Roberto Unger, Obama’s Former Harvard Law School Professor, Says The President ‘Must Be Defeated’ Reply

From the Huffington Post

One of President Barack Obama’s former professors appears to have turned against him, according to a recent YouTube video.

“President Obama must be defeated in the coming election,” Roberto Unger, a longtime professor at Harvard Law School who taught Obama, said in a video posted on May 22. “He has failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States.”


An Echo, Not a Choice Reply

By Paul Gottfried

A recent syndicated column by Peggy Noonan makes useful observations, together with one rather questionable point. Noonan blithely assumes that while the president has “fully absorbed the general assumptions and sympathies of the political left,” his opponent Mitt Romney reflects “the general attitudes, assumptions and sympathies of the political right.”

Noonan may be seeing something in Romney that eludes me. Of course, she can find support for her view in the invectives of those liberal journalists, who have begun to depict the former Massachusetts governor and Republican nominee as an incipient fascist. But the right-wingers I meet, who are the ones who tried to keep Romney from winning the nomination, do not believe that he shares their “general attitudes, assumptions and sympathies.” They are going along with the candidate of the GOP regulars and Noonan’s Wall Street Journal because they think Obama may be worse.

Despite this undeserved plug for her newspaper’s editorial choice, Noonan does correctly underline the foolishness of Obama’s recent straying in the direction of the hardline social left. She notes that Obama is “actively bad in politics,” as opposed to being a politically clever ideologue. “Anyone good at politics does not pick a fight with the Catholic Church during an election year.”


As Goode as It Gets Reply

By W. James Antle III

photo: Constitution Party

photo: Constitution Party

During the Republican primaries, conservatives turned to one candidate after another to be the right’s alternative to Mitt Romney: Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and finally Rick Santorum. One by one, their campaigns fizzled. Now, with the nomination in Romney’s grasp, conservatives seem to have run out of choices.

Virgil Goode wants to remind them not to settle. So serious was the former congressman about expanding conservatives’ options this November that he secured the presidential nomination of the Constitution Party, which has spent the last two decades trying convince conservative Christians and constitutionalists that there is a purer, more principled alternative to the GOP. “I’m in it to win it,” Goode says, fusing a slogan of Hillary Clinton’s with a platform to the right of Barry Goldwater.


Plutocracy at the Crossroads? Reply

By Gary Wills

Republican operatives describe this year’s presidential election in apocalyptic terms. It will determine our future. It will seal our national fate. Well, they are probably right, but not for the reason they give. They tell Republican voters that President Obama, in a second term where he does not have to face re-election, will reveal and follow the full socialist agenda he has been trying to hide.

Only the gullible will swallow that. But the right does know that the future is at stake. That is because this election year gives Republicans one of their last chances—perhaps the very last one—to put the seal on their plutocracy. They are in a race against time. A Democratic wave is rising fast, to wash away the plutocracy before it sets its features in concrete, with future help from the full (not just frequent) cooperation of the Supreme Court.

It may seem odd to speak of the plutocracy as endangered. Surely it has established itself in every important political arena. Wealth is concentrated in a small fraction of the populace, the cosseting of whom with the Bush tax cuts plunged us into the great recession. Yet while the rest of the populace was suffering, the rich just got richer. In 2009 and 2010, years in which millions were unable to find work, the top one percent reaped 93 percent of the “recovery” income, and corporations are making more than they ever did. And the Republicans can still propose even further cuts in the taxes of “job creators” whose only job creation has been for their own lawyers and lobbyists.


Rand Paul: Not Such a Sell-Out After All? Reply

This is an interesting take on the question.

By Barry Lyndon

I’m starting to think I must be the only voice in an avalanche of Paulites who wasn’t outraged by Senator Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney.

As a libertarian with a perspective of the Scottish independence movement and the nascent liberty movement in my home country, Ireland, I sometimes wonder if many of Ron Paul’s supporters are more invested in the short game of winning elections than in the long game of building a free world, an objective which transcends personality politics.

So was Rand Paul’s endorsement really a sellout? Or was it a tactical master stroke for the libertarian agenda? It depends. Let’s face it, the reaction itself was just a lot of hot air, equivalent to the outrage of folk fans when Dylan went electric in the sixties.

“Sellout!” they cried. “He’s giving in to the man!” It’s a rich metaphor considering the general air of folk whimsy about Ron (as well as the purity complex of his more hardcore fans) and the more hard-edged, charismatic persona of his sequel.

I don’t believe that supporting your party’s nominee somehow represents a devaluation of principles. Endorsements are just talk, and talk is cheap. But no need to worry; so far at least, Rand walks the walk. He is against foreign aid. He wants to audit the Federal Reserve. He has proposed a budget which balances in five years. He is one of the few members of the Tea Party insurgency who eats with a knife and fork.


Why Obama’s Re-Election is Going to Look a Lot Like 2008 1

This article and my recent broadcast at VOR, “Electing a New People,” explain why the Left will be dominant in Western politics for the foreseeable future and why any serious anti-state movement should identify the pro-state Left rather than the reactionary Right as its primary enemy.

By Ruy Teixeira 

Judging from recent headlines, things are looking up for President Obama. The Republican presidential nominees have been serially embarrassing themselves; the White House communications department has successfully focused its messaging on jobs and economic fairness; and consumers are feeling ever more confident about the economy.

But it’s not just anecdotal evidence that suggests Obama’s re-election chances have improved—most of the polling data suggests the same. Obama has been running consistently ahead of his most likely challenger, Mitt Romney, in national polls—by an average of 4 points according to the website. Indeed, the closer you look at the numbers, the more reassuring the news: Obama, it seems, is well on his way to reconstructing the very coalition that elected him in 2008.

Consider these results from a recent Pew Center poll. In this poll, Obama is 8 points ahead of Romney, close to his victory margin in 2008 (7 points). But what is especially fascinating in this poll is its internals—how Obama is faring with key subgroups of voters. Start with minorities. Obama gets 93 percent of the black vote (he got 95 percent in 2008) and 79 percent of minorities overall (he got 80 percent in 2008). (The poll does not provide data on Hispanics, but the two most recent national polls of Hispanics give him 67 percent of these voters, identical to his 2008 performance.)

He also gets 44 percent of the white vote, compared to 43 percent in 2008. Moreover, if you break the white vote down by working class and college-educated, his performance is even more impressive. Among white college-educated voters he ties Romney 49-49, compared to the 4 point deficit he ran against John McCain, and loses white working voters by only 41-55, compared to his 18 point deficit against McCain.

These demographics are excellent news for Obama. But what of the longer term? Here we must depart the realm of demographics and current polls and look to election forecasting models. The best way to sort them out is not to focus on one particular model—there are so many to choose from!—but rather to look at the factors driving these models and what they have to tell us. The one factor that stands above the rest is economic performance in the election year. Moreover, there is general agreement that what matters most is change in economic performance, not the absolute level of performance. Thus, change in the unemployment rate in the election year is more important than the level of unemployment, GDP growth is more important than the size of the economy, and so on.


The Stark Truth: Interview with Paul Craig Roberts Reply

Listen to the interview.

May 25, 2012

Paul Craig Roberts

Robert Stark interviews Paul Craig Roberts. Topics include:

  • PCR’s role in the Reagan administration and supply-side economics;
  • How job outsourcing was engineered by Wall Street and corporations;
  • The military-industrial complex;
  • Neoconservatives, foreign policy in the Middle East, and war with Iran;
  • Policy toward China;
  • 9/11;
  • Why we can’t take back the country by the ballot box.

Rand Paul Betrays His Father’s Principles, Endorses Mitt Romney 2

June 8th, 2012

Libertarian Party

 [Prediction: The Ron Paul movement will eventually split into two camps. One will be a more system-friendly movement for whom Rand Paul is the figurehead. The other will be a more radically anti-state movement whose radicalism surpasses that of Ron Paul. The latter likely includes a lot of future ARV/ATS associates.]

Contact: Carla Howell, Executive Director

The Libertarian Party issued the following statement today:

Rand Paul Betrays His Father’s Principles, Endorses Mitt Romney

Why Ron Paul Supporters Need the Libertarian Party

When Dr. Rand Paul ran for U.S. Senate in Kentucky, many of his fund-raising appeals were sent to the donors and supporters of his father, Congressman Ron Paul. They were designed to convince Ron’s supporters that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. That Rand was, like his legendary father, a steadfast champion of liberty.


Voting is a Waste of Time 2

From Kyle’s Corner.


I’m tired of hearing activists gripe about the “apathetic non-voter”. The reasoning goes like this, if Americans would just pay more attention and vote then everything would be better. This is a ridiculous expectation; it discounts at least 230 years of American history and we should know better by now. Activists need to accept reality (electoral politics is dominated by useful idiots and oligarchs) and move onto tactics that work.

Is it wise to trust in the electoral process? Those in power often have strong motivations to avoid free and fair elections. Public choice theory reminds us that politicians are motivated by a sense of duty, a search for glory, and the desire to maintain their political careers. It is quite simple really; it is in the incumbent’s best interest to mollify the threat posed by elections. It is dubious to even suggest that voting would be a reliable check on the power of any existing nation-state, let alone the most powerful and corrupt government in the world. Thanks to the internet, people are now aware of the Presidential election fraud that took place in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. It’s now a matter of public record, the game is rigged.

If Presidential elections actually serve to choose the next leader of the free world then we should feel obligated to scrutinize the electorate. Are voters masochists, fools, or civic heroes? Forget the textbooks, if you care to find out just who the voting public is, simply cast your gaze upon a Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, or Barack Obama rally… the crowd is full of wild eyed fools. This is the American voter; a pack of uninformed followers waving whatever signs the Donald Trump campaign staff handed to them. Libertarians should know better than to get into a voting war with the average voter; that is a losing battle.


Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson is an Asshole Reply

Laurence Vance explains why.

In the Gary Johnson interview with Robert Wenzel, when asked about what a libertarian was, Johnson said that, speaking with a broad brush, most Americans are fiscally responsible and socially tolerant and that, with a broad brush, that is what libertarians are about.

What planet is he on? If most Americans are fiscally responsible and socially tolerant and that is what libertarians are about then why are there not 535 Ron Pauls in Congress? Johnson makes it sound like a libertarian is just a liberal who wants to balance the budget.

I also note that he says in the interview that he wants to abolish the drug war. But when Wenzel asked about drugs harder than marijuana, Johnson did not give a straight answer. I previously blogged here that Johnson said he was not in favor of legalizing harder drugs.

Don’t be like Johnson, read Rothbard on libertarianism, on drugs, and on everything else.

Update: a reader points out that when Johnson was governor of NM, he did not use his power as governor to end the drug war. He did not pardon non-violent drug offenders or order state police to stop prosecuting NM citizens.

The Almighty, Impotent State Or, the Crisis of Authority 1

This article by Sigmund Knag and published by the Independent Institute goes a long way towards helping us understand the internal dynamics of modern states.  It can be read in full here. I have long argued that it is not sufficient for anarchists and other anti-statists to simply attack “the state” as a universal abstraction without any kind of context. Rather, while the state as generally conceived of is an enemy, it is also necessary to understand the particular workings and wider social functions of specific manifestations of the state. Given that most of us live in Western-style “liberal democratic” states, it is strategically and philosophically necessary to analyze and criticize the particular representations of the state under the rule of which we find ourselves. (This question also helps us to better understand the limitations of the Left’s obsession with “fascism” or the Right’s obsession with “socialism” as both of those are largely irrelevant to our own political situation).  This article by Knag is very helpful towards the development of such a critique. The ideas in this merit much discussion. Here’s a relevant  quote (hat tip to David Heleniak):


People failing to register to vote could be fined as part of shake-up Reply

Tim Minchin’s wet dreams may yet *ahem* come to fruition.

Not content with importing their daytime soaps, the UK looks set to contract AIDS (Acquired Imperative Democracy Syndrome) from the Aussies.

Will Airstrip One become another Saudi Arabia of Democracy? It certainly seems to be on that road…

From BBC News


People who repeatedly fail to fill in forms registering to vote could be fined as part of a shake-up of the British electoral system.

At the moment, the head of a household fills in the details of those living in a property but ministers want people to register individually to combat fraud.

Those refusing could be issued with a “parking-style” fine by local councils.

Labour said fines could only be justified if they were an incentive to register and they must be “reasonable”.

The potential sanction is included in the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill being debated for the first time in the House of Commons on Wednesday.


The Government Lying to Us — What Else is New? Reply

By Kevin Carson

A Twitter friend of mine recently recounted a conversation with another friend — not a self-described anarchist — who spontaneously concluded that voting was useless. “I think it’s insane to think that people who are in the kind of power that only government and capitalism provide would willingly allow their stability to be up to CHANCE.”

Exactly! You might be forgiven for thinking “the enemy” our ruling circles always talk about is somebody with a strange language and religion on the other side of the world. But in fact “the enemy,” for the ruling class, is anyone capable of disrupting its goals or undermining its power — including us. The American people are potentially a far greater threat to their power than any foreign government.

Australian scholar Alex Carey argued, in a book of that title, that the purpose of the corporate-state propaganda machine was “Taking the Risk Out of Democracy.” The modern institutions of concentrated corporate power and universal suffrage democracy, he said, both date from the late 19th century. This meant the most concentrated system of economic power in history faced an unprecedented danger of disruption from the caprice of a majority.

That power structure wasn’t willing to leave its power to chance. Alongside corporate power and mass democracy, a third modern phenomenon arose in the early years of the 20th century: Propaganda as the science of “engineering consent.” People like Edward Bernays in the US, and their counterparts in Britain, oversaw Anglo-American propaganda efforts during WWI (remember those bayoneted babies in Belgium?). Afterward, Bernays went on to found the modern discipline of public relations.


Rob Reiner: Funny as Ever Reply

By Kevin Carson

Rob Reiner, in a recent interview with Chris Matthews, showed that while he may have moved on to directing and producing, he’s still a comedic actor at heart. Reiner, best known as Archie’s son-in-law “Meathead” on “All in the Family,” told Matthews — with a straight face — that “the Hollywood community is the only donor base … that has no quid pro quo. … We don’t … support a candidate because … he might be able to do something for us.” Oh, Rob — you’ve still got it!

But on the off chance that this was really intended as a serious factual claim, rather than a liberal version of Stephen Colbert’s shtik, I’d like to point out a few things: Digital Millennium Copyright Act. SOPA. ACTA. The FBI seizing dozens upon dozens of torrent download sites and issuing press releases from Disney headquarters. There, that should do it.


The Government Lying to Us — What Else is New? Reply

By Kevin Carson

A Twitter friend of mine recently recounted a conversation with another friend — not a self-described anarchist — who spontaneously concluded that voting was useless. “I think it’s insane to think that people who are in the kind of power that only government and capitalism provide would willingly allow their stability to be up to CHANCE.”

Exactly! You might be forgiven for thinking “the enemy” our ruling circles always talk about is somebody with a strange language and religion on the other side of the world. But in fact “the enemy,” for the ruling class, is anyone capable of disrupting its goals or undermining its power — including us. The American people are potentially a far greater threat to their power than any foreign government.


What Does Ron Paul Want? Reply

By Justin Raimondo

This is the question puzzling Paul’s friends, as well as his enemies. A recentannouncement by the campaign that the anti-interventionist Congressman andpresidential candidate is not spending money in the remaining primary states provoked a Drudge headline: “Paul Out.” That is the GOP Establishment’s fondest wish, but the reality is that Paul is far from “out”: his campaign is merely recalibrating its tactics, concentrating on getting delegates through the complicated and often arcane process of party caucuses and state conventions. In short, Paul is pursuing the very same strategy he’s been talking about since Day One of his remarkably successful campaign: harnessing the enthusiasm and discipline of his supporters to enter a basically hostile entity – the pro-warpro-Big Government Republican party – and challenging the Powers That Be.

There has been all kinds of loose talk about a “deal” being struck with the Romneyites, an impression pushed by the “mainstream” media and other clueless individuals who know little or nothing of Ron and imagine he’s just another politician. They are wrong. There will be no endorsement of Mitt Romney, and, because of that, no quarter will be given – or is being given – to Paulians intent on embedding themselves within the Grand Old Party.

The “go local” strategy of the Paul camp has recently met with a string of high profile successes: they took over the party in AlaskaNevadaIowaMinnesotaMaine, andColorado, and their delegate count is skyrocketing. Precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state, the Ron Paul Revolution is racking up victories – and the Romneyites are in a panic. Due to that panic, they are employing hard-line tactics, often simply closing down local conventions when it becomes clear the Paulians have a majority. They cut off the microphonescall the cops, and whine that the insurgents are “disrupting” a process the party bosses have controlled for as long as anyone can remember. At one point, attendees at a state Republican convention saw the walls literally closing in on them, as Rachel Maddow reported in a segment on MSNBC.

Using force, fraud, and their friends in the media, the Romneyites are determined to block Paul and his movement from having any visibility at the August national GOP convention, to be held in Tampa, Florida. What they want is a coronation: what they will get is a full-blown insurgency in their midst.

The key tactical question is this: will the Establishment even allow Paul’s name to be placed in nomination? GOP rules requires that, in order to do so, the Paul camp must have a plurality of the delegates in at least five states. Given the series of Paul victories at the local level, one would think this threshold has already been reached – but that’s not at all clear, given two factors. The first is that, in some states where the Paulians took control of the proceedings, many of those delegates legally bound to vote for Romney on the first ballot are actually Paul supporters. If they rebel in Tampa, however, there’s no telling what might happen. There seems to be no rule forbidding them from abstaining on the first ballot, and that, in itself, would be a very visible and powerful protest – precisely the sort of dissent the Romneyites justifiably fear.


‘Racist’ Ron Paul Sends 15% Black and Hispanic GOP Delegation to Tampa Reply

Note: The Ron Paul movement provides a glimpse into what the demographics of the future resistance movement will look like and is consistent with the framework I have previously outlined in my “liberty and populism” and “ten core demographics” theories.

By Allan Stevo

In a party that tends to be old and white, Ron Paul and his views are attracting demographic groups that are not traditionally affiliated with the Republican Party – youth, minorities, civil libertarians, the apolitical, those who are traditionally non-voters, and even Democrats.

On May 6, Nevada Republicans announced that 22 Paul supporters were chosen to fill 25 spaces for the Republican National Convention. Recent analysis shows that of those delegates were two female delegates who identify as Hispanic and one black delegate.

One Paul supporter said about Sunday’s results: “A common critique of small-minded opponents on the left is that Paul is racist. He’s exactly the opposite – he sees everyone as an individual, the guy doesn’t give a damn about what ‘group’ we are a part of. He represents a belief in the importance of the individual – something the Republican Party used to represent.”

While Paul speaks an old message, one of freedom, it still resonates with people of all ages and is clearly attracting a new kind of energy to the stodgy, pro-establishment Republican Party.

One of the recently-elected delegates to the Republican National Convention, Wiselet Rouzard, who identifies as African American, commented, “The 15% minority delegation being sent to Tampa to represent Ron Paul is not a surprise but rather reassuring of what the movement is about.”

While some on the left claim the Tenth Amendment insistence of states’ rights and constitutional calls for individual liberties are a veil for racism, Rouzard has a very different perspective: “It’s a movement and revolution that defends civil liberties and equality for all ‘Individuals’ regardless of your skin color, religion, health, wealth, creed. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that truly stands and abides by the Constitution and does what he says.”

Going even further in his displeasure with politicians playing the race card, Rouzard commented on how politicians who cater to specific groups of people tend to do more harm than good. Ultimately, these politicians end up being divisive and undermining the personal liberty of all in our society.

Said Rouzard: “Ron Paul and the Constitution have always understood that blacks, Hispanics, Native-Americans, Christians, the poor, are not the minority in a growing tyrannical government; the Individual has and always will be the minority. All the other candidates look to cater or promise to other sub groups and dismiss the Individual. [This] has continued to divide America.”


Has the Bell Begun to Toll for the GOP? Reply

Note: If anarchists and libertarians are serious about attacking and destroying the U.S. state, then we need to begin targeting the center-left establishment given that it will be the ruling party in the decades ahead as the Republicans begin to go the way of the Whigs.

By Pat Buchanan

Among the more controversial chapters in Suicide of a Superpower, my book published last fall, was the one titled, “The End of White America.”

It dealt with the demographic decline of the white majority and what it portends for education, the U.S. economy, politics and national unity.

That book and chapter proved the proximate cause of my departure from MSNBC, where the network president declared that subjects such as these are inappropriate for “the national dialogue.”

Apparently, the mainstream media are reassessing that.

For, in rare unanimity, The New York Times, The Washington Post and USA Today all led yesterday with the same story.

“Whites Account for Under Half of Births in U.S.,” blared the Times headline. “Minority Babies Majority in U.S.,” echoed the Post. “Minorities Are Now a Majority of Births,” proclaimed USA Today.

The USA Today story continued, “The nation’s growing diversity has huge implications for education, economics and politics.”


Why I Don’t Vote – an Indigenous Perspective Reply

From American Indian/Alaska Native Attack the System

By Vincent Rinehart

In the article The Quandary of American Indian Quasi Dual Citizenship at Last Real Indians, the argument is made for American Indian participation in the American political process. The reason given is that Indian policy and political policy in general is made through the American political process, and that these policies effect us, our children and our lands, and that we ought to have a voice in that system. I don’t seek to specifically refute or debate Ms. Hopkins points, but they are an More…