Skip to main content

Just a thought (because everybody is watching Super Bowl commercials and not reading this)....

Something to think about....

After September 11, 2001, the Federal government used a major disaster to argue for the creation of the largest bureaucracy in American history, to implement a massively interventionist foreign policy, to cut taxes while spending us into debt....

... and we were told there was an emergency, and only an expanded government could handle it. So we allowed the shredding of Constitutional rights and the creation of a virtual police/surveillance state because for several years the American people accepted the idea that to question those policies was to be less than patriotic, to side with the terrorists....

After the Great Meltdown began during the fall of 2008--and since the inauguration of the new administration--the Federal government is again using a major disaster to argue for the largest, most expensive expansion of government power and spending in the history of the world, to continue an interventionist foreign policy, and (even) to cut taxes while spending us into debt....

... and we are told there is an emergency, and only an expanded government can handle it. So we are on the verge of moving the government into unprecedented areas of American economic life, of printing and spending more money than the entire Iraq war and New Deal (adjusted for inflation) in what amounts to two years, and the American people appear poised to accept the idea that to question those policies is to be less than patriotic--in fact downright un-American....

Meet the new bosses. Same as the old bosses.

Committed to the expansion of government power and public debt, regardless of which party is in power....

Comments

tom said…
"Meet the new bosses. Same as the old bosses."

I think I might have mentioned that about three months ago.
Tyler Nixon said…
As I have called it before : disaster socialism.
Bowly said…
Yeah, but it was right then, and it's wrong now. Or do I have that backwards...
Anonymous said…
The title and opening phrase here reminded me of the 2002 Super Bowl. Who played in that game? I don't remember. But I do remember the advertisements, fron the ONDCP spearheaded by John Walters, with the message that pot smokers finance terrorism.

Has there been any indication that ONDCP might be curtailed, or reformed? Just thought I'd ask.
Anonymous said…
The title and opening phrase here reminded me of the 2002 Super Bowl. Who played in that game?

If you mean the actual year of the SB, it was the Rams vs. the Patriots. If you mean the 2002 season (hence, the 2003 SB) it was the Bucs vs. the Raiders.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...