Current mood: excited

For those wondering how the Gary Johnson UNM Rally for Jobs, Opportunity and Diversity on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 went, here’s some of the details:

I arrived right at about 5:25 PM, after spending about ten minutes looking for a parking lot – the “A” lot was packed. I ended up paying the ∅7.00 for a spot in the parking structure next to the square by the SUB.

Upon arriving at the ballroom, I dropped off my plastic milk crate full of brochures at the LPNM table manned by Mark Curtis, Ron Bjornstad, Elizabeth Honce, Elisheva Levin, and others.

After dropping off the supplies (it was a bit painful to carry that crate from the parking structure to the ballroom), I met Tom Mahon and Todd Myers where “Jack Gault” was parked. They had a spare Sharpie marker-pen on hand, so I signed the van on the front of the hood – dead-center, right above the edge where the latch is located.

At the same time, I made contact with the Sigma Alpha Epsilon representative and made myself available for my speaking slot.

While waiting for my speaking time, I went to the “green room” and had my picture taken with Gary Johnson.

So I presented my speech, came in at 6:20 – 1:20 longer than the 5 minutes I had planned for. While I didn’t get the standing ovations that later speakers got, several people came up to me afterwards and complimented me on my bit.

Next up for the podium was the Independent American Party’s candidate for U.S. Senate, Jon Barrie. If Jon wasn’t running, I suspect many New Mexico Libertarians would be casting blanks come their time at the ballot “box.” Jon talked for about ten minutes, mentioned that the politicians had their chance (too many chances to be forgiven come the election) to fix things, and ended with a standing ovation from the audience.

Following Jon Barrie was Paul Gessing of the Rio Grande Foundation, New Mexico’s only think-tank that supports what the Tea Party claims to support – free-market economics, public-sector fiscal restraint, individual rights and Constitutionally-limited government. Paul talked about what New Mexico needs to prosper as a state.

After Paul, Jim Villanucci of 770 KKOB-AM spoke about how much crap listeners were giving him about his not supporting Mittens. After all, it’s either “you’re for Romney or you’re for Obama,” correct? Not even close – and with that, Jim introduced Gary Johnson as the only candidate in the presidential race worthy of libertarians’ support.

Here’s the video clip on YouTube of Gary’s speech – http://youtu.be/bInmA5MhXTg

What did Gary discuss? First, he talked about his business background – he started Big J Enterprises on his own out of college, built it to 1,000 employees, then sold it in 1999 without having to fire anyone. He said that his business career is just a testament to showing up on time and doing what you say you’ll do for people, maybe a little more.

His unsolicited advice to the audience? Go into business for yourself as opposed to punching someone else’s time-clock – you’ll find it much more rewarding. This dovetails with what I’ve heard from other libertarian entrepreneurs . . . .

Here’s some of his talking points:

• With everything that you do in life, there are obstacles – you just have to keep going.

• When he first ran for office (1994), the GOP leadership blew him off as “unelectable,” but he ended up winning the general election.
• While serving as Governor of New Mexico, he vetoed 750 pieces of legislation – more than the other 49 governors in the country put together. He had thousands of line-item vetoes, taking it to a new level – only two were overridden.
• With those vetoes, he saved up a few dumptrucks-full of ∅∅∅∅∅∅∅ by cutting out unnecessary spending and blocking regulations that weren’t going to make us the slightest bit safer.
• The powers-that-be predicted imminent disaster after Johnson’s vetoes, which didn’t happen. Also, he was an equal-opportunity vetoer – he vetoed bad bills from Republicans
• Of all of the presidential candidates for the 2012 election season, he’s the only one viewed favorably in his home state – “people wave at me with all five fingers, not just one.”
• Of all the presidential candidates, he had the best record on job creation, except that he didn’t create any jobs as governor – any jobs created were created by the private sector. There was certainty in New Mexico’s regulatory environment, and that makes it easier for the private sector to create jobs.
• Out of all of the presidential candidates, he has the most “Liberty Torches” from the ACLU (21 out of 24).
• He’s the only candidate who doesn’t want to bomb or use sanctions against Iran. Iran isn’t the threat to America or anyone else that the hairspray-heads supporting the Imperial District make it out to be.
• China isn’t a threat to America due to the way the two countries trade with each other.
• Bring the troops home from Afghanistan now.
• Military interventions around the world mostly create more enemies for America.
• Marriage equality is a federal issue and constitutionally guaranteed.
• He’s the only presidential candidate who wants to end the drug wars now. Over fifty percent of Americans support legalizing marijuana. Ninety percent of the drug problem is prohibition-related, not user-related.
• If he had been president after “9/11,” hw would have vetoed the USA-PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the NDAA-2012. “Homeland Security” is incredibly redundant. Let’s leave airport security to the airports, airlines, cities, etc.
• We need to balance the federal budget now – he promises to submit a balanced budget to Congress for 2013. Otherwise, with the current out-of-control Federal Reserve, we’re looking at a monetary collapse at some point in the future. What we need is a 43 % cut in spending across the board.
• When someone complains about the idea of a 43 % cut in Medicare spending, the alternative is NO Medicare. (Same goes for the rest of the welfare state, too – tighten the belt or lose your shirt.)
• Cut military spending by 43 % too – the operative word there is “defense,” not “offense,” not “nation-building.”
• The current spending situation is the biggest threat to our national security.
• He’s the only candidate who wants to dump the income tax, corporate tax and replace them with one consumption tax – the “Fair Tax.”
• He’s the only candidate that would shut down the Federal Reserve.

Notes and recollections from the event:

• The estimated total attendance was around 500 people.

• Cleanup was rather easy – it mostly consisted of policing up unused campaign supplies that were left behind by attendees.
• I was expecting someone from the GOP to attempt some sort of disruption – bringing in signs for Romney or Wilson, that sort of thing. Luckily, nothing of the sort happened that I saw.
• I found some campaign cards from three Republicans running for State-level judgeships on the floor in the seating area – Miles Hanisee, David Standridge, and Samuel Winder. It was also reported to me by event staff that Judge Winder himself had been in the audience.
• Someone (ID unknown) had apparently issued invitations to both Martin Heinrich and Heather Wilson to appear on the speakers’ list. After all, it’s a non-partisan event, due to SAE being a 501-C-3 entity and all. I was told that while Heinrich declined immediately, Wilson dithered and vacillated around about it for two weeks, declining for sure on the Monday before (8 October).
• About 60 percent of the brochures that I brought with me were picked up by attendees and passerby – which helped a lot on the way back to the parking structure. (Note to self: get a hand-truck for next time!)

All in all, this was the best-attended LPNM event I’ve seen yet in my 18 years with the organization. Thanks to all who made it possible:

The UNM Chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon
Jon Barrie
Ron Bjornstad
Chris Chase
Mark Curtis
Paul Gessing
Susan Ann Holland
Elizabeth Honce
Melanie Hyland
Gary Johnson
Bruce Levin
Elisheva Levin
Tom Mahon
Sean Mallory
Todd Myers
Reviva
Kyle Ruggles
Jim Villanucci
Bob Walsh

Apologies to anyone I’ve omitted – the fault there is entirely mine.

---

NOTES

1. Reposted –
   1. Personal micro-blogs – Facebook / Google Plus / Twitter

   2. Personal blogs – Blogspot / WordPress
   3. LPUSA / LPNM – LPNM Blog / LPNM Facebook group / New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group / [LPNM-discuss] Yahoo! group
   4. The Weekly Sedition
   5. Duke City Fix / NMPolitics.org

---

Current mood: cranky

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Will tonight’s debate be fair? Of course not!
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:31:54 -0600

10/16/2012 12:40 PM:

We can fully expect tonight’s debate to be dominated by one person: Candy Crowley.

Referring to these 90-minute commercials for Big Government as “debates” is the joke of the election season.

The Knipfing-steered Wilson-Heinrich spat was just as pathetic, although without the funny bits, such as the one where The Great White Obama cited the Declaration of Independence and talked about “free enterprise.”

But since tonight’s thinly-disguised advert is all about Robamney “vs” Robamney, what exactly is the Big R side of this all about, beyond increasing the size, expense and intrusiveness of Leviathan at the federal level?

Sure, Mittens says that he wants to lighten the Imperial District’s load on our backs, but not by much.

And then The Barack accuses Mittens of wanting to “slash” federal spending – to which Mittens replies by saying “We’re not slashing anything, we just want to slow the growth . . . “

Disgusting.

So how does anyone who claims the “Tea Party” ideals of supporting Constitutionally-limited government, fiscal restraint, individual rights and free-market economics end up supporting the likes of Mitt Romney?

Besides by dipping into the self-delusion of cognitive dissonance, that is?

Even ABC reporter Martha Radditz (whom I respect) was slanted in the vice-presidential debate, telling Paul Ryan “We’ve gone over this enough”, and “Let’s move on.” anytime he started to gain traction on Biden.

Let’s see – Ryan is the Congresscritter whose budget plan doesn’t balance the federal budget for 25, 30 years, and he hoped to gain any sort of traction on Biden?!

Ah, cognitive dissonance again.

That’s all right. In the end, Mitt Romney will outperform Obama.

That’s not exactly a high standard you’re hoping for there.

This is like having a pole-vaulting contest where the horizontal bar is resting on the floor.

---

NOTES

1. Reposted
   1. Personal blogs – WordPress
      -
   2. The Weekly Sedition
   3. NMPolitics.org

---

Current mood: cranky

6:04 PM: Heather Wilson scolds Heinrich for being a big-spending, big-government Congresscritter.
Heinrich returns the favor. Heinrich brings up the DNC talking points.

6:05 PM: Heather mentions her ten years in the U.S. House for the first time that I’ve heard this election season.

6:06 PM: Heinrich – all of the Bush years were deficit spending.

6:07 PM: Heinrich – Ryan budget plan is part of the tax cuts

6:08 PM: Wilson tries to “school” Heinrich – same manner as Romney vs Obama – but comes off really lame.
Heinrich calls “cut, cap and balance” the “Tea Party plan”

6:09 PM: Heinrich says we need to level the playing field, invest in infrastructure.
Wilson says government can’t create wealth – we need low taxes and “predictable regulations”

6:10 PM: Wilson to Heinrich – You want to raise taxes on small businesses.
Heinrich cites Romney as an example of someone who needs to pay more.

6:11 PM: Heinrich – Cut cap and balance would cut pay of firefighters, military people, cops.
Wilson to Heinrich – “you don’t understand how taxes work”

6:12 PM: Heinrich – “we can’t just cut spending” – “we need to raise revenue as well”

6:13 PM: Wilson – would be happy to raise revenue.
Knipfing – “What programs to cut?”
Wilson – Cut Obamacare because it takes 716B from Medicare, balanced budget amendment
Heinrich – Reagan pay-go plan worked – new programs must be paid for, get rid of things we don’t need anymore – oil subsidies for big oil companies, not small outfits on Permian Basin. Romney doesn’t pays enough in taxes.

6:15 PM: Wilson – Bush tax relief spurred economic growth, reduced deficit.

6:16 PM: Wilson – Domenici got us back to balanced budget, you [Heinrich] have voted for deficit spending all years in Congress

6:17 PM: Heinrich – we do well as a country when the middle class does well, protecting social security and medicare, keeping promises to veterans
Wilson to Heinrich: “quit ‘helping’ the middle class.”

---

NOTES

1. Reposted –
   1. Personal blogs – WordPress

   2. The Weekly Sedition

---

Current mood: excited

Genesis of the Seventh Column . . . ?

by Mike Blessing, State Chair, Libertarian Party of New Mexico
Speech to the Gary Johnson UNM Rally for Jobs, Opportunity and Diversity
Tuesday, 9 October 2012

How many of you have read anything by Robert A. Heinlein? Raise your hand if you have.

The Master’s most famous books are Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I recommend reading all of them if you haven’t already.

But tonight I want to talk about one of Heinlein’s lesser-known books, titled Sixth Column. Originally written in 1941, it’s about an underground resistance network that forms after America suffers a foreign invasion. One of the characters coins the idea that since a fifth column is composed of traitors supporting the invasion, the resistance devoted to defeating it should be called a sixth column. After the invasion is defeated, one of the scientists supporting the resistance says it’s time to take the reins of power for themselves, because, after all, they know better than the common man in the street how to run things. One of the Army officers in the resistance nixes that idea rather quickly, noting that such a coup from domestic elements would be no better than the foreign invasion was in that both are forms of imposed dictatorship – exactly what America is not supposed to be. That is, if you take the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights seriously, and not as mere “goddamn pieces of paper,” to paraphrase George W. Bush.

Assembled friends and guests, what we’ve got here is the beginning of a seventh column. The difference between Heinlein’s sixth and the seventh is that this isn’t an underground movement at all – we want publicity for it, as public outreach is one of our greatest tools.

And what, pray tell, is the true opposition that we face? It isn’t the Democrats, the Republicans or the Muslims – it isn’t any specific person or group, but rather competing sets of bad ideas in the public sphere. Among those bad ideas are the following:

• The collective should come before the individual.

• Everyone should sacrifice themselves for others with no expectation of reward.
• Government exists to promulgate these premises.
• Government exists to “run society.”

It’s our job to counter those bad ideas – not by demanding censorship and suppression of them, not by persecuting their proponents, but by offering better ideas of our own.

The core premise of what Governor Johnson and I, among others, are offering as better ideas is called the Non-Aggression Principle (some call it the Zero Aggression Principle). Here it is –

No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force or fraud against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate or threaten such initiation, nor delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are what I refer to as “small-l libertarians,” whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.

Now you might think that this is some crazy stuff out of left field (or right field, if you’re an Wilsonian or Rooseveltian type of so-called “liberal”), but it’s been around in various forms for thousands of years. Here are some examples:

• The Greek philosopher Epicurus advocated avoiding politics altogether, “since doing so leads to trouble.”

• Marcus Tullius Cicero of the Roman Empire was a proponent of natural rights.
• The Wiccan Rede – “An it harm none, do what thou wilt” – sounds rather similar to the Non-Aggression Principle.
• Jesus’ teachings of “Let who is without sin cast the first stone” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” come to mind.
• According to Lao Tzu, the best way to govern is not to govern – he wrote in the Daodejing: “The more prohibitions there are, the poorer the people become.”
• Thomas Jefferson, primary author of the Declaration of Independence, said “That which governs best, governs least.”

An easier way to say this is “If you’re not hurting anyone else, you have the right to do as you please.”

Going along with that right are the responsibilities to:

• Respect the rights of others to do as they please if they’re not hurting others.

• Do what you’ve voluntarily agreed to do, as not following through on such promises is a form of fraud.

Now some might ask in response, “What about defense? Are we supposed to let ourselves be attacked?”

Well, you can allow yourselves to be beat up, mugged, what have you as much as you want, without lifting a finger in your own defense. Local gadfly Don Schrader is noted for that approach – he’s also extremely polite to people on the personal level – he has to be, as he disavows the use of force for self-defense.

Note that the Non-Aggression Principle only denounces the initiation of force or fraud. In my opinion, all turning the other cheek does is presents another side of your face for an attacker to use as a punching bag. As such, others here, myself, Jon Barrie &8211l stand up and take a bow, Jon – are rather enthusiastic proponents of self-defense, and the corollary right to own and carry weapons, as guaranteed (or supposed to be guaranteed) by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Particularly the military variety of weapons, as the Founders put forth in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. Again, in accordance with the Non-Aggression Principle, we’re not initiating force against anyone – but we prefer to be prepared should someone else attempt to initiate force against us. As my father told me when I was six years old, “Don’t go looking for a fight, but be prepared to finish it.”

On that note, if theres any LGBT folks present, I’d like to get with you later tonight to talk about setting up a chapter of the Pink Pistols organization for Albuquerque and / or New Mexico.

So exactly what are we offering here?

Simple – our mission is to consistently apply the Non-Aggression Principle to the issues of the day that appear in the political realm.

Health care? The federal and state governments have no proper role in micromanaging what kind of medical insurance you have, or whether you have any at all. Nor is their proper role to provide that insurance. Where in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is the Congress empowered to be involved in ANY of this?

Yes, I understand this is contrary to what some slicked-up flim-flam artist from Massachusetts says when he calls himself a supporter of “free enterprise.” So where exactly does such a “free marketer” get off telling us that federal force should be used to require anyone to purchase health insurance? I note that this same confidence man also has denounced the right to own and carry weapons for self-defense in the past – 2004 was the most egregious instance – but NOW he “supports” that right.

Energy policy? The federal and state governments should not be empowered to mandate that any type of fuel be the “official” one for anyone not under the express employment of those governments. Where in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is the Congress permitted to do this? It isn’t – but they’ve usurped that role away from us, who are supposed to be their bosses. If it wasn’t for Congressional meddling in the energy sector, gas would be a dollar a gallon, if not fifty cents or a quarter, and thanks to nuclear power, electricity truly would be too cheap to meter on a watt-by-watt basis – your electric bill would be more like your internet bill is today.

Tax policy? Ideally, we wouldn’t have any sort of taxes at all, as taxation is simply taking money from others without their consent – it’s a gov-speak codeword for the terms “theft” or “plunder.” The current income taxes are especially nasty – they require you to send in up to half of what you make – what they do is punish honest work and investment. Half of your time spent earning money is really working for the government, and you pay the government for that privilege – isn’t that right up the alley of chattel slavery in the pre-1865 South? The big difference now, of course, is that we have a say in who the slavemasters are in Washington DC and Santa Fe.

Well, folks, what can we do about this sorry state of affairs that we find ourselves in?

Voting for candidates is the last step in the process – first we have to educate other voters about the issues of the day, and how to apply the Non-Aggression Principle to those issues. How to do that?

Joseph Goebbels – the same Goebbels who ran Hitler’s propaganda machine – used the tactic of The Big Lie – any lie stated often enough, loudly enough and dramatically enough will be believed.

Our job as adherents to the Non-Aggression Principle are to refrain from initiating force or fraud against others. Thus we are obligated to tell the truth about the issues.

I propose that we modify Goebbels’ Big Lie tactic and make it The Big Truth – the truth should be stated loudly, dramatically and often. Shout it from the rooftops, as the saying goes. Isn’t there a part of the Bible that says “Proclaim liberty throughout the land” ?

Part of getting that truth is keeping a close eye on all of the politicians – including those who claim to be adherents of the Non-Aggression Principle. Simply electing politicians to office who profess that they are adherents to the Non-Aggression Principle isn’t enough. Paraphrasing Lord Acton, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. All great men are bad men.”

Just because a politician makes the right sort of comments during the election season doesn’t mean that they will be true to their word after entering office. It’s up to YOU, fellow citizens, to keep them under scrutiny for their terms, watching them under a microscope, questioning every bill they sponsor or sign, and examining every statement they make about public policy.

Politicians aren’t known for telling you the truth. If anything, they’re known for playing games with the truth – bending it, stretching it, equivocating, vacillating, warping the truth into something where an M.C. Escher drawing would seem rather straightforward in comparison.

Well, technology is on our side for a change. Smartphones with video recording capability are getting cheaper and more capable. On the internet side of things, bandwidth and hosting space keep dropping in price, after you adjust for Bernanke’s antics. So when a politician gives a speech or press conference, hold up that smartphone. Ask them your questions. Put them on the spot they so richly deserve.

Are you up for the task?

Now we can argue forever about how far or how fast to go in shrinking government’s influence in our lives, or which of Leviathan’s tentacles should go to the chopping block first. Some are no doubt thinking “Mike is just an anarchist.”

Understand that a true anarchist isn’t one of these Black Bloc creeps whom the media labels as one after they throw a brick through a storefront window. The word “anarchy” doesn’t mean “no rules” – the laws of nature are rules. So if Congress, in its infinite wisdom decided to repeal the laws of gravity, it should be safe to jump off of the roof of a thirty-story building? I encourage them to lead by example.

No, the word “anarchy” means “no rulers.” Thus, a true anarchist is simply opposed to any sort permanent ruling class, of the sort that we currently find ourselves saddled and yoked by at all levels of government, at rates that would cause a medieval serf to rise in rebellion.

But still, while I do lean that way, it seems that the State will be with us always. To head off the ever-lasting fights over this, I suggest a simple line in the sand for us.

Candidates, officeholders or appointed spokespersons at all levels of government or the political parties should refrain from advocating new or more restrictive laws, new or more expensive spending programs, or new or higher taxes. To paraphrase from the medical profession, “First, do no harm.”

Personally, I’ll go further and say the following:

Government doesn’t produce anything – all it does is take from one person and give to another. Government is most often a “negative” influence on society. Just as in mathematics, going “negative” against another “negative” leads to a “postive” result: –1 x –1 = 1.

Those who do initiate force or fraud against other individuals deserve no sympathy should their victims decide to get even in some manner, or if those victims get the drop on the aggressors at the time of the crime. Nor do they deserve any support from anyone else in society – any ridicule or bad language sent their way is justified.

I’ll leave you with some quotes:

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

“And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
– Barry Goldwater, 1964 presidential nomination speech

Here’s another one from Goldwater, in case the first one didn’t make my point –

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

Finally, here’s two from my all-time favorite television series, Babylon 5 –

I mean, being a freedom fighter, a . . . force for good, it’s . . . it’s a wonderful thing. You get to    make your own hours, looks good on a resume, but the pay . . . sucks.
– Psi Corps Agent Alfred Bester, Moments of Transition

John Sheridan:    You know, it’s funny, I was thinking about what you said, that the preeminent truth of our age is that you cannot fight the system. But if, as you say, the truth is fluid, that the truth is subjective, then maybe you can fight the system. As long as just one person refuses to be broken, refuses to bow down.

Interrogator: But can you win?

John Sheridan: Every time I say “no.”
Intersections in Real Time

---

NOTES

1. Posted –
   1. Personal blogs – WordPress

   2. LPUSA / LPNM – LPNM Blog / LPNM Facebook group / New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
   3. The Weekly Sedition
   4. Seventh Column – Facebook / WordPress / Yahoo!

---

Current mood: cranky

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: What the Fuck?!
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 02:16:05
From: Mike Blessing
To: Ken Holder, L. Neil Smith

Neil / Ken –

Just now (Saturday, 6 October @ 1:15 AM), I saw the message in my inbox that TLE #691 was up on the web, so I went to check it out.

What did I see when I scrolled down a bit?

A cartoon by Rex May of Romney spanking Obama like a little kid.

I was under the impression that TLE was above this sort of WWE-style cheerleading for the DNC-vs-RNC dance of death that plagues us every two years.

When the (fascist) Democrat fights dirty and cheats, we’re supposed to jeer, yet when the (socialist) Republican pulls the same sort of dirty tricks, we’re supposed to cheer. Because, we all know, the Republican is the “lesser of two evils” good guy.

Anyone who has been reading TLE and similar media outlets for any length of time has no doubt seen numerous examples of stupidity, evil and insanity instigated by Republicans. But they’re the “lesser of two evils” bunch, correct?

For what it’s worth, I watched what’s been politely called a “debate” and saw the two clowns stammering out their “talking points” while making excuses for their track records and trying to score points on the other with witty one-liners.

Most of these one-liners were the same old, tired bits that we’ve all heard before from them, courtesy of the lamestream snoozemedia.

Still, I was quite amused that gun-grabber and health-care socializer Slick Willard had the audacity to talk about “free enterprise” and invoke the Declaration of Independence.

This is the same Slick Willard who supported TARP as signed by Bush, supported cap-and-trade for CO₂ emissions, supported the GM bailout . . . . Need I go on?

About Mittens’ earlier promises to “repeal and replace Obamacare” – last Wednesday night he revealed exactly what he wants for the “replace” part of the scam – RomneyCare as implemented in 2006 in Massachusetts.

Here’s the funny part about this nonsense: he implied that he wants RomneyCare to replace ObamaCare, yet RomneyCare is what Jon Gruber (the MIT economics professor who helped RMonster put together the plan in Boston) pitched to the Obama Administration in 2009 as a template for Obamacare.

Meet the new bullshit, same as the old bullshit.

At first I was thinking that this was a bait-and-switch scam, but it’s more like the shell game that con artists play on the street – the ball, which was something like free-market health care, was nowhere to be found under any of the shells.

OK, this is the part where Rex starts behaving as a Romney-roid (think hemorrhoid, minus the rationality and principles) by screaming that I must want Obama re-elected, “If your not with us, your with Obama!!!!” that sort of thing.

Bring it on.

And if this sort of thing continues, then it’s probably time for a new front-page cartoonist on TLE. Let Rex peddle his Romney-porn somewhere else.

---

NOTES

1. Posted at The Libertarian Enterprise

2. Reposted
   1. Personal blogs – WordPress

   2. The Weekly Sedition

---