The Weekly Sedition

Saturday, 19 January 2013

About those “flying saucers” . . .

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:40 PM

While perusing the forums of Free Republic, I found the following snipe attempt in response to a posting about supporting Ron Paul:

To: bravedog

A flying saucer on every rooftop.

35 posted on Thursday, May 03, 2012 8:20:47 PM by familyop (“Wanna cigarette? You’re never too young to start.” –Deacon, “Waterworld”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Well . . .

If we did get that “flying saucer on every rooftop,” then Mr. “familyop” won’t have much justification to snivel “Who will build the roads?!” as he (?) whines in support of the GOP’s social-engineering-and-welfare scheme of the day.

But do we really need government to spend a few million FRN on “rebuilding” roads? And forget about the hassles of traffic diversions, blockages, jams, and such.

NO, we do not.

But if private citizens build and repair the roads without government direction and subsidy, then what excuse would law enforcement have to levy double and triple fines for speeding through “construction zones” around town? And they do it, at least here in Albuquerque, even when the crews the extra fines are supposed to protect have gone home for the day.


NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 5.8
  2. Listening – The Last Command by W.A.S.P.

Copyright © 2013 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++ and KWrite.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Monday, 26 November 2012

Republicans, Grow Some Vertebrae for a Change

Current mood: annoyed, bitchy, cranky

11/25/2012 9:29 AM:

> A small group of Republicans in the south of New Mexico have the right idea. They are planning to attend the State Central Committee meeting
> and start there to change things. Good for them. It’s the sort of thinking, the sort of effort we should all be doing. But most of us are not.

More than likely, they’ll get the same sort of reception that Morton Blackwell and the Ron Paul Republicans got from Reince Priebus and the RNC at the GOP’s National Convention in Tampa, Florida this past August:

“Shut up and go sit in the corner. When we need your support, you better be there for us.”

> Why is not the State Republican Party talking to us? Why are not the county RPs sending their members messages of future plans?

Why should Monty Newman and Jay McCleskey care in the slightest what the grassroots Republicans think?

After all, the grassroots turned out for Slick Willard Romney and Heather Wilson, after Wilson and Romney were handed their nominations on silver platters by the GOP-E insiders.

Face it – the GOP-E insiders absolutely love you when you’re marching to their orders, no questions asked. It’s when you start insisting that the nominees adhere to certain principles that you get the door slammed in your face.

Just ask Ron Paul, Gary Johnson or Adam Kokesh how this works – either one of them can spell it out for you in detail.

Neither Romney nor Wilson were anything resembling capitalists of the limited-government, free-market orientation. Rather, they are more the sort of false “capitalists” that both Frederic Bastiat and Karl Marx excoriated. Wilson and Romney are more properly called mercantilists as Adam Smith defined the term in 1776.

But we all knew this since February and March of this year.

If you truly want to show McCleskey, Newman and Priebus that you’re serious players and not just waiting for new marching orders, then you need to tell them exactly where in explicit terms where they can stick candidates like Romney and Wilson.

> Why are we not having town halls in major cities so that grassroots Republicans can mull over ideas, consider plans to become a strong,
> solid phalanx and attract more adherents?

A “solid phalanx” of star-spangled jellyfish is what you’ll get under the management of McCleskey, Priebus and Newman.

At least that’s what you’ve gotten in the past from the GOP-E gang.

How will continuing to kowtow to them as you’ve done in the past yield better results for you?

> Why are we not gearing up to educate the population about the virtues of capitalism?

Good question.

When did you start caring about these?

If Republicans truly cared about “the virtues of capitalism,” then why did they nominate the likes of Heather Wilson and Mitt Romney for ANY sort of public office?

If you truly cared at all, then you wouldn’t give Republicans cut from the mercantilist mold the slightest bit of slack, just because they have the magic “Big R” after their names.

What did I see in the 2012 election cycle? Did I see any of that sort of courage and fortitude?

No, I didn’t. Instead, most of what landed into my inbox was stuff like “your wasting your vote,” “Youre either with us or youre with Obama!!!” – stuff like that.

> I do not want to hear more of the same pabulum from the same elected officials that have not stood up for individual rights, limited
> governments and free markets.

What you need to do is tell the GOP-E types where they can stick the pabulum and those who push it.

As long as you continue to support them unconditionally after they give you that pabulum, they see that you’re willing to settle for it. Thus that’s all you’ll really get from them.

> Instead, I’d like to hear Marco Rubio speak and Thomas Sowells, Yaron Brook and Dan Watkins. I’d like to hear John A. Allison talk to us
> about his new book, The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure.

Start raising money – the sooner the better, as all of these potential speakers are likely to charge a pretty penny to show up here in New Mexico.

And make sure to keep the GOPNM State Committee OUT of the loop where bringing speakers in is concerned – or all you will get is more of the same.

For what it’s worth, I will observe with amusement the efforts of the “Ron Paul” and Tea Party crowds to “take over” the Republican Party. I suspect that future efforts in this vein will yield similar results to previous efforts along that line.

Rather, I predict it will be the C4L and Tea Party groups who end up getting taken over and co-opted by the GOP-E types, and thus subsumed into being obedient, servile troopies for them. In short, pawns.

So if you LIKE riding in circles on a bus for a few hours, if you LIKE the MC confirming the votes for the GOP-E candidates while ignoring the votes for your candidates, if you LIKE being told what to say and what to think – then please continue on as before.

Anyway, Republicans – PROVE ME WRONG (No one’s done it yet.)

Hey, no one ever said that living as free people was easy – if it was, then everybody would do it. Sticking to your principles and standing up for what’s right can be costly, in many ways. Sometimes you might have to lose an election rather than put a mercantilist with the magic Big R after his name into public office.

Final notes: Gary Johnson is JUST GETTING STARTED. He plans to do a 2013 college speaking tour, just like he did in the 2012 election. And at his Election Night Party at the Hotel Albuquerque, I asked him to form at least an exploratory committee for the 2014 New Mexico gubernatorial race.

_______________________________________________________________________
Mike Blessing

Who owns you? Who runs your life? Who should – you or someone else?
Freedom is the answer – what’s the question?

“If you wanna live long on your own terms
You gotta be willing to crash and burn”
– Motley Crue, “Primal Scream”


Copyright © 2012 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.

This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Wednesday, 31 October 2012

A Vote for Gary Johnson Definitely Not a Waste

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 11:29 PM

A Vote for Gary Johnson Definitely Not a Waste

by Tom Mahon

Kenneth Brown, an economist, attempts to make the case that Gary Johnson’s libertarian candidacy for president may peel votes away from Mitt Romney. While portraying this as a blow to limited government, he fails to explain exactly how Romney would bring limited government and economic freedom to the White House.

Instead, as seems to be the case with most Romney supporters, the only case they can make for “their guy” is that “the other guy” (Obama) is so bad that supporters of limited government should abandon their principles and support Romney. I strongly disagree. In fact, throughout this campaign, I have seen far more examples of agreement between Romney and Obama.

It is only Johnson who will, if elected, bring the ideas of limited government to Washington.

On the economy and health care in particular, there is virtually no daylight between Obama and Romney. “Obamacare,” as we all know, has many of the same characteristics as does “RomneyCare” in Massachusetts. Now, of course, Romney says he would “repeal and replace” Obamacare, but his record as governor shows that he believes that government bureaucrats, not patients and their doctors, should control health care. Johnson would repeal Obamacare and work to restore free market principles in American health care.

In terms of economic growth, the real problems with our economy today is not the tax burden, rather it is bipartisan, out-of-control spending growth in Washington. Unlike Romney, whose specific budget cuts are limited to Big Bird and a few other trivial items but who wants a massive increase in military spending, Johnson would submit a balanced budget immediately upon taking office and would put the major spending areas – the entitlements and the military – on sustainable footing while eliminating boondoggles like farm subsidies and the War on Drugs.

Continuation of the War on Drugs is yet another area of agreement between Romney and Obama with which Johnson disagrees. Federal spending on the drug war amounts to over $15 billion annually and that isn’t even the real problem with it. The real problem is that the War on Drugs costs all of us our civil liberties, destroys poor and inner-city families (predominantly minorities), and costs us far more in terms of prisons, joblessness and other social harms than what Americans know.

Speaking of privacy, Obama and Romney would do nothing to reform or eliminate the absurd Transportation Security Administration which makes regular headlines groping grandmas and generally making life miserable for travelers, all with little to no impact on our security. Johnson will eliminate TSA, saving taxpayers $40 billion annually. The private sector – airlines, airports, or private security companies – will do a much better job for far less money.

And then there is foreign policy. Nowhere is the difference between Obama / Romney and Johnson starker.

Obama and Romney have pledged to continue this needless war which has no clear objective, has seen American troops gunned down and killed by their supposed “allies,” and will waste another $120 billion this year alone. Johnson will bring the troops home immediately.

Also, while Romney and Obama seem determined to start a war with Iran, Johnson will work to resolve the conflict with Iran peacefully as Iran has never threatened the United States and does not present a military threat to this country.

The case is clear. The only vote you are “throwing away” is a vote for four more years of bipartisan spending, violations of personal liberty and tragic soldier deaths in Afghanistan.

Our former governor, Gary Johnson, is easily the best choice for president!

Original article


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. LPUSA / LPNMLPNM Blog / [LPNM-discuss] Yahoo! group
    2. The Weekly SeditionYahoo!
    3. Duke City Fix / NMPolitics.org


Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.
This blog entry created with gedit and Notepad++.

Ken Brown Is NOT a Free-Market Advocate

Filed under: Comedy, Economics, Politics — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 11:02 PM

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Ken Brown Is NOT a Free-Market Advocate
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:40:47
From: Libertarian Party of New Mexico <lpnm.chair@gmail.com>
To: opinion@abqjournal.com

Re: Vote for Johnson May Help Obama

This isn’t the first time that Kenneth Brown has blown off free-market principles to support the Republican Party, and I suspect it won’t be the last time.

How are the individual health-insurance mandate that’s part of both Slick Willard’s Massachusetts RomneyCare and the ObamaCare that was created from it compatible with free-market economics? They aren’t, yet Brown says that Mittens is the best candidate in the race.

Another part of this comedy of errors is how Romney, Ryan and Heather Wilson are crying that ObamaCare was paid for by looting Medicare to the tune of 716,000,000,000 bucks. Let me get this straight – these “fiscally-restrained” “free marketers” are complaining that Obama’s scheme to federalize health care is being paid for by robbing Lyndon Johnson’s scheme to federalize health care?

How were George Bush’s TARP bailout and Bush’s bailout of General Motors compatible with free-market economics? They weren’t, yet “Mr. Free-Marketer” Brown insists that the same Romney who supported both bailout plans is the candidate that deserves the libertarian vote.

Yes, Mr. Brown, I’m calling you out as a phony where your “free market economics” creds are concerned. Deal with it.

For what it’s worth, I’m proud to say that I voted for Gary Johnson and Jon Barrie on Wednesday, 24 October. When Gary and Jon talk about their Tea Party values, they actually mean it. Imagine that.

______________________________________________________________________
Mike Blessing
State Chair, Libertarian Party of New Mexico
505-249-1248 / http://lpnm.us/wp

Who owns you? Who runs your life? Who should – you or someone else?
Freedom is the answer – what’s the question?


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. LPUSA / LPNMLPNM Blog / [LPNM-discuss] Yahoo! group
    2. The Weekly SeditionYahoo!
    3. Duke City Fix / NMPolitics.org


Copyright © 2012 Libertarian Party of New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.
This blog entry created with gedit and Notepad++.

Friday, 17 August 2012

Carla Howell: Mitt Romney = Big Government

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 10:47 PM

Current mood: cynical

Dear Friend of Liberty,

I ran for governor against Mitt Romney in 2002 in Massachusetts. I read his every press release, read every major newspaper article about him, and followed his every move throughout his governor campaign – and in each of the four years he served as governor.

Mitt Romney IS Big Government – to the core.

Which is why I nearly fell off my chair one day when I was asked by a libertarian, “Aren’t you glad to have Mitt Romney as your governor? He’s pretty libertarian, isn’t he?”

It is critical that voters know the truth about Big Government Mitt Romney. Please forward the below column to every voter you know who would consider voting for him.

Thank you for helping to set the record straight.

In liberty,

Carla Howell

Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

# # #

Mitt Romney: Champion of Big Government
By Carla Howell

Is Mitt Romney the “economic conservative” he claims to be? Especially when it comes to tax and spend policies?

Now that he’s running for president, let’s compare his words with his deeds.

Taxes

Romney claims to be anti-tax. He even “took” a “no new taxes” pledge when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. “Took” is in quotes because he refused to sign that pledge. His signature wasn’t necessary, he claimed. He assured us that he’s a man of his word.

But Mitt Romney has been a champion of new taxes.

Mitt Romney proposed three new taxes while campaigning for governor: a new tax on vehicles, a new tax on campaign donations, and a new tax on building construction. They didn’t get much fanfare in the media and were quickly forgotten.

Right before the 2002 election, he ran millions of dollars in ads portraying himself as a “no new taxes” governor. The media refused to set the record straight.

But that was only the beginning.

Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he raised taxes – while pretending he didn’t. He claims he only raised mandatory government “fees.” But government mandatory fees are nothing but taxes, and taxes are nothing but mandatory government fees. Romney’s new tax-fees raised hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax revenue for the state government every year.

In addition to:

  • scores of new tax-fees,

Mitt Romney also increased several other taxes by:

  • “closing loopholes” to enable collection of a new Internet sales tax
  • passing legislation that enables local governments to raise Business Property Taxes
  • enacting a new tax penalty that raises Income Taxes on both individuals and small businesses.

This, he claims, is not raising taxes.

I suppose you could say Romney merely enacted bills that force taxpayers to hand over billions of dollars – which end up in the coffers of the government.

Quacks like a tax increase?

In 2008, Romney boasted that he was the first presidential candidate to sign a “taxpayer protection pledge,” in which he promised to oppose “any and all efforts” to increase income taxes on people or businesses.

So he’ll call his tax increases “government fees” or “closing loopholes” or “penalties” or something else. But if Romney is president, the IRS will collect this money from you, your family, your friends, and millions of Americans just like you.

Government Spending

Mitt Romney claims to have cut the Massachusetts budget by “$2 billion.” Sometimes he claims he cut it “$3 billion.” The media gives him free advertising by parroting this myth repeatedly. They repeat it so often that even many fiscal conservatives and libertarians assume it must be true.

But these “cuts” were merely budget games. Spending cuts in one area were simply moved into another area of the budget.

In fact, not only did Mitt Romney refuse to cut the overall Massachusetts budget, he expanded it. Dramatically.

The Massachusetts state budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003.

When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took “off budget.” (Romney never reminds us of this fact.)

The net effect of budgets proposed and signed into law by Mitt Romney? An additional $5.2 billion in state spending – and a similar increase in new taxes. Every year.

He claims to have done a good job as governor of liberal Massachusetts in light of the fact that it’s a “tough state” for poor “conservatives” like him. He infers his hands were tied by the predominantly Democratic legislature.

But when it comes to tax and spend policies, he’s not only in lockstep with the Democrats. He leads the way.

Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he started budget negotiations by proposing an increase of about $1 billion in new government spending. Before the legislature even named a budget figure.

Romney initiated massive new spending – without any prodding.

The legislature responded with a handful of line item budget increases. Romney agreed to some of them and vetoed others. The media helped him out again by making fanfare of his vetoes and portraying him as tough on spending – after he had already given away the store!

The Romney-Kennedy Alliance

But his grande finale was the worst of all: RomneyCare, Mitt Romney’s version of socialized medicine.

By his own admission, he didn’t plan his socialized medicine scheme until after the 2002 election.

During Romney’s governor campaign, he convinced voters that his Democrat rival would be worse – because she would saddle us with socialist tax-and-spend policies, he said.

But soon after he was elected, Romney started the drumbeat for socialized medicine. Three years later, he signed RomneyCare into law.

Voters of Massachusetts did not vote for RomneyCare. Mitt Romney foisted the granddaddy of Big Government expansions upon them without warning. He championed it from the beginning. Again, without any prodding from his Democrat rivals.

When Romney ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, his campaign popularized the derogatory term “Kennedy country” to describe the devastating effects of Ted Kennedy’s “liberal social programs” on poor neighborhoods in Massachusetts.

Yet Mitt Romney stood proudly with Ted Kennedy while he signed RomneyCare into law.

Ted Kennedy has pushed for socialized medicine for decades. Romney fulfilled his dream. Kennedy lobbied the legislature hard to get Romney’s bill passed. It was a Romney-Kennedy alliance.

Welcome to Massachusetts: Romney-Kennedy country.

Romney’s socialized medicine law mandates everyone who doesn’t have insurance to buy it – or suffer income tax penalties. Both individuals and small businesses face steep fines if they refuse to give up their freedom to make their own health care choices. There’s yet another “off budget” Mitt Romney tax increase.

Romney’s mandate will cost individual taxpayers many thousands of dollars every year in health insurance premiums for unwanted policies – or force them to pay sizable tax penalties.

The total cost of RomneyCare in mandates and new spending? At least several billion dollars every year – to start. It will rise from there, as socialized medicine programs are wont to do.

Romney’s law went into full effect in 2009. Its harmful effects were not felt until after the 2008 presidential election was over. Romney’s time-release tax increase.

Romney’s Words Versus Romney’s Deeds

Smart moms tell their kids, “Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.”

That advice saved me a lot of heartache. And it will do the same for anyone who is leaning towards voting for Mitt Romney.

Candidate Romney campaigns for president with the words we’re aching to hear. Words we want to believe. Candidate Romney tells us that he is a:

  • “fiscal conservative”
  • “friend of small business”
  • “tax cutter”
  • “waste fighter”
  • “opponent of runaway spending”
  • “tough leader who vetoes new taxes and needless government spending”

Let’s follow Mom’s advice: ignore candidate Romney’s words. Look at elected Governor Romney’s deeds.

What does he do when he’s elected?

Mitt Romney hits up taxpayers with a variety of new taxes – while pretending he doesn’t.

Mitt Romney jacks up government spending as much as any Big Government Democrat would.

Mitt Romney champions massive Big Government Programs – that made Ted Kennedy proud.


NOTES

  1. Original article
  2. Reposted —
    1. LPUSA / LPNMLPNM Blog
    2. NMPolitics.org


Copyright © 2012 LPUSA, Libertarian Party of New Mexico. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.
This blog entry created with gedit and Notepad++.

Thursday, 17 February 2011

Donald Trump on Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani

Filed under: Comedy, Entertainment, Politics — Tags: , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 2:07 PM

In the video clip below, “The Donald” Trump tells CPAC attendees why Ron Paul is “unelectable.”[1]

So if “The Donald” is (s)elected to be President of the United States, will Rudy Giuliani end up as First Lady?

First Harlot is more like it, given Rudy-poo’s previous political career.

No offense intended towards honest courtesans and sluts. Nor any offense intended towards any Liberty-favoring folks living the LGBTQ, kinky, poly, etc., lifestyles[2].

Trump – YOU’RE FIRED.


NOTES

  1. My preference for the GOP presidential nomination is for Gary Johnson. Picture this – Gary Johnson vs. Bill Richardson as the Democrat nominee. Two two-term governors from the same state – all the voters would have to do is compare the candidates’ track records as governor – Richardson would almost have to go negative in order to win, and the last time someone tried that against Gary Johnson (Slick Marty Chavez in 1998), it backfired big-time.

    As for Obama having the Democrat nomination locked up now, well, I’m sure that in 1967, Lyndon Johnson thought that he was a shoe-in for the 1968 nomination.

  2. For example, Outright USA and Pink Pistols.
  3. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs – WordPress / Xanga
    2. KCUF Media – WordPress / Xanga
    3. Darth Mike
    4. New Mexico Liberty / Patriotic Resistance


Copyright © 2011 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved. Produced by KCUF Media.
This blog entry created with Notepad++     

Wednesday, 25 August 2010

How to handle Ronald Reagan? [LP Monday Message]

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , — weeklysedition @ 1:21 PM

August 23, 2010

Dear Friend of Liberty,

As the 2010 election approaches, a lot of Republican politicians are trying to posture as government-cutters, and they often hold up Ronald Reagan as an example.

But although Reagan often talked about supporting smaller government, most Libertarians know that in practice he did exactly the opposite. For example:

  • Reagan boosted import tariffs and trade restrictions.
  • Reagan cut marginal income tax rates, but he also raised Social Security taxes.
  • Reagan increased farm subsidies.
  • Reagan sent the federal debt through the roof.
  • Federal spending under Reagan grew from $678 billion to $1.14 trillion.
  • Reagan set the record for the highest average spending as a percent of GDP over his administration. (Obama may beat him.)

Many people are complaining right now about unemployment under Barack Obama. In the first 18 months of Obama’s presidency, unemployment has increased from 7.7 percent to 9.5 percent.

Did you know that during the first 18 months of Reagan’s presidency, unemployment increased from 7.5 percent to 9.8 percent? That’s even worse, but I don’t hear a lot of Republicans mentioning it.

Many Republican politicians, operatives and talk show hosts like to talk positively about Reagan and try to portray him as delivering smaller government. They don’t say that about George W. Bush. I presume that’s to try and convince voters that Bush was bad in some ways, and we should all try to be more like Reagan.

Some polls show Reagan is reasonably well-respected these days. I think the positive reactions are often based on misconceptions, and that brings up an interesting point: how should Libertarians deal with the Ronald Reagan myth?

To address that question, we put up a new poll today. Please share your opinion.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets and civil liberties. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.


NOTES

  1. Original article
  2. Reposted —
    1. KCUF Media — Blogspot / Xanga
    2. New Mexico Liberty / Mike Blessing for State Representative / The LPNM Blog

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Friday, 5 February 2010

Adam Kokesh at UNM, 3 Feb 2010

Filed under: Events, Politics — Tags: , , , , , — weeklysedition @ 5:08 PM

Current mood: ecstatic

Last Wednesday, I braved the falling snow and rain on Central Ave. to make the Kokesh for Congress rally that took place in the atrium of the Student Union Building. I parked at Bryn Mawr and Columbia NE (several blocks to the east of the facility where the rally actually took place) because the parking situation at UNM makes the CNM setup look like a work of genius, and I didn’t feel like dealing with the hassle. I spent about 30 minutes looking for a spot before settling on a two-hour curb at around 11:15 AM.

Upon arriving (30 minutes early — I overestimated the time it would take to walk from where I parked to the SUB by about 20 minutes), I met some libertarian-leaning Republicans, in particular Rhead Story and Bob Cornelius, and we talked for a bit. I found out that the GOPNM’s current State Chairman, a Harvey Yates, has allegedly used his position as a party officer to funnel a pile of cash (about 1200) to one candidate in a race while not offering an equal pile of cash to the other candidate seeking the same office. This is apparently a felony under New Mexico state law. Ha ha ha.

At around 11:50 AM, the Kokesh campaign volunteers started arriving, followed by Adam himself at 12:00 PM on the dot. Adam was introduced by Ruben Pacheco of UNM’s chapter of Young Americans for Liberty. Also present were representatives from Students Against Empire.

Ruben Pacheco introducing Adam Kokesh – Photo by myself

At that point, Adam took the podium, grabbed the microphone and proceeded to . . . have fun with his politics (something I’ve been telling my fellow Libertarian Party members to do for years!) — Adam not only has the principles down, but can articulate them to the uninitiated. After his speech (given without notes, cue cards, or teleprompters), Adam proceeded to talk with volunteers and spectators for a while.

It’s important to note that the assembled listeners roughly doubled in number from the time he started his speech to the time he finished up and left the podium.

Photo by myself

Adam Kokesh at the UNM SUB – Photo by Andrew Sharp

Some of the other volunteers present from the campaign —

  • John Newby[1]
  • Mike Morasco (sp?), who rode his bicycle across the continental United States TWICE to spread the Ron Paul message

After the rally was over, I hustled out of the SUB and headed back to my car, and arrived with five minutes to spare on the parking spot. Still, I checked my tires for a parking-enforcement “boot” — the meter-readers aren’t the brightest, but do have the tendency to be rather capricious. When I got home, the snowstorm was in full bloom.


NOTES

  1. John came to our Liberty Forum last night (Thursday, 4 Feb 2010) at Fiesta’s and talked for a while with myself, Ron Bjornstad and Bill Koehler about the campaign, the GOP, the LP, New Mexico, Adam, etc., etc. As John was leaving, he asked us, “What can we do for you?” (I’m used to hearing “What can you do for me?”) My response? “Let Adam be Adam.”
  2. The campaign’s official blog posting — Adam Speaks to Students at UNM

Copyright © 2010 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Thursday, 31 December 2009

Republicans as Nazis?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , — weeklysedition @ 5:47 PM

How many times have the “progressive” “opponents” of President George Bush XLIII compared him to Hitler, and his Administration to the Third Reich?

It does get tiring after a while, but they unwittingly DO have a point.

What George W. and the GOP have done in between 21 January 2001 and 2 January 2007 is EXACTLY what the Austrian corporal turned Reichschancellor did between 1929 and 1945 — he took a pile of “left-wing” socialist economic policies and painted over them with flag-waving nationalism and racial and religious bigotry.

Well, the “Main Street” wing of the GOP, embodied by their 2008 Presidential candidate, John McCain[1] DID help George W. create the first round of corporate-welfare bailouts just before that election. There’s your “left-wing” economics, along with Medicare Part D, the resurrection of farm subsidies[2], among other things.

What about the flag-waving and bigotry, you might ask?

Well, what about the comments from self-styled “conservatives” about how “the Muslims will come here and force their ways upon us” ? Is that really true of all Muslims? Probably not for more than a very few.

Then, to compound the cover-up of the GOP’s “left-wing” economics, there’s the ongoing demonization of Mexican immigrants — “they’re stealing our jobs!” and such.

Of course, it should be fun to watch as the “progressives” either squirm to excuse Obama’s backpedaling from campaign promises, or they desert from his Ruling Coalition the Democratic Party.


NOTES

  1. I can’t remember all of the times I’ve referred to McCain as “McClown” or “the Manchurian Senator” over at New Mexico Liberty
  2. Phased out by Waco Willie of all people with the  Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, while George W. signed the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, where Republicans opposed subsidy caps.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Monday, 18 August 2008

Dan East, GOP Gun-Grabber

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , — weeklysedition @ 9:49 PM

Dan East is a Republican running against Democrat Ben Ray Lujan for New Mexico’s 3rd U.S. Congressional District seat. Recently, he was interviewed by the CNM Chronicle concerning his candidacy. His campaign website is daneast4congress.com. The interview was conducted by Chronicle editor and reporter C.S. Tillman. The interview took up a full page of the 22-28 July 2008 edition, with a full-color picture of East taking up the top half of the page.

And who says that the media gives Republicans the short end of the stick?

Question number seven of the interview —

I strongly believe in our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It is fundamental that people have an inalienable right to protect themselves and their families. That being said, I do not believe that armor piercing bullets, .50 caliber guns, or semi-automatics are necessary.

The Issues page on his site says this concerning the Second —


2nd Amendment

Protect the rights of Americans
Enforce existing laws and make sure violent criminals are punished to the full extent of these laws

Considering what East says in the rest of the interview, he’s a typical hoplophobic bigot, and a neocon artist in the same style as Comrade George XLIII and Comrade Senator McClown. He wants corporate welfare, andt o define marriage while offering (shoddy) lip service towards equal rights. He wants to be seen by the NRA types as the “lesser of two evils,” while pandering to the “leftists” in Santa Fe and Taos at the same time.

Of course, this is not new for northern New Mexico. Back in 1994, the GOP ran Santa Fe venture capitalist F. Gregg Bemis as their candidate for this spot in the Congress. Bemis was worse than then-incumbent Bill Richardson, getting an “F” from Gun Owners of America, in comparison to Richardson’s “C.”

As for the “lesser of two evils” argument — screw that — I’m endorsing Cthulhu for this office.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »