Liberty Economics

Laissez-Faire News & Commentary

Category: Elections

Jettison Jeff Sessions

Let’s be honest with ourselves. I’m not even a President Trump apologist. I have a plurality of disagreements with President Trump on the issues. But I can clearly see the danger to our democratic system if Obama, Clinton, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Clapper, Brennan, et al., evade justice. Any Republicans who aid and abet the aforementioned persons in evading justice are complicit and should be indicted as co-conspirators.

The issue was never Russian interference in the election. That was the cover story for Deep State interference in the election. The future of the electoral process is at stake. Failing to prosecute people who believe it’s acceptable to use the government to interfere with elections undermines the electoral process.

For anybody who’s not convinced, imagine if the Trump administration spied on and infiltrated the campaigns of political opponents, and then prosecuted lower level Clinton campaign staffers on technical violations of regulations, while leaving the mega criminals at the top free. People would rightfully be demanding Trump be impeached.  Whether you are on the right or left, you should be appalled by the Mueller inquisition. You should be appalled that Obama, Clinton, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Clapper, Brennan, et al., are free. And if Jeff Sessions refuses to do his job, then indict him, too.

MSNBC supports Congressman Joe Heck

MSNBC has a piece that proves what I wrote many months ago to be totally correct. MSNBC helped construct Joe Heck’s conservative credentials which were otherwise non-existent. See:

Last December, I wrote a piece undressing the bipartisan sellout, explaining how the establishment left and establishment right are firing blanks at one another. Not to claim accolades, but I did so about as well as anybody. See:  How right was I in what I wrote back in December? It wasn’t too many days later that the CRomnibus bill passed with Joe Heck’s approval.

One method the establishment uses to misdirect its opposition is to “attack” a faux opponent, helping to construct opposition credentials for an insider. While the establishment media will criticize Joe Heck, how often do you read about, say, Congressman Walter Jones? You see, criticizing Congressman Jones would be placing real opposition on stage.

The Welfare-Warfare Party maintains its death grip on the body politic by ensuring the stage is occupied by actors, and only actors. People who play-act like they are opposed to omnipresent government. Politicians who do things like call Social Security a ponzi scheme, to then later recant, helping to discredit the very idea. By singling out Joe Heck, MSNBC is helping to select members of the “opposition”, keeping the stage occupied with actors.

The word conservative implies an ideology. An ideology implies ideas. While people can disagree on what’s conservative and what isn’t, it’s impossible for two contradictory ideas to both be conservative. At least that’s how it’s supposed to be. Today, our political lexicon is a bit different. The word conservative has been used so promiscuously that it no longer has any objective meaning, other than wanting to grow government at a slightly slower pace than the other party – or maybe just in slightly different ways as the other party. That makes conservatism, at best, a relative position, impossible to define absent the presence of politicians like Harry Reid.

I can assure you that Joe Heck is doing nothing to downsize government. The points of criticism aren’t even nexused with reality. Josip Tito would probably be considered too “laissez-faireish” to MSNBC. In MSNBC’s paradigm, no matter how big government Joe Heck is, he can always be portrayed as a far right conservative. How? All that’s necessary is for Harry Reid to move further to the left than he was the day before. And since conservatism isn’t a stationary anchor, he tows big government Republicans like Joe Heck right along with him.

No wonder Harry Reid now runs around claiming that women not only have the right to get abortions, but to do so with other people’s property through taxpayer funding. I myself have written about how taxation undermines property rights, and how property rights are nexused with civil rights. The exact inverse of being a taxpayer is being a tax consumer. The exact inverse of being a tax consumer is being a taxpayer. If failing to grant somebody taxpayer subsidies is oppressive, pursuant to Harry Reid, then how much more so must it be to actually impose a tax? Does this mean Harry Reid is secretly with me on the issue of taxation?

Suppose I started some Republican version of Planned Parenthood. Rather than promoting abortion, say I promoted torture. After all, if torture works at bases overseas then I’m sure it would work right here at home to curtail crime. Suppose I started an organization called, say, Committee to Repeal the Fifth Amendment. There’s an issue Republicans like Joe Heck would agree on. I could even make Joe Heck the spokesperson, since I’m sure he could do a much better job at explaining why the Fifth undermines our security. Clearly, the framers had no idea what they were thinking by putting that Amendment into the Bill of Rights (facetiously). Would I be entitled to taxpayer funding for my organization? If I don’t get taxpayer funding, would that mean I’m being oppressed? Pursuant to Harry Reid’s calculus, yes.[1]

Of course, there is no right anybody has to taxpayer subsidies. Don’t believe that Harry Reid uses taxpayer money to fund abortion because Harry Reid cares about women’s rights. Harry Reid uses taxpayer money to fund abortion because Harry Reid is a eugenicist – a lot like Dick Cheney and Adolf Hitler.

In order to subsidize somebody, that requires taxing somebody else. But don’t expect the delusional criminal Harry Reid to sit down and confront these paradoxes in his paradigm. There’s no reason for him to do so, because Republicans like Joe Heck aren’t trying to stop him because they need him. Without Harry Reid, it would be impossible to see just how “conservative” Joe Heck is by supporting slightly smaller government. Joe Heck is a “conservative” only by juxtaposing himself with Harry Reid. Politicians like Joe Heck and Harry Reid are mutually dependent upon each other for survival.

This piece on MSNBC is not only an example of how the establishment left and right collude by fabricating credentials for one another, but it’s an excellent example of the gentlemen’s agreement between the two parties to not engage on the right issues. We’re supposed to keep ourselves occupied by discussing immigration, which is the same diversion used in 2010. The misfeasance of both parties is too great for either one to engage on the right issues.

If Democrats were serious opposition, they wouldn’t be helping Republicans buttress their support amongst the conservative base. Instead, they would be trying to cut into Republican support by exposing Republicans for being big government statists. It’s very easy to do. They can start by pinning Republicans like Joe Heck down on the issue of torture, which is an attack on due process.

If Democrats were serious opposition, they could be using arguments like the one I put forth in this piece right here:  I can’t think of a more compelling argument, from a libertarian perspective, for a big government Democrat in certain races to bring about divided government than the one I make. But in order to make the argument it requires disrupting the political paradigm. If you believe I am mistaken, that I am getting something wrong, then why won’t they listen to me? Why am I ignored?

Democrats could easily explain that as long as Republicans control the House, a Democrat controlled Senate can’t spend one dime absent the consent of Republicans. That undermines the hollow argument for Republicans from a free market perspective. And then they could capitalize on issues like torture, explaining why divided government would be preferable to a homogeneous government consisting of a neoconservative Republican White House, Senate, and House. Why isn’t that happening? Why is MSNBC, an ostensibly left wing organization, not making that case? Why does it seem as if the establishment left is on the verge of throwing 2016 to a neoconservative Republican supermajority?

If it isn’t Democrats supporting the murder of babies, then it’s Republicans supporting the use of torture. I’m convinced that the two parties have some kind of gentleman’s agreement on how politicians will support different evils, so any good a politician supports is offset by being amalgamated with evil. This makes it impossible to stop evil within the two party system. A Republican can be good on abortion, but then deviates on torture. Or a Democrat can be good on torture, but deviates on abortion. Both parties have given us a gigantic menu of different evils to select from.

Evil is smuggled past the electorate by being amalgamated with goodness. But the problem is we never get the good. Compromise doesn’t imply that Democrats abandon their support for abortion and Republicans abandon their support for torture. No. Instead, compromise implies we end up with both baby murdering and torture – torturing of babies even. Democrats abandon their opposition to torture and Republicans abandon their opposition to abortion. When they do raise objections to torture or abortion, it’s demagoguery to score political points, while the program is left intact and accountability remains elusive. Compromise means we end up with both a big welfare state and a big warfare state. Congressman Joe Heck will do nothing to stop the program of metastasizing government and hold people accountable. MSNBC knows that, which is why he has been selected as their “far right opponent”.

[1] – There actually is an organization the Republicans want to fund with taxpayer money to not just promote torture but to practice torture: the Central Intelligence Agency.

Liberty Economics © 2016 Frontier Theme