a rejection of order, objectivity and justice. By default Anarchism results in giving a blank check for organized gangs and other groups to take advantage of a state-less order so that groups with ulterior motives can impose their will on others with little means to stop them. This also includes groups (such as communists and Islamists) who oppose the very things libertarians stand for. As far as Islamists and communists are concerned, the right to bear arms, free speech or even individual rights overall would be put on the chopping block in order to sacrifice man to the needs of their collective will.

In the real world Islamists have openly stated their desire to stone, kill or enslave infidels (i.e. non-Muslims). This also includes communist and socialist groups who help them and subscribe to a similar, extreme anti-life philosophy. There is no guarantee that these groups would not seek to impose their will on the rest of us should there not be a government erected in order to stop them. The beneficence of the market can never work among men whose intent is evil.

Furthermore and hypothetically speaking, there is also nothing to stop a terrorist who hates capitalism and freedom from intentionally infecting themselves with a deadly strain of a virus (such as typhoid or tuberculosis) in order to spread it among the populace of an anarchist libertarian enclave resulting in its destruction. You can make the argument that an armed citizenry can halt such a person from doing so but by the time patient zero is identified it will be too late. The way things are now in order for a foreigner to enter the U.S. or any other country for business or leisure, the person in question is screened by government agents which is another example of how government protects people from force and fraud. If the person knowingly attempts to enter said country has a criminal background or has an infectious health condition they are quarantined until their background or health is cleared up or, rightly, sent back to their country of origin if it is determined the person or people in question pose a threat to the rights of the innocent.

The end result of anarchism isn’t just the rejection of objectivity and justice or the embracement of whim-worship, as author and Objectivist Amber Pawlik rightly points out it also makes man shift his primary ability from production to protection. She elaborates further by stating:

Man qua man lives solely by means of production. It is morally imperative that a proper political-economic system is in line with man’s method of survival. It is thus that a government should exist, whose sole purpose is to protect the private property of men. It is imperative that a government exist, ensuring man that he can live in freedom: free to produce, build, and achieve, without any fear of what his neighbors might to do those things that he has produced, built, and achieved. An individual should not have to worry about defending his property.

Instead of defending anarchism, anarchist libertarians should check their premise when it comes to what they advocate. It is one thing if anarchists would rather not vote because the candidates in question that are running don’t meet their ethical standards or prefer to use market-based solutions to government services (such as private security or arbitration companies) in their dealings with others. However, if Somalia’s experiment with anarchism is any example, anarchists cannot claim the moral high ground nor that their ideas are a true reflection or embracement of justice and civilization.

A proper constitution (like as seen in the United States) does not impose coercive demands on the citizens, or authorize the government to violate their rights. Rather, it treats man’s rights as negative requiring government agents to protect individual rights, while in a general sense leaving people free to go about their affairs. With this in mind I often wonder why anarchists object to government when such an arrangement that I describe above is neither coercive or immoral.

As author Robert Bidinotto correctly points out anarcho-capitalism really is a demand for the right to secede from the judgments of other people concerning the validity of one’s own use of force while simultaneously denying that there is a basic need to subject any use of force to objective — that is, socially demonstrable — standards. In other words, anarchist libertarian reliance on market forces is really an excuse for them wanting to choose their morality while, simultaneously rejecting any semblance of justice and objectivity.

By default anarchists treat competition and the initiation of force as rights in and of themselves. But no such rights exist and a proper understanding of the nature and source of individual rights and how they are implemented negates any idea that anarchism as an ideal or proper extension of liberty. The non-aggression principle does not negate government and, in turn, does not inherently contradict actual individual rights. Relations among humans is contextual and in the tradition of other libertarian thinkers Ayn Rand conjured it up as an ethic in Objectivism with government being a natural extension of her thought in order to protect an individual’s ability to live and prosper.

The only contradiction is on the part of anarcho-capitalists since it is obvious they want to have their cake and eat it too demanding recognition of their liberty, while eliminating the only means of rationally determining when an individual’s rights have been violated and being able to do anything about it. If libertarians value consistency over objectivity then anarchism is logically not too far around the corner. However, consistency is the only thing for which anarchists claim victory.

5 comments
May 2, 2012

The Case for Extra-Judicial Killings

Today marks the first anniversary of the death of terrorist financier and al-Quaeda founder Osama bin Laden. I do not cheer the deaths of innocent human beings but Osama bin Laden was anything but innocent. Not only did bin-Laden support terrorist operations against the United States with the money he recieved from his wealthy Saudi family along with founding al-Quaeda, he also declared war against the United States in 1998 and followed up later stating it was legitimate to kill Americans.

After bin-Laden was killed I will never forget the idiotic comments made by former C.I.A. analyst and Iraq war critic Ray McGovern who wrote an opinion piece downplaying the significance of bin-Laden’s killing as well as questioning the legality of President Obama ordering bin-Laden’s death. Essentially, McGovern not only questioned the legality of the operation, but also whined about it overall making comments in a tone reminiscent of a 5 year old boy. McGovern expressed fear that bin-Laden was martyred by U.S. forces acting arbitrarily and independently in a Muslim nation which, in theory, would inspire more terrorists. He added:

The professor turned president was out to show how tough he is and how his crackerjack extrajudicial assassins can get their man. There are commonly accepted legal ways to capture and bring such people to a court of law—yes, even the ‘bad guys’ like Osama bin Laden.

The ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights have weighed in on their own by filing lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of such decisions. Never mind that bin-Laden called the deaths of Americans as legitimate while helping to organize and support terrorism against the United States. Like bin-Laden Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki encouraged jihad among Muslims too. Awlaki gave ecclasiastical legitimacy and logistical support to terrorists like Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan who went on a deadly shooting spree at Fort Hood and a young Nigerian’s scheme to blow up a U.S. jet at Christmas.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that both men contributed and openly supported violent activities that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and American military personel, undaunted in their quest for their perverted sense of justice the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) issue a statement saying:

The government’s authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent … It is a mistake to invest the president — any president — with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country

It is this kind of inverted logic that indirectly helps terrorists. By questioning the logic behind actions in the War on Terrorism, people like bin-Laden and Awlaki are nearly given a blank check to continue doing what they do without any regard for human life. I also think it was a serious mistake for Attorney General William Holder to mention the President’s targeted killing program in his speech since that has given the ACLU and CCR the ammunition they need in order to file their lawsuits.

Not only Awlaki and bin-Laden support, inspire, and encourage jihad against the West but both men made a conscious, irrational choice to conduct and support the heinous acts of those who conducted acts of violence. If successful, killing Americans on the part of terrorists becomes much easier and we will have these two liberal laws firms to thank that also includes Terror War critics like McGovern and politicians like Ron Paul. When it is an established fact that whose who decide they are not only at war with the U.S. and follow through by giving logistical, material or moral support to terrorists or plot to or are in the act of conducting an act of terror they forfeit any semblance of legal protection and should be treated like enemy war combatants.

Despite the digusting conduct of such people and groups I will celebrate today like I did then. The anniversary of this event is certainly something to commemorate and cheer since it means one of the main figureheads terrorists looked to for inspiration is gone and will never return. The deaths of scum like bin-Laden and Awlaki mean more peaceful, innocent people live and Western Civilzation (especially the United States) is a little safer thanks to the actions of Seal Team 6 and other U.S. military and clandestine personel who helped make such events happen.

Leave a comment
May 1, 2012

The Beginning of the End for Newt?

After losing miserably in 5 state primary contests last week Newt Gingrich is going to suspend his Presidential campaign tomorrow. This is very unfortunate but not altogether surprising since Newt’s bad debate performance in Florida back in January must have damaged his campaign and image more than I thought. I believe Newt had gotten advice to go from the populist-sounding, anti-establishment conservative that took him over the top in South Carolina to a more Presidential-acting candidate when he campaigned in the Sunshine State. As a result of the change of pitch as well as not performing well in the televised debate for the Florida Republican primary it cost him badly.

Newt made it up somewhat when he participated in the Arizona debate and (fortunately) won in his home state of Georgia but, sadly, the damage was done. With Gingrich bowing out this all but seals the nomination for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, respectfully. Representative Ron Paul is in denial about the whole affair and still naively holds on to hope that he will win the nomination or have some sort of impact in the race. With Paul’s Blame America First stance on foreign policy, his refusal to prohibit Iran from acquiring nuclear technology if elected President, his surrounding himself with anti-semites and white nationalists, as well as Paul’s attack ads against Gingrich and Santorum while (up until recently) remaining silent on criticizing Mitt Romney nixes any chance of him becoming the GOP nominee. My concern is that the Republican Party could end up with a repeat of the 2008 John McCain Presidential campaign disaster.

Mitt Romney’s business experience is notable but as a former elected official he does not have record to run on and lacks any substance to take President Obama to task. His primary victory could very well be a Pyrrhic one since he did campaign on capitalism and free markets but chose not to defend such institutions when Romney headed the Bay State’s government. While Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney openly supported gun control and enacted new gun legislation, raised state taxes and fees by three quarters of a million dollars, up until recently supported indexing the minimum wage to inflation, enacted cap and trade legislation, and even urged the Obama Administration to enact an individual mandate as part of the Democrat’s 2009 health care law.

The only comfort I can take from Newt’s bowing out is that the direction is clear and it looks like Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican Party nominee. It is my hope that with the vetting Romney has gone through that he will more accommodating to the GOP’s Tea Party wing. His reversal on the minimum wage issue might be evidence of his willingness to do so. Unfortunately, Mitt Romney leaves nothing for someone like me to cheer for. At best, my vote for him will not be for Romney or his policies but a vote against Obama. Mitt Romney comes across as a lackluster candidate that is superficial, all talk and no substance. If Romney wins the Republican nomination (which I think is likely) when it comes time to cast my vote for President. However, this is the election of a lifetime and is too important to throw away or ignore. If Barack Obama gets another four years the results could be disastrous which is why it is important that a Republican replace the President.

I will not vote for the Libertarian Party candidate since third parties are a waste of time and voting for them can do great damage in political races. Third parties siphon votes away from a major party candidates that you can utilize to knock out an incumbent who has so many liabilities and deserves to be kicked out of office in which such is the case with Obama. Not only is vote fraud one of the ways Democrats obtain and maintain power but they also back including Libertarians in elections since LP candidates tend to tilt elections against Republicans.

On the local level I do plan to be a little more involved with the Tea Party and I think if libertarians are to have any impact in the GOP it is best done with this group. I have been to Tea Party meetings and am very impressed with their efforts. Most of the Precinct Committeemen in Maricopa County are Tea Party activists and they have been extremely effective in electing party officers as well as influencing the debate inside the Republican Party including what issues are addressed. If Romney is to be the nominee and President then let him campaign like a centrist. The obvious answer is to give Republicans the majority in Congress for 2012 which odds favor that happening come November. With a GOP House and Senate hopefully it will prod Romney to stay consistent with his pro-free enterprise message and reject any pragmatic moves on his part.

Is this the end of Newt Gingrich overall? Not in the least. I was surprised that he resurfaced on the public scene with his book Winning the Future as well as Newt’s other activities that I learned about including the events surrounding his stepping down as Speaker during the campaign. I think it is notable that Newt said he would support Mitt Romney if he won the nomination and Gingrich should be lauded for following through. However, as far as my support for Romney is concerned, he gets my vote and that is all. The rise and prominence of the Tea Party the Republican base has shifted sharply in the direction of a small government, pro-free market and anti-welfare-state direction. We will see how much of an effect this has on the GOP, it’s nominee and both candidates come the general election. Hopefully it is and will remain significant.

Leave a comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 51 other followers