We’ve covered the TPP negotiations a few times. From Hollywood – which is seeking to expand draconian copyright around the world, to Pharma, to the big industrial companies, everyone is in on this thing, except apparently the public.
This week has been an interesting one on Fox News with both Megyn Kelly and Charles Krauthammer going full out after Rand Paul. Paul’s poll numbers are rising while the other GOP hopefuls are declining and this concerns the pro-war wing of the GOP. It’s getting later and later in the game and the big government GOP candidates are not gaining the traction that it was assumed they would gain. That this attack from Fox coincides with a spate of neoconservative attack ads from the “Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America” (Check this website out) in early primary states, is probably not a coincidence.
What is particularly absurd, objectively speaking, is the assertion by Charles Krauthammer (someone for whom I have a significant degree of respect) that Paul has more in common with Obama on foreign policy than the pro-war, big government wing of the GOP. This is obviously not true. For the most part Obama and the neoconservatives have been quite close on policy. The war in Libya. The proposed (but halted thanks to the American and British people) bombing of Syria. The arming of “moderate” rebels in the Levant. The drone war in Yemen. Etc. Aside from the talks with Iran, which is a desperate attempt by the president to establish some sort of “legacy,” Obama has been Bush II lite. Obama’s policy has basically been a neoconservative policy. Even if Netanyahu and the President don’t like each other.
Many people wrongly believe that politics is to a large extent a battle between government and business. That the 2 represent opposite dispositions. This is a foolish notion. Business and government are more often partners than adversaries. Especially now.
But crony capitalism has a long history in this country.
Is there anyone in the universe who was thinking, “Hey, you know what? I think they’re going to indict Lois Lerner.”
The truth is some (many) people just want someone to make decisions for them. I am unsure if it is a genetic disposition or whether it is socialization or whether it is both. All I know is some people do not want to control their own lives. They are more comfortable with someone at the helm. They are comforted by a horizon which is limited and defined by others.
Strangely these same people also want to limit the lives of those who prefer to be free.
I quite like Daniel Hannan. He has long been a champion of free thinking and free markets. His speech a couple of years ago at CPAC was excellent.
This op-ed is pretty good too.
The leadership within both major parties view the “populists” within their ranks as annoyances. Jeb Bush and his crowd and Hillary Clinton and her crowd have a similar disdain for the people who want actual change come 2016. Jeb and Hillary are the establishment. They are the anointed. They represent the long time infrastructure of their respective parties.
Vested interests within the parties know where they stand with both candidates. These interests know that the boat won’t really be rocked by either one. The people who run the parties are safe, so long as none of the rabble rousers slip through. The rabble rousers must be beaten down and beaten back.
A great report. I certainly saw this first hand at CPAC this year. Liberty (generally) is what drives today’s young “conservatives.”
And it’s not entirely generational. I think many of the older folks are coming along, just fewer of them in relative terms.
I didn’t see many Huckabee 2016 signs that’s for sure.
This is a bit creepy.
Though it is true that there is lots of misinformation on the web, and that the quest for higher quality search results is very good one, that the most used search engine in the world may soon be in the business of defining what is “true” and what is not is of some concern.
Are there nuts in the United States? Yes, for sure. Do some of these people tout a philosophy of personal sovereignty? I am positive that some do. Are these nuts serious threats to the country? I don’t think so.
What you have in the attached report from CNN is an effort to turn a narrative which has gotten out of the hands of the White House spinmeisters. The insanity (and I think that is an appropriate word) exhibited by ISIS has galvanized many in this country. Terrorism (for good or ill) is now a serious issue again for many American voters.
The thing is, that ISIS is a radical Islamist group makes Obama uncomfortable. The president refuses to acknowledge the fact that ISIS is a Muslim entity. That Islam is a fundamental component of ISIS’s identity. The group refers to itself as “The Islamic State” after all. It seems pretty obvious to me. But not apparently to our president who didn’t march in protest with the other leaders of the world in Paris after the Charlie Hedbo attacks, and who lectured people at the White House prayer breakfast recently on the atrocities committed in the name of Christ. Basically equating the actions of ISIS to past crimes committed in the name of the Church. Obama also suggested that perhaps Americans should get off of their “high horse” when it comes to religious atrocities.
No one’s perfect you see. So hey, get off your high horse.
It’s not just that the post 9-11 surveillance state is against the most fundamental spirit of this country, it’s also that taxpayers are actually paying to have their privacy violated and liberty curtailed. The cost of all this snooping is immense and has become a part of the military industrial complex all its own. This is highly dangerous.
More people should listen to the famed Democratic political strategist Pat Caddell. He is right on the money in many respects. In the attached article he compares Washington DC to Vienna in 1914. An ossified, self interested capital city which is out of touch with reality. This while the hinterlands rumble with discontent.
When push comes to shove, it’s easier for many supposedly “conservative” governors to propose a tax increase with supposed benefits for his or her state than it is to simply let people keep their own money. The money they earned.
Whenever we go through these revenue increase phases it is always remarked that it’s been such and such number of years since the last increase so “we’re about due.”
No we’re not. We are not “due.” Just because the state’s piece of the pie hasn’t enlarged in a while doesn’t mean that for some reason it should now.