the MSM, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann --- all are zionists know the enemy
On Aug 18, 12:54 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron Paul and Libertyby Walter BlockIf Ron Paul had won the Ames Iowa poll, > the mainstream media would have dismissed the entire exercise as unimportant. > If he had come in at, oh, 6th place, they would have used this as evidence > that he is incompetent, not in the first rank of Republican candidates, can’t > get out the vote, the American people had rejected his candidacy, etc. So, > when Congressman Paul took a magnificent second place, only 1% behind the > winner, I said to myself, Hot diggity dog; the MSM can’t ignore him now. They > cannot dismiss this entire result since if they did so, they would have to > also deprecate Michele Bachmann’s win, and that they will not do. They now > MUST give Dr. Paul his due credit, since he finished in close second place to > her. They will be forced to discuss his ideas: bring the troops home, get rid > of the Fed, drastically reduce taxes, eliminate a slew of illicit Federal > departments, legalize drugs and other victimless crimes, stop foreign "aid," > save the American dollar via 100% gold backing, etc. > Silly me. That shows how much I know. Instead, the talking heads are now > tooting this line: "The three front runners are Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and > Michele Bachmann." In their view, these are the major candidates, and all the > others are also-rans. Why Mitt Romney? Well, he looks presidential, and he > has a good chance with the tea partiers despite his Romney-car health policy > in Massachusetts, oh so similar to Obama-care. Why Rick Perry? Well, he’s the > governor of Texas, the second biggest state, isn’t he? And this despite the > fact that he has not yet won anything in the presidential sweepstakes. Why > Michele Bachmann? This is because, of course, she just won the Ames Iowa > poll. Notice any name missing from all of this? I’ll give you a hint: this is > the guy who came in SECOND, 1% behind "major candidate" Bachmann in this > recent election. There used to be among the beltway "Austro-libertarians" a > campaign to promote and study Austrian economics without "You Know Who" > (Ludwig von Mises, of course). There is now a campaign amongst the major > media to analyze the Republican presidential process without uttering the > name of "You Know Who" (Ron Paul, of course). > What can be done about this? Well, keep sending in those cards and letters; > keep protesting; keep writing those e mails to these self-appointed judges. > Vote for Ron Paul. And, most of all, let us all pledge to donate as much as > we can to all of the upcoming Ron Paul money bombs. > There are some otherwise excellent libertarians who hold their noses at the > political process. They think it is somehow incompatible with the non > aggression principle, the foundation of our philosophy. Voting just gives > "them" sanction, these people think. Well, if so, then libertarians should > not use fiat currency to transact grocery purchases, travel on government > roads, attend concerts at public theatres, patronize public libraries, parks, > museums, teach in, or attend, any public university, or even private one that > is subsidized. They should also not eat food, since the government is heavily > involved in subsidizing some of it. They should not live in houses, since the > statists have heavily involved themselves with building materials. They > should eschew … the list goes on and on, and includes every jot and tittle of > the economy, so heavily ensconced in it is the state apparatus. > The point is, the modern government is so heavily engaged in ALL facets of > our lives. If we really didn’t want to give "sanction" to them, and wanted, > also, to be logically consistent, we could not operate in modern society at > all. We would have to either go off to live in a self sufficient farm, or > commit suicide. Hey, we don’t want to lose our souls, do we? > Some libertarians say that we have a choice regarding whether or not to vote, > to support Dr. Paul, whereas we have no choice with regard to any of these > other things. Nonsense. No, nonsense on stilts! Human action always includes > choice. We are engaging in human action all over the place. Self sufficient > farming, and/or suicide ARE choices! This attitude of libertarians is very > self destructive. It prevents us from supporting Ron Paul to the extent that > would otherwise be the case. > I suggest a remedy for this sort of irrational thinking. It is Murray > Rothbard’s "Do you hate the state?" availablehere. While you’re at it, read > this other excellentpieceby the same author, about my man Hector. If we > really see our political leaders as the gangsters most of them are (there are > but a few honorable exceptions to this general rule, certainly including in > the modern day You Know Who, and his son, the junior Senator from Kentucky), > we will reject this utter nonsense that to engage with them in any way is to > be false to libertarianism. If we don’t engage them, in many, many ways, > certainly including voting, how will we ever rid ourselves of this > pestilence? If we don’t support the greatest advocate of libertarianism now > active in behalf of the cause of liberty (hint: You Know Who), we lose the > best opportunity we now have to promote this philosophy. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
