Mark

PDS replaces "Rubio is a colossal hypocrite, he's working to set up a police state while mouthing bromides about free enterprise." with "Rubio is not John Galt and only John Galt will do." The later is ridiculous, therefore we should like Rubio. It's an example of the straw man fallacy. "Rubio is not John Galt" does not summarize my critique, and I realize that a good statesman needn't be fully consistent with the ideal statesman.

gultch8, I suppose many people do like Rubio because they perceive him as favoring the free market, and indeed one can quote him advocating same and cite him voting same. I would say to such people: What does it matter if he saves them a billion here then loses them a trillion to the military, government contractors and foreign aid in the Middle East? And just what does being for "the free market" mean when you support the DHS and offshoots like the TSA? I'm sick of people praising a political hack just because he gives them dribs and drabs of what rightfully belongs to them while ultimately working to destroy their lives. Thanks for the "natural born citizen" information. News articles ought to mention it every time they mention the VP "possibility." And why doesn't Rubio himself mention it? Add that to the account of his sleazy history.

I’d never heard of Marco Rubio until I read the article. I see there’s talk of him being Romney’s VP choice so I looked into his career a little. You needn't dig very deep to discover many characteristics of the sleazy politician. Three reasons to be suspicious of Rubio from the article above: 1. He enjoys rap “music”. 2. He and Jeb Bush are good friends. 3. He thought watching a football game more important than doing the job he was being paid for. His rapid rise was partly due to the large hispanic population in Florida, and apparently he knows it because after becoming a senator he joined the Congressional Hispanic Conference. He claimed his parents fled Cuba after the Castro coup. In fact they left three years before. Doubtless his “embellishment” was directed at the Cuban vote. Jeb Bush wrote of him: “Bilingual and bicultural, he represents the best of the emerging second generation of Cuban immigrants.” Once upon a time, the *first* generation of European immigrants became mono-cultural as soon as they possibly could. From Rubio’s income grew with his political clout, tax records show -- Miami Herald (reprinted in Tampa Bay Times) -- May 22, 2010: “Rubio’s recent sources of income include a number of South Florida institutions that regularly lobby in Tallahassee for millions of dollars in state funding.” His foreign policy views echo Romney’s. Note that he relies on a book by the neocon (but very) Robert Kagan. Quoting him in another article: “As we work to reduce wasteful government spending,” wrote Sen. Marco Rubio in a letter to Mitch McConnell on Thursday, “we recognize that providing for the national defense is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Therefore, we must continue to prioritize the security of our nation and the security of our allies, including Israel.” Another article: Rubio gave a speech on Israel in June to the Republican Jewish Coalition “about the need for the United States to stand with Israel without equivocation or hesitation,” criticizing the Obama administration’s handling of the U.S.-Israel relationship. Stand with Israel “without equivocation or hesitation” -- Yaron Brook couldn’t have said it better. Needless to say he doesn’t support Ron Paul. His Senate voting includes some stop-gap votes regarding economics, as he helped bolster the national police state: Dec. 15, 2011 – National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 – Yea. Dec. 1, 2011 – Amendment Prohibiting detention of U.S. citizens without trial – Nay May 23, 2011 – Patriot Act Extension – Did not vote May 26, 2011 – Patriot Act Extension – Did not vote Feb. 15, 2011 – Extension of Various Patriot Act Provisions – Yea Don’t be fooled by shards of Atlas Shrugged or the regular guy act.

Excellent analysis of this fiasco by Gerald Celente, whom I've always liked and here he is at his best. He starts at 6:23 minutes. Alex Jones, on this subject, starts at 3:33 minutes. Yes, I know, Alex Jones of the obnoxiously gravelly voice, but my opinion of him went up a lot after this interview.

Consider what baggage Romney comes with. (The following is adapted from ARI Watch.) Romney’s advisors include: Michael Chertoff (former head of Homeland Security, and current body scanner war profiteer), Cofer Black (former director of Blackwater), Eliot Cohen, Robert Kagan, Robert Joseph (responsible for the “sixteen words” in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union message claiming that Iraq had tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger), John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Dan Senor, Eric Edelman (a top official at the Pentagon under Bush), Michael Hayden (former CIA director), Mitchell Reiss, Stephen Rademaker, Kim Holmes, Vin Weber. And Walid Phares, former member of the of the Phalange movement in Lebanon and now at the neocons’ Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Eight of Romney advisers signed letters of the neocons’ Project for a New American Century (PNAC, founded by Kagan and Bill Kristol), urging the invasion of Iraq: one letter to President Clinton in 1998 and another to President Bush a few days after 9/11. Dobriansky, Friedberg, Cohen and Weber signed the 1997 PNAC charter. Romney’s foreign policy white paper, with the title “An American Century” and foreword by Eliot Cohen, uses the same rhetoric as PNAC. Early in 2009 Kagan, Edelman, Senor and Bill Kristol launched Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) to succeed PNAC. FPI opposes withdrawing from Afghanistan and supports a troop increase, it advocates a permanent occupation of 20,000 troops in Iraq, promotes “regime change” in Iran, and military intervention in Syria. Three of FPI’s four board members are advisors to Romney. Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, are good friends. See “A Friendship Dating to 1976 Resonates in 2012” by Michael Barbaro, The New York Times April 7, 2012. Romney is a cipher, a Bush retread. The neocons will bend and shape him just as they did Bush. Here is Romney speaking at The Citadel military academy in South Carolina, October 7, 2012: “This century must be an American Century. ... God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. ... America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will.” And we wouldn’t want that would we now?

She never put her position that way, having strongly supported Goldwater. See Presidential Elections - Ayn Rand: 1932-1980 What Ayn Rand said about the prospect of Goldwater's defeat (he won the nomination but then lost the election) supports gultch8's point about propaganda: "... if he loses ... it gives more time to the advocates of free enterprise to perfect their cause and to spread the right ideas through the country." She wrote "it is earlier than you think." That was almost fifty years ago, half a century. It is not so early any more. Ron Paul -- who is far more consistently libertarian than Goldwater ever was -- made a strong showing in 2008 and a very much stronger one this year. Doubtless the libertarian movement will grow even stronger. The question is, can we survive to 2016? I'm very disappointed in Randolph Paul. If you think Obama is bad, Romney is even worse. To be precise, he's about the same but because he is perceived as a conservative he will be able to do more damage.

Ron Paul 2012 Election Android App I don't own any of these Android or whatever gadgets and don't know if this works as advertised. There are a few other election apps advertised on the same webpage.

Since Selene second sentence contradicts his first perhaps he doesn't like TokenLibertarianGirl for some other reason. Me, I like her a lot, though I might disagree with ther on a few things here and there. Setting aside Rasmussen and what TLG makes of his polls, there are reasons to think Ron Paul would beat Obama. Come to think of it, there are reasons to think a ham sandwich would beat Obama. Against my better judgement I glanced briefly at the post by the monkey. This thread is not about elections or Ron Paul, it's about TLG. After watching half a dozen of her videos I think she's terrific. Here's her latest, about the recent ban on big sodas in New York City:

Also known as Julie Borowski. She does videos on YouTube such as: [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JTDneR130s More at: TokenLibertarianGirl

I'm of two minds about these vouchers. Before vouchers there are two kinds of schools: ... Public .... (financed by taxes, thoroughly regulated) ... Private ... (financed by fees, unregulated more or less) After vouchers there are three kinds of schools. Vouchers split off from Private schools a certain percentage which I call "Public-Private" schools. The government selects only Private schools that meet its criteria, and since selection brings money to the school some schools will change themselves in order to qualify. What government pays for government will partly control through the approval process. So two school groups above become: ... Public ................ (financed by taxes, thoroughly regulated) ... Public-Private .... (financed by taxes and fees, partly regulated) ... Private ............... (financed by fees, unregulated more or less) Presumably overall taxes would remain the same because as students migrate from Public to Public-Private schools the financing goes with them. The question is: Is this a good thing? And for whom? It can be taken for granted that the transition of a school from Private to Public-Private will result in a degradation of the school, if it were not low enough to begin with. (Some Public-Private schools will spring into being because of vouchers, and they will be low enough from the beginning.) The Private schools that go Public-Private will by and large be the less expensive ones and/or the ones just making ends meet. These are the schools for which lower and middle class parents skimp and scrape to be able to afford to send their children because they (the parents) hate the Public schools. After vouchers these parents have the following choice: continue paying and send their children to a completely Private school -- and there will be fewer and fewer low priced Private schools -- or send them to a Public-Private school. And then there are those Public school parents who could not afford a Private school (or the time for home schooling) who with vouchers will be able to afford a Public-Private School. Finally, there are those parents who can afford the best and will continue using Private Schools. So, to answer my question, and focusing on what benefit there is to lower and middle class parents: The vouchers system is a scheme to turn Private schools into Public schools. It shepherds parents into using these neo-Public school, including and especially well-meaning parents who hate Public schools. I said I was of two minds. Is there another side? Our situation is desperate. In the mass, setting aside the casualties considered above, vouchers might help save us, in the short term before the government imposes more and more controls on Public-Private schools. That is an argument. Ayn Rand once maintained something to that effect. I suspect the time frame for accelerated control is very short, and whatever beneficent cultural effect vouchers might have is a long term proposition. So I go with my original argument: The voucher system is a Trojan horse which will sooner or later turn Private schools into Public schools. It's a way for "the powers that be" to further undermine the middle class. Instead of promoting vouchers, it's far more productive to expend ones intellectual propaganda efforts on: (1) Keeping home-schooling legal and regulation free. This is an on-going battle. The enemies of home-schooling just don't give up. (2) Slowly phasing out public schools. Of course just how to do this is a problem. I would look at the history of public schools and move in reverse. I'm not all that familiar with the history, but first on the list -- and what can be done immediately, overnight: ... a. get rid of kindergarten, ... b. end the "teacher education" course requirement for teachers, academic courses are enough. ... c. stop treating teachers as criminals (in my state the police fingerprint them, who would take such a job?). ... d. ignore teacher unions. Then gradually return all control and funding to the town level. Mark www.ARIwatch.com ............................

Selene, Obviously you're not stupid, so I must have been obscure. The main part of the post was two questions, one about the tapes and one about a book. Then I tried to explain why I was interested in Goldwater vis-a-vis Ron Paul. From an Objectivist point of view, if we take each candidate's position on various "concretes" and "add up those concretes and judge him accordingly" (quoting Ayn Rand), then clearly Ron Paul is better than Goldwater, who in turn is better than Romney. Thus -- what is obvious to begin with, but I just wanted to rub it in -- Ron Paul is better, Objectively speaking, than Romney. Yaron Brook may say out loud that Neoconservatism is the greatest danger to America, but he doesn't really mean it. He supports neoconservatives in everything of importance and keeps quiet about the rest when he should be speaking out. Like Bush before, Romney has a great many neoconservative advisors (see the fifth footnote to www.ARIwatch.com/ARIvsRonPaul.htm ). Even though Yaron Brook criticizes Romney, this is the same deception as his criticizing neoconservatism and he really would love to see Romney as the next president. Mark

In 1964 Ayn Rand gave two radio interviews mostly about Goldwater, one before and one after the election. Are they in the Ayn Rand On Campus series? The book Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed, edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz, is a selection of interview transcriptions. I haven't seen this book and I wonder -- given ARI's attempt to bury Ron Paul -- if there is anything positive in it about Goldwater. The reason Goldwater is relevant to Ron Paul is pretty obvious. Using ">" as shorthand for "more consistent with Objectivist application," ARI must realize: Goldwater >> Romney Ron Paul >> Goldwater Therefore Ron Paul >>>> Romney Ayn Rand’s endorsement of Goldwater must be an embarrassment to every good ARI-person. Protests to the contrary they are probably itching to see Romney in the Whitehouse because of the neocon baggage he comes with. Mark

Actually it is context that I have been advocating. One thing we should not forget is the government's mendacity. I'm tired of repeating myself so I'll leave it at that except to say that the sarcastic post "You are right except for ..." is not worthy of reply even if I weren't tired, and that enlisted men were told they were fighting to protect America, not Cambodians and Vietnamese.

Those 19 year old and 20 somethings died or were mutilated for the delusions of McNamara, Kissinger, Kennedy, Johnson and their ilk. To say otherwise and leave out what should be emphasized above all else, is to help deliver future youths to the same fate. "The Wall" is war propaganda. Don't fall for it.

gultch8, I resent being lumped with et al, LOL. Yes, Oath Keepers is a good organization from what I can see. I've had a link to it on ARI Watch for quite a while now.

Government politicos draft or con a man into dying for nothing. Afterwards the same government politicos pay one company to erect a glass wall and another to engrave his name, one among 58,195 of them, on the wall (the merely maimed or disfigured don't count). And the rubes are supposed to gush over the wall forever. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, noble about this anywhere at any point. If you want to honor the man for doing what he thought was right, in the same breath you should denounce the politicos who fooled him into thinking it was right. The most eloquent, impassioned denunciation of the Vietnam War I ever heard was from a former Army Sargent. They weren't all stupid.

I have mixed feelings about Memorial Day. All U.S. wars since the Revolutionary were at best a waste of bravery. Many of the soldiers were conned or drafted into them and we should not perpetuate the injustice by thanking them. Commiseration perhaps, but not gratitude. See Past Wars on ARI Watch. From Who’s Who on same: An ARI op-ed once praised American soldiers who "have fought and died for freedom around the globe" and it explicitly mentioned the Vietnam War, as if dying for Nguyen Van Thieu had been a virtue. The article was an orgy of self-sacrifice promotion, one of the most disgusting things ARI put out during their run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Yaron Brook was proud of the op-ed’s popularity, see "What We Owe Our Soldiers"

Yes, Regi Firehammer has written quite a few good articles. There's only one article that I violently -- figuratively speaking -- disagree with, which I'll mention in a moment, the rest range from mostly excellent to a few problematic. In case you happened to notice it, one of his articles uses the same rhetorical technique I use in my article "The Military Commissions Act of 2006." Not that I have a patent on rhetorical techniques but I'd like you to know I published my article before he did his. Again, all in all his website is pretty good. He opposes the Welfare/Warfare State and realizes that the so-called Ayn Rand Institute is a pack of hypocrites. Like all reasonable people he recommends ARIwatch.com and links to it. (In case you don't know, I run ARI Watch.) Now about the negative. No, I don't think it's his position on homosexuality. The later is obviously a *syndrome*. Whether it's a syndrome like left-handedness which cannot be trained away, or not, I don't know. Maybe somebody knows but I'm not interested enough in the subject to find out. The article by Regi Firehammer that is in my opinion the pits is "If You Spank Him, He Will Not Die." It's devoted to quoting and agreeing with someone else's article, by an oriental immigrant, "Why Chinese Mothers are Superior" illustrating the proper way to raise a child. (You read the warden's account, not the prisoner's.) A view on child education also represents, I would say, a view of man, in Regi's case man as inherently evil. And that evil must be beaten out of him, first by the parent, then by what? What sort of society would this child best feel comfortable in when he grows up? The Amish perhaps? China certainly. This one article by Regi blatantly contradicts the rest of his website. It's a freak among his articles. If it were possible I would denaturalize "tiger mom" and send her back. She could take her obedient children with her. Anyway, there are some good things on Regi Firehammer's website, reader discretion advised.

Selene, You offer no method for gulch8 to avoid those unhappy things. gultch8, Threads will meander. I don't think concern about voting machines translates into ignoring the threat of martial law. Martial law means military law. Is the U.S. that far gone towards a banana republic that the president owns the generals? Isn’t it a recognized principle that a serviceman can legitimately refuse to obey an unlawful – unconstitutional – order? I think if Obama tried to act on his executive orders it would be a case of too much too soon. Still, I agree with you. That he will try this should be prepared for. The people who need to prepare the most are the honest men in the military. I’m sure there are some. Mark www.ARIwatch.com

The article I referenced is based on an AP news article and a CBS news article. The related stories are suspicious and worth following. Here's the AP article: http://hosted.ap.org...EMPLATE=DEFAULT Here's the CBS article: http://www.cbsnews.c...graphy-charges/

If for some unaccountable reason jts wants me to read his posts, he must change his graphic -- or avatar or whatever it's called -- to something more pleasant to look upon. In the meantime the OL admin should replace it with one of those silhouette pictures.

"You have zero credibility." Maybe Ninth Doctor would include me, for I find the following "coincidence" suspicious: http://fromthetrench...ll-insane/15232 Perhaps Stephen Ivens is a nut, after all why contact a Russian envoy of all people? But the fact that 100 FBI agents are after him and that the FBI just happened to arrest his colleague Donald Sachtleben at the same time, and on a charge suspiciously like a frame-up, makes this story worth following. It's a week old at this point, nothing new that I can find. Mark ARIwatch.com/ARIvsRonPaul.htm

The latest executive order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness -- refurbishes previous ones. We should be alarmed, but not suddenly alarmed. The alleged source within DHS warning of government instigated civil war is not credible -- in my opinion based on reading the Canadian Free Press account. He talks at length about "one world government" yet what interest would Obama have in one world government? How would he become the head of it? The informant’s "three pillars" are fantastically exaggerated. The DHS, especially the TSA, are despicable, and I'm sure Obama will be thinking of ways to suspend elections if it looks like he's going to lose. We need sober minds to fight this. Mr. Greene (RightMarch.com) may be sincere but he seems an awful lot like a crank to me, one who charges you money to email your congressman. You can send emails to congressmen yourself or from DownSizeDC.org, both at no charge. Mark ARIwatch.com/ARIvsRonPaul.htm

Noodlefood (Philosophy in Action) continues to do its bit to protect ARI from real criticism. A comment there linking to ARI vs RP disappeared within minutes of being posted. It's a timely article and I think worth spreading around in Objectivist circles.

As hinted sarcastically at the end of the post starting this thread, Yaron Brook grossly misrepresents the views of Ron Paul. To see how bad it can get, see the new ARI Watch article: The Ayn Rand Institute vs. Ron Paul (In the post starting this thread I made a mistake. I confused the "von Mises Institute" with the man. Mr. Brook did not refer to von Mises.)