My endorsement goes to the man who can make coercive state work

By David McElroy · November 13, 2011

Much to my surprise, people sometimes send me email to ask who I support for the Republican presidential nomination. I can only assume those people don’t read the site thoroughly, but I’m going to make an endorsement today — just for them.

What is it we want in a president? We want a person who will respect individual liberty across the board, someone who will end government intervention in the economy, someone who will pull U.S. troops back to our own states and use them only to defend that territory, and someone who will dismantle the social welfare state that has been built for the last 80 years or so. There are other details we want, but those are some broad strokes.

Taking the requirements of the job into account, I’m throwing my complete support behind that great, patriotic American named Mr. Nobody. That’s right. Without question, Nobody gets my endorsement.

Since Congress controls the laws that decide how much individual freedom we’re allowed to keep, the other candidates won’t respect our freedom. They can’t. They don’t make the laws. Nobody will respect our freedom.

Because Congress mandates that the executive branch control more and more aspects of our personal lives, the president isn’t allowed to decide to let the economy operate on its own. Obama can’t do that. Romney can’t do that. Not even Ron Paul can do that. Nobody can.

Because wars and the use of the military are so popular, Congress is going to insist that U.S. bases around the world continue to operate — inevitably angering someone in the countries where they’re located. Because building expensive weapons puts massive amounts of money into the pockets of the military-industrial complex — and employs a good number of people doing it — Congress will continue to buy that equipment. No president is going to be allowed to cut military spending. Obama doesn’t want to and couldn’t if he did. Romney and the leading Republican contenders are chomping at the bit already to invade Iran. They aren’t going to stop the foreign adventurism. Nobody can.

Since the programs of the “social safety net” (such as Social Security and Medicare) are so popular, Congress is going to continue to fund them. It’s not only going to continue funding them, but it’s going to pile on additional programs, no matter what the economic conditions are. Obama is dying to keep adding programs, so he’ll co-0perate in adding them. Romney and the other Republicans who have a chance of winning will give lip service to ending a few programs, but they don’t really want to end them. (Remember that Romney is the architect of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, which was the blueprint for ObamaCare.) None of the other candidates will end the social welfare state. Nobody can.

So now you know. The candidate to support is 2012 is Nobody. Let me spell it for you. That’s N-O-B-O-D-Y. If someone asks you who you’re for, just give them that one name and then realize that you’ve said all you need to say.

I’m voting for Nobody. I suggest you vote for Nobody. It’s the only pragmatic and moral choice.

Share on Social Networks

We are ruled by the dumbest and most incompetent people among us — and we have a system which allows stupid and irresponsible people to force the costs of their idiocy onto smarter and wiser people. Can we get away with that? Yes, for quite some time. But we eventually reach a point at which the dumbest of the dumb — who are habitual liars and mentally ill fools — lead us to the disasters and destruction that some of us have seen coming for years. We are approaching that point. And yet most of the idiots around us still wave their rhetorical banners of support for the evil people who are leading us to ruin — and all of them point their fingers at someone else, never noticing that their own enthusiastic support of evil is to blame. When things finally fall apart, blame yourself for your blindness to the evil, not whoever happens to be in power when it happens.

I’ve been making some changes to the site lately and there are more changes coming in the days ahead, so don’t be surprised if you some small differences. This is not a wholesale redesign, but rather the addition of some features. Since they’re smarter than I am, I’ve put Oliver and Alex in charge of the technical work, which you can see in this action photo from the control room of our media complex. I recently added a series of landing pages for readers who randomly discover the site from an Internet search. I’ve also changed the YouTube link at the top of the page to go to the new YouTube channel for video essays that reflect things I’ve already published here. (Here’s a little bit about both of the YouTube channels I’m working on.) In addition, I’m trying to move away from using Instagram, so I’m experimenting with photo plug-ins that will eventually allow me to host the pictures — cats, dogs, sunsets, whatever — that I often take. So don’t be surprised to see more changes. Thanks for your patience. Let’s hope Alex and Oliver know what they’re doing.

I have no use for the theocratic and repressive government of Iran. The people who run the country are cruel at best and evil at worst. The Iranian people deserve freedom. But I have no personal quarrel with anybody in Iran. While I’m not thrilled about a future Iranian government having nuclear weapons, I’m just as concerned about nukes in the hands of politicians in Israel, Pakistan, India, China and Russia. I’m not even thrilled with the U.S., Britain and France having them, either, because I don’t trust any politicians to be responsible with such terrible weapons. All I can say with certainty is that American taxpayers have no business attacking Iran, especially since we’re being forced to pay for this attack in order to benefit the politicians of Israel — and nobody else. If Middle Eastern countries want to fight among themselves, that’s none of my business. It’s not the business of the U.S. government, either. I have no quarrel with anybody in Iran — and having the government which claims to represent me launch an unprovoked attack against a sovereign country will only make all Americans less safe in the near future. This attack is poorly conceived and morally unjustified. Remember that when the Iranians launch attacks that we will then condemn as “terrorism.” What the U.S. is doing right now looks like terrorism to me. And let’s not forget that the attack is the latest in a long line of unconstitutional wars by various U.S. presidents — who have no legal power to declare war on their own, according to the U.S. Constitution.

A child having a tantrum understands only one thing: Did I get my way or not? He doesn’t understand the issues involved. He doesn’t understand the reasons that went into a decision. He doesn’t understand any of the things that mature and reasonable adults have to understand in order to live healthy lives. By his reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down his disastrous tariff scheme, Donald Trump shows himself to be — once more — a screaming child having a tantrum. Outside the world of mob bosses who expect to get their way every time, normal adults don’t act this way, but Trump isn’t normal. He’s an angry and vengeful man who has narcissistic personality disorder. And we are in danger as a result. Trump doesn’t understand the legal issues involved in this ruling. He doesn’t understand economics. He doesn’t understand rule of law. He doesn’t understand that he can ever be wrong. All he understands is that he didn’t get his way. And he is now a narcissistic and raging little boy who also happens to hold life-and-death power over most humans on this planet. He’s dangerous — and the system which gives him that power is even more dangerous.

Is it an attempt to blur the gender line between men and women? Or is it some weird tribute to the traditional Scottish kilt? It’s hard to say, but fashion designers keep pushing for men to wear skirts in the last few years. Both men and women in modern fashion seem oddly androgynous, as though it would be offensive for a man to look manly or for a woman to look feminine. A CNN article about the latest fashions from Paris caught my attention Monday and left me wondering about the ugly clothes the designers are hawking. If a man wants to wear a skirt — or a kilt — that’s OK with me, but I’ll stick with a traditional dark suit with a white shirt and tie. (Well, when I’m not wearing t-shirts and sweats, of course.) I always wonder who actually buys the outlandish garb from fashion designers anyway. I would be humiliated to be seen in any of this stuff, but I obviously have no sense of high fashion.

Related Posts