A blog dedicated to peace, liberty, prosperity and natural rights for all human beings. The welfare-warfare state and central banks are the enemy of human liberty and prosperity.
If anything, the rise of the youthful Ron Paul movement that also includes many old Libertarians has decisively and justifiably harmed the Republican Party by delivering painful ballot box defeats. As one who abandoned the Republican Party after 2004 because I viewed the GOP as statist, interventionist, fascist and and anti-civil liberties, separating myself from the goons and loons comprising conservative mob was a most liberating experience.
Can the Republican Party ever get back to its conservative small government roots? While the GOP's definition of conservatism has certainly become shamefully twisted over the years and decades, there really is nothing conservative or even constitutional about the Republican Party as it is presently constituted. The Republican Party is a party that must change or die. It really is that simple.
The conservative media is taking notice because, well, the painful medicine of GOP election losses has taken effect. The Washington Examiner, a website I consider a cheerleader for all things statist Republican neocon, is suddenly changing its tune and actually raising the foreign policy issue.
Tim Carney, who has actually done excellent work on the issue of crony capitalism, directly confronted the Iraq War.
Both Carney and Klein are right. Foreign policy is killing the GOP and is directly responsible for back to back presidential election losses. That said, the Republican Party does indeed have problems besides its non-stop interventionist wars.
Few folks even understand the conservative base, least of all Republicans and the RNC/GOP machine that engineered the disastrous defeat of the Republican Party. Although liberals and Democrats do indeed plunge themselves into endless tirades on Republicans and the Republican Party, it took a well known liberal election pundit to nail it. Stu Rothenberg penned an extraordinary piece.
The Republican Party continues to fracture more seriously than I expected following last year’s re-election of President Barack Obama.....
Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee entered the discussion with a lengthy report that dealt with everything from message to campaign mechanics and the presidential nominating process....
But while the report proposes a big tent strategy, others in the party — Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth, Sean Hannity, Tea Party Express and Jim DeMint — have a different agenda. Bliss did not have to deal with similar non-party groups 50 years ago, and their existence today undercuts the authority of the national party.
Allies of Ron Paul and “movement conservatives” have already criticized the RNC report, portraying it as little more than the establishment’s attempt to remake the party in the image of the Democratic Party.
Because the RNC cannot dictate message or mechanics the way it once could...
Since the GOP brand is damaged, it has little credibility with certain voters....
That the Republican brand is badly tarnished is no understatement. In fact, it's a glaring and bitter truth. Daniel McCarthy at The American Conservative also nailed it.
How Republican foreign policy lost the culture war—and a generation
America doesn’t really have a two-party system. It has a one-and-a-half-party system, where one party at a time tends to dominate the national agenda while the other becomes a half-party—one that might hold onto the House of Representatives and some state governments, but that isn’t trusted by voters to run the country.....
The root of the GOP’s problem now is the same as that of the Democrats in 1969: the party’s reputation has been ruined by a botched, unnecessary war—Vietnam in the case of the Democrats, Iraq for the GOP. This may sound implausible: every political scientist knows that Americans don’t care about foreign policy; certainly they don’t vote based on it. But foreign policy is not just about foreign policy: it’s also about culture.
The Vietnam War cost the Democrats dearly, just as it is costing the Republicans dearly. The 'WAR PARTY' label doesn't win elections. In fact, the 'WAR PARTY' label is a ballot box loser.
As for Republican styled fiscal conservatism, it's a total farce and a joke.
The Republican Party has big problems because it doesn't stand for anything except endless wars, bigger government, more deficits and more debt. The RNC's pathetic autopsy on itself was one whopper of an exercise in delusion and it's a delusion that can no longer be sold.
Meanwhile, the message of the rising Libertarian/Paulite elements within the GOP actually stand for something that does appeal to voters: peace, liberty and prosperity. Will Republicans drink the medicine that is the antidote to the poison they've been ingesting for decades?
As liberty activists and Paulites ponder Rand Paul and the implications of his now infamous senate filibuster, the future of liberty could very well depend on Sarah Palin. Liberty activists and Paulites don't especially trust or respect Rand Paul but Rand did score some very significant points last week and he scored them across the political spectrum by garnering kudos from well respected liberal civil liberty activists like Glenn Greenwald.
Like it or not, Sarah Palin got behind Rand Paul early in the Kentucky primary, praised him, endorsed him, campaigned for him and raised money for him. There can be no doubt that Rand Paul would not be sitting in the US Senate today had it not been for Sarah Palin. What is so magical about Palin? Very few folks are trusted or deemed credible when it comes to the rambling wasteland known as the convoluted conservative base. Clearly, Ron Paul had a lock on the liberty factions within the GOP. However, nobody is more trusted and respected than Sarah Palin when it comes to the grassroots religious right Republican neocons. She draws HUGE crowds when she speaks and she's simply adored, loved and trusted on a level that few have achieved.
I'm not sure what motivated Palin to get behind Rand Paul and help get him elected to the US Senate. In fact, Palin even praised Rand's famous father, Ron Paul, on Fox News in January 2012.
Last night, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin spoke with Fox Business Network’s John Stossel about how GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul “hit the nail on the head” when he warned Barack Obama to be careful when interjecting us in other countries’ business.
Palin did note that, for all that she supports Paul on, his almost “isolationist” stance on international relations gives her pause. That said, on the domestic front, “he’s the only one who’s been so adamantly passionate about doing something about the suffocating debt, about doing something about reining in government growth and actually slashing budgets.”
Palin has also earned the label 'The Queen of Neocon' and her support of a muscular interventionist foreign policy is well known. A Youtube video of the Evangelical Sarah Palin saying in church that the Iraq War is God's plan has gone viral on the Internet.
Has Palin changed her neocon stripes or is she just another shameless fraud attempting to capitalize on the ever increasing anti-war sentiments within the GOP? Well, the answer is yes to both. If anything, Palin is an astute political weatherman who knows which way the political winds are blowing and and she loves keeping herself out in front as a player. Before she became mayor of Wasilla, the governor of Alaska and ultimately the Thrilla from Wasilla as McCain's feisty running mate, Palin and her hubby had been involved in an Alaska secessionist movement because they opposed Fedzilla, who owns or controls nearly all the land in Alaska, making all the decision on Alaska land use, especially the oil and gas resource rich lands. Palin is a tenacious fighter with a long history of enjoying a political fight. As one who spent most of her life as an ordinary person devoid of power and money, Palin personifies rugged individualism.
When she signed on as McCain's running mate, she wasn't ready or sufficiently savvy to deal with the mostly nasty media blitz that immediately descended upon her. She fumbled badly. What I admire about Palin is that through it all she managed to stay Sarah Palin and absolutely nobody could mold her into their vision of what Sarah Palin ought to be.
However, there is a dark downside to Sarah Palin, namely that she so craves power and celebrity that she will haphazardly mine the opportunities wherever they are so long as they advance her quest for fame and fortune. Moreover, Palin does indeed have some nasty ideological baggage.
I'm no fan of Palin. In fact, I smacked her hard on an old blog.
For those Palininsta’s out there who consider Sarah Palin the magical elixir for a conservative revival, I want to caution that she is very much bought and paid for by the anti-sovereignty gangs that includes the United Nations, the CFR, the Bilderbergs and every other sovereignty slashing initiative devoted to global governance and the utter destruction of the Constitution of the United States of America. Simply put, Palin is an absolute fraud. Conservatives have been deceived for far too long by the likes of Bush 41, Bush 43, McCain, Palin and ilk.
Palin is on record supporting ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), a sovereignty slashing UN global governance treaty that puts 70% of the earth’s surface under UN taxing authority and control. Moreover, LOST is also the equivalent of OPEC on steroids because it actually creates a global energy cartel.
The global governance group, Citizens for Global Solutions, specifically praised George Bush and Sarah Palin for their endorsement of ratifying LOST.
As the Palinistas attempt to crown Palin the latest Republican version of an American absolute monarch, let's examine some truth.
Palin claims to be a supporter of free markets and low taxes. But in 2007 she raised the taxes on Big Oil operating in Alaska because she wanted to transfer wealth from Big Oil to Alaskans who actually get a direct annual cash stipend ranging from $1,500 to $2,000 depending on how much money is in Alaska's Permanent Fund.
Palin did what Democratics do best - redistribute wealth and this message is ballot box gold. However, instead of calling Palin's act of oil wealth confiscation an act of socialism, Republicans praised Palin for cutting a better deal for Alaska. When the Dems do what Palin did, they get bombarded by Republicans with vicious and accursed accusations that scream "socialism" and "Marxism".
Palin's oil tax has backfired because exploratory drilling in Alaska has slowed with negatiive economic consequences. Moreover, Alaska now seeks to tweak its oil tax by handing out special tax benefits.
It's fair to say that I used beat up on Palin all the time on Facebook when her supporters were trying to win her the Republican nomination. In fact, I beat her up so badly that those who were attempting to get her nominated as the Republican nominee ganged up on me, reported me to Facebook and my account was shut down.
But moving along to the here and now, we must deal with the basic rule of politics: We are all useful idiots unto one another.
Undoubtedly, Palin has witnessed the success of Rand Paul, the Rand Paul that she endorsed and got elected. Palin is also well aware of the success of Ron Paul's liberty movement that took enough votes away from Romney in critical swing states that the Republican Party lost another presidential election.
Personally, Palin has been evicted from the highest echelons of Republican power. Fox News has ditched her, she's been marginalized as a kook and now the powerful Bush/Rove machine is 100% committed to squashing the Tea Party movement, the Rand Paul's within the Republican Party and taking control of the entire GOP machine for the exclusive benefit of raising Jeb Bush as the next Republican messiah.
I used to say that the Republican Party was like a 3 legged table consisting of the social conservatives, the Rockefeller Republicans and the constitutional liberty activists. Take one of those legs away and the table falls, as did indeed happened on election day 2012. However, the paradigm consisting of the Republican battlefield has changed. It's now the Bush/Rove machine, heir to the Rockefeller Republican statist NWO legacy, vs. Paul/Palin and the rest of the Republican base.
Palin is well aware that Bush/Rove played a critical role in dethroning her. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and Palin fully intends to extract her pound of flesh from those who wronged her. Palin sees OPPORTUNITY knocking and she's not the kind of gal to pass up an opportunity. Palin is now hitching a revival of her star power to the liberty train and she doesn't care how many establishment Republicans lie dead on the battle field.
Palin reminds me of the famous Delacroix painting hanging Louvre titled Lady Liberty Leading the People. I can see Palin's head on the heroine of the partially nude woman brandishing the American flag as she charges forward and tramples the fallen bodies of establishment Republicans and the Bush/Rove machine.
Yeah, Palin's got baggage but she can once again rise above it. Besides, nobody has more ugly and hideous baggage than the Bush Crime Family but that's another story. However, I did smack the Bush Crime Family by exposing their big Democratic spending ways as well as their stupendous contribution to the big $16.6 trillion pile of debt.
George H. W. Bush contribution to the mountain of debt: $1.6 trillion
George W. Bush contribution to the mountain of debt: 4.9 trillion
George W. Bush Deficit inherited by Obama: 1.3 trillion
Total contribution to debt of 2 Bush presidents: $7.8 trillion with nearly half (47%) of the $16.6 mountain of debt attributable to Bush 41 and Bush 43.
American really can't afford another Bush president.
It's always the people vs. the establishment and if Sarah Palin can strike an enduring blow at the establishment, that's a big plus for the people. Sarah Palin isn't standing with John McCain. In fact, she is standing with Rand and proudly tweeted: Proud to #standwithrand since 2009. GOP, we need more courage like this!
The Republican Party resembles an ugly and peeling wallpaper, circa 1950's. While the Republican pundits are scratching their heads in disbelief over election losses, they all saying essentially the same thing: we are a great party, we have a great platform, we have a great message and we have a great plan to solve our problems. In other words, the Republican Party thinks that it's perfect just the way it is and, hilariously, their only problem is falling down when it comes to getting their message out. Romney Iowa strategist David Kochel said “First of all, we’ve got to improve our mechanics and our organization,” and “We got beat on data collection. Our polling was off. I thought that we spent way too much time in a defensive posture with our messaging.", here. Kochel also admitted that money was not a problem and the RNC/GOP machine had plenty of money “We certainly raised enough money. We don’t have to fix that,”.
The RNC has even launched a study to figure out why Romney lost and named the initiative the Growth and Opportunity Project.
The effort, known as the Growth and Opportunity Project, will be chaired by five GOP leaders and is charged by Priebus with initially reviewing past practices and also making critical recommendations for the future in these eight key areas: 1.) campaign mechanics and ground game; 2.) messaging; 3.) fundraising; 4.) demographic partners and allies; 5.) third party groups; 6.) campaign finance issues; 7.) presidential primaries; and 8.) lessons learned from Democratic campaign tactics.
The group will reach out to hundreds of individuals including RNC Members, grassroots activists, donors, elected officials, community leaders and other important partners to gain insight and help the Republican Party form a solid path going forward. These leaders will be involved in one or more of these critical areas.
The Growth and Opportunity Project is co-chaired by five prominent Republican leaders:
Henry Barbour, National Committeeman from Mississippi
Zori Fonalledas, National Committeewoman from Puerto Rico
Glenn McCall, National Committeeman from South Carolina
Sally Bradshaw, Veteran senior strategist in Florida and national politics
Ari Fleischer, Former White House Press Secretary
They will report their findings to Chairman Priebus and make recommendations for a long-term strategy for the future.
The Republican Party will be making a big play to win over Hispanic and African American voters. However, it's a flawed strategy that is doomed to fail. Hispanics and African American voters who aren't already diehard Democrat loyalists are liberty activists, constitutionalists and Ron Paul supporters who have no use whatsoever for the GOP or the Democrats.
Non-conservatives and liberals think they perfectly understand the Republican Party - the Republican Party is nothing more than a party divided by radical Tea Party types and moderate Republicans in the mold of McCain or Romney. Liberals tend to view the election triumph of the Democrats as a sign that America has taken a hard left turn so their incessant gloating is intensely festive. CNN chirps in, here, "Listening to Republicans try to explain what went wrong in their worse-than-expected election thumping reveals a party struggling to define itself amid continuing change in the nation it seeks to lead."
The Republican Party can no longer define itself because it doesn't stand for anything except bigger government, bigger deficits, more wars, more corporate welfare and more bankster bailouts. Still, the GOP hopelessly clings to the spectacularly false legacy of Ronald Reagan as the real conservative Republican model while it searches endlessly for the reincarnation of the ghost of Reagan. A lot has changed since the days of Reagan. Blindly worshiping Reagan and Nixon as a gods will not bring back those good old days when the GOP racked up impressive victories.
1972: Nixon defeats McGovern 520 electoral votes to 17 electoral votes
1980: Reagan defeats Carter 489 electoral votes to 49 electoral votes
1984: Reagan defeats Mondale 525 electoral votes to 13 electoral votes
In many ways, the Republican Party is like a 3 legged stool.with 3 constituent legs - the social conservatives, the Rockefeller Republicans and constitutional liberty activists.
1. The social conservatives endorse big government and endless wars.
2. The Rockefeller Republicans endorse big government and endless wars but are very uncomfortable the social issues which they don't care about.
3. The constitutional liberty activists oppose big government, the damn wars, the trillion dollar a year foreign policy, the Federal Reserve and they really oppose the federal government meddling in the social issues because it's not a power specifically enumerated in the constitution.
What is killing the Republican Party is that the constitutional liberty activists will no longer hold their noses and vote Republican as they once did and this is a trend that surfaced in 2006 and was considerably magnified in 2008 when the Democrats took back the House of Representatives and won the presidency.
In fact, the liberty activists are so angry with the GOP that they are determined to guarantee its defeat by voting 3rd party for however long it takes for the liberty activists to takeover the GOP from the warmongers and fascists. The Gary Johnson vote delivered critical swing states to Obama in 2012.
Yet, the archaic Republican Party views itself as a party that can win elections just by firing up the intolerant social conservatives, beating the war drums for perpetual bankrupting wars and sprinkling some cold dead words like 'capitalism' in the toxic mix to camouflage the crony capitalist fascist economy. Here's how the GOP view itself and its base.
The Republican game plan has finally failed. In fact, it's a BIG fail but instead of embracing traditional Republican conservatism and the agenda of the constitutionalists and liberty activists, the Republican Party is absolutely determined to vigorously pursue the Democratic model of romancing the Free Shit Army while growing government, slashing civil liberties and pursing endless wars - all traditional Democrat ideals that dumped America into the statist cesspool without a life jacket.
Who got America into WW I, WW II, the Korean War, Vietnam and the Balkan Wars? - all progressive liberal Democrats that were perennially obsessed with their divine right to rule over everybody and every nation. Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson and Clinton were all hardcore warmongering statists, although Clinton's appetite for war was downright squeamish compared with the overt addiction to mass human genocide of the most intensely worshiped luminaries within the Democratic Party.
Interestingly, the anti-GOP establishment website, The American Conservative, posted a piece on the anti-war and anti-foreign interventionist roots of the Republican Party.
One of the odder aspects of present-day politics is the assumption that if you are antiwar you are on the left, and if you are conservative you are “pro-war.” Like labelling conservative states red and liberal states blue, this is an inversion of historical practice.
The opposition to America’s entry into both World Wars was largely led by conservatives. Senator Robert A. Taft, the standard-bearer of postwar conservatism, opposed war unless the United States itself was attacked. Even Bismarck, after he had fought and won the three wars he needed to unify Germany, was staunchly antiwar. He once described preventive war, like the one America is being pressured to wage on Iran, as “committing suicide for fear of being killed.”
Conservatives’ detestation of war has no “touchy-feely” origins. It springs from conservatism’s roots, its most fundamental beliefs and objectives. Conservatism seeks above all social and cultural continuity, and nothing endangers that more than war.
In the 20th century, war brought about social and cultural revolutions in the United States....
Russia’s involvement in World War I gave us Bolshevism. Germany’s defeat made Hitler possible. As the First World War shows, if a conflict is costly enough, the victors’ social order can suffer nearly as badly as that of the vanquished. Not only did the British Empire die in the mud of Flanders, but postwar Britain was a very different place from Edwardian Britain.
The plain fact is, conservatives loathe unpredictability. They also know that vast state expenditures and debts can destabilize a society, and no activity of the state is more expensive than war. America’s adventure in Iraq, driven in no small part by the quest for oil—which will now mostly go to China—has already cost a trillion dollars, with another trillion or two to come caring for crippled veterans. Even the peacetime cost of a large military can break a country, as it broke the Soviet Union. American conservatives used to be budget hawks, not warhawks.
Exactly how the Republican Party managed to transform itself from the party of peace and constitutionally limited government into the Big Spending Progressive War Party is open to considerable debate and speculation. Somehow, the Republican Party became a wholly owned subsidiary of defense contractors, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, crony capitalism and the Banksters.
If the Republican Party thinks that it can romance the Democrats into voting Republican, the GOP is delusional beyond comprehension. The DNC has a solid and historically documented monopoly on big government, endless wars and statism.
Maybe it's time to just seal the GOP's coffin because it's a party that is ideologically, socially and morally irrelevant, as well as indistinguishable from the Democratic Party.
We know about Ron Paul, the humble doctor and family man who turned statesman and advocated for peace, liberty and prosperity for 30 years. Many compare Ron Paul with the founding fathers but the more I learn about our founders the more I am convinced that Ron Paul stands above them.
Take George Washington. What churned Washington into a revolutionary wasn't a quest for liberty for the American people but his own bruised and colossal ego. Early in his life, he was furious and humiliated that as a member of Virginia's slave owning aristocratic plantation class, he was denied a commission in the British army. Washington also lobbied hard for a land grant from George III to expand his already gargantuan land holdings and slave plantations. Washington deemed himself a high ranking and noble member of the privileged ruling aristocracy. His anger with the British stems from the fact that America's ruling aristocracy was denied equal recognition and power that was conferred upon Britain's own ruling aristocracy. The real George Washington vs. the fictional Washington legend that we find in our history books is a story of conflict that includes the good, the bad and the ugly.
Thomas Jefferson, another aristocratic member of the Virginia slave holding plantation class, is difficult and perplexing because of his extraordinary mind, prose, philosophical views and writings. Jefferson may have believed what he wrote, but he didn't live it. In fact, Jefferson was a compulsive spender who lived way beyond his means and was always in debt to fund his lavish lifestyle. While Jefferson did call slavery a "moral and political depravity", he never freed his slaves except for 5 slaves who were members of the Hemmings family and possibly the children he fathered with his slave Sally Hemming. Jefferson was so in debt at the time of his death that his slaves were auctioned off on the front lawn of Monticello and Monticello itself was auctioned off for a pittance. In reality, Jefferson lived his entire life as a reckless slave holding aristocrat. Jefferson's private life in no way comports with his incredible public life. Despite his flaws, Jefferson was an extraordinary man.
Alexander Hamilton was a most unusual character. He rose up from the lower middle class and was born and raised on a Caribbean slave plantation island. Hamilton revered and worshiped all things British including its empire and aristocratic merchantilism. Hamilton was catapulted to power and fame when he got noticed by Washington early in the Revolutionary War. Hamilton was smart, brave, dashing, loyal and hardworking. However, Hamilton also had an obsession with himself who he perceived as a rising Napoleon Bonaparte. After the Revolutionary War Hamilton ferociously fought for a new army and a war with France. Fellow Federalist John Adams, who was president at the time, squashed his war and military ambitions. Hamilton was so incensed with Adams that he successfully waged a campaign to guarantee that Adams would be a one term president for the crime of refusing to pursue a military US empire and costly wars.
Benjamin Franklin was an extraordinary and noble man by any measurement. He may have been America's first voluntarist because he was always organizing voluntary groups like fire fighters and he also lobbied the rich to donate books and money for libraries and public schools. Franklin belonged to many groups that voluntarily sought to solve problems without government and public money. Ben Franklin was 100% self-made and rose from humble beginning as the son of a Boston candle maker. He was also an incredibly astute diplomat who knew how to play the French against the British and vice versa. Without Franklin's superb diplomacy skills, it's doubtful that the French would have ever intervened on behalf of the American Revolution. But even Franklin, who truly believed that a deal could be cut with the British to keep America a sovereign nation but a loyal component of the British Empire, lobbied the British for a land grant for himself.
John Adams was, in my humble opinion, the founder closest to Ron Paul in ideology, morality and principles, even if Ron Paul and John Adams are temperamentally quite different. Adams was the son of a farmer who lived a simple life but throughout his life he never flinched or waivered on his principle, even though Adams had a few missteps and errors in judgment, particularly with the Alien and Sedition Acts. The enduring legacy of John Adams is that he fought Hamilton and other Federalist warmongers, the neocons of the day, and even sacrificed a second term as president to save the nation from war with France. For more on John and Abigail Adams, see:
At the end of the day, our founders are still extraordinary men and like all men they have their own flaws, limitations and motivations. Still, they were willing to sacrifice everything in pursuit of their Revolution. Jefferson narrowly escaped capture by the British when they literally showed up at Monticello to arrest him. Washington was well aware that he gambled the house and everything he owned on the Revolution. It's also fair to say that our founders were products of the times and despite their flaws they successfully forged a new version of human liberty that for the most part recognized natural rights as a guiding principle.
I think our founders would all be very proud of Ron Paul for ideologically perfecting and clarifying their dream in a context that is far more moral and relevant. Ron Paul never asked for anything and he never got anything. Ron Paul never sought glory or power or land or privilege. It's hard to find a human being alive or dead whose motivations are purer than that of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul will always dwell the the hearts and minds of folks who view peace and liberty as natural rights. The Revolution continues.
Farewell Dear Doctor. You were the last remaining patriot. I salute you for your wisdom, courage, and honesty. You alone were the shining light during this dark time. You are no longer alone in your fight for freedom, liberty, and truth.
By Ron Paul | Delivered on the House Floor, November 14, 2012
Farewell to Congress
This may well be the last time I speak on the House Floor. At the end of the year I’ll leave Congress after 23 years in office over a 36 year period. My goals in 1976 were the same as they are today: promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of individual liberty.
It was my opinion, that the course the U.S. embarked on in the latter part of the 20th Century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security.
To achieve the goals I sought, government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable costs of policing the world and expanding the American Empire.
The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my view point, just following the constraints placed on the federal government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start.
How Much Did I Accomplish?
In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness. In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history.
All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer. A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and corporate elite. And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.
The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending.
The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up.”
Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January.
I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell. Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.
Authoritarianism vs. Liberty
If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty. There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British government.
During my time in Congress the appetite for liberty has been quite weak; the understanding of its significance negligible. Yet the good news is that compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of teenagers and college age students are, with great enthusiasm, welcoming the message of liberty.
I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours, once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to deteriorate to the degree that they have.
Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts, generate wealth. In our early history we were very much aware of this. But in the early part of the 20th century our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and monetary systems had to change if we were to involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military spending. That is why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax. The majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to be “progressive” ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable.
They failed to recognized that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British.
Some complain that my arguments makes no sense, since great wealth and the standard of living improved for many Americans over the last 100 years, even with these new policies.
But the damage to the market economy, and the currency, has been insidious and steady. It took a long time to consume our wealth, destroy the currency and undermine productivity and get our financial obligations to a point of no return. Confidence sometimes lasts longer than deserved. Most of our wealth today depends on debt.
The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless, allowed concern for the principle of a free society to be neglected. As long as most people believed the material abundance would last forever, worrying about protecting a competitive productive economy and individual liberty seemed unnecessary.
The Age of Redistribution
This neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those who just wanted to left alone. That is why today money in politics far surpasses money currently going into research and development and productive entrepreneurial efforts.
The material benefits became more important than the understanding and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market. It is good that material abundance is a result of liberty but if materialism is all that we care about, problems are guaranteed.
The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system, it was doomed to fail. We have ended up with a system that doesn’t produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental understanding of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends.
If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time. Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue.
We Need an Intellectual Awakening
Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law. A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees.
If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties. Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream.
This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how our financial crisis of 2008 was handled. Congress first directed, with bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy. Then it was the Federal Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn’t succeed try again; QE1, QE2, and QE3 and with no results we try QE indefinitely—that is until it too fails. There’s a cost to all of this and let me assure you delaying the payment is no longer an option. The rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh and it won’t be pretty.
The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism. And the pessimism adds to less confidence in the future. The two feed on themselves, making our situation worse.
If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits, inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored. By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good results.
Everyone claims support for freedom. But too often it’s for one’s own freedom and not for others. Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties.
Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited. These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests.
No More ‘isms’
The great news is the answer is not to be found in more “isms.” The answers are to be found in more liberty which cost so much less. Under these circumstances spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and the quality of life improves.
Just this recognition—especially if we move in this direction—increases optimism which in itself is beneficial. The follow through with sound policies are required which must be understood and supported by the people.
But there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty and self-reliance. The more this change in direction and the solutions become known, the quicker will be the return of optimism.
Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the one that we have had for the last 100 years, has driven us to this unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a wonderful, uncomplicated, and moral system that provides the answers. We had a taste of it in our early history. We need not give up on the notion of advancing this cause.
It worked, but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself. Now we have neither, but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer. The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and benefits to all special interests.
After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders. In many ways their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has failed. Skeptics, at the time the Constitution was written in 1787, warned us of today’s possible outcome. The insidious nature of the erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave us, allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we now live.
Dependency on Government Largesse
Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every need. Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into satisfying their demands. Here are a few examples:
Undeclared wars are commonplace.
Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.
The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system.
Debt is growing exponentially.
The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights.
Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.
The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there will be a lot resentment thrown our way.
It’s now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial.
Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington.
Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders “isolationists.”
Sanctions are used to punish countries that don’t follow our orders.
Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine.
Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy.
Questions
Excessive government has created such a mess it prompts many questions:
Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?
Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
Why can’t Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp?
Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?
Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York?
Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?
Why do our political leaders believe it’s unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?
Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?
Why should there be mandatory sentences—even up to life for crimes without victims—as our drug laws require?
Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?
Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?
Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons?
How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?
Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?
Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?
Why does changing the party in power never change policy?
Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?
Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?
Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?
Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?
Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a “kill list,” including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people?
Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.
Why is it is claimed that if people won’t or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?
Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?
Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets?
Aren’t they the same?
Why don’t more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?
Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?
Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged?
Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world great religions.
Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and foreign policy?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?
Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?
Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust, the anger and frustration? Yes there is, and there’s a way to reverse these attitudes. The negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems. Identification of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easy.
Trust Yourself, Not the Government
Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves. Fortunately, many are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades. The blame is shared by both political parties. Many Americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want the demagoguing to stop. Without this first step, solutions are impossible.
Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity. The task is not that difficult if politics doesn’t get in the way.
We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons.
Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced. Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats. This replaces the confidence in a free society. Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they, armed with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production. This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty. It impoverishes the people and rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political parties.
It’s no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic differences being minor.
Economic Ignorance
Economic ignorance is commonplace. Keynesianism continues to thrive, although today it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals. Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue to desperately promote their failed policies, as the economy languishes in a deep slumber.
Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them.
Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions. The results are always negative.
The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.
This is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.
It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.
Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order. Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant.
No Government Monopoly over Initiating Violence
Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society. Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream. We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts.
Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.
We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. But even in these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech-a dangerous trend. Since 9/11 monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required.
The Proliferation of Federal Crimes
The Constitution established four federal crimes. Today the experts can’t even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books—they number into the thousands. No one person can comprehend the enormity of the legal system—especially the tax code. Due to the ill-advised drug war and the endless federal expansion of the criminal code we have over 6 million people under correctional suspension, more than the Soviets ever had, and more than any other nation today, including China. I don’t understand the complacency of the Congress and the willingness to continue their obsession with passing more Federal laws. Mandatory sentencing laws associated with drug laws have compounded our prison problems.
The federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code has 72,000 pages, and expands every year. When will the people start shouting, “enough is enough,” and demand Congress cease and desist.
Achieving Liberty
Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force. If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed. To achieve it, more than lip service is required.
Two choices are available.
1. A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole objective. The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty. Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.
2. A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations. Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer. This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages. Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible. It is used vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously. Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that: “power corrupts.”
Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government. Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression. There’s no in-between. Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.
Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.
The results are not good. As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed. The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system. It’s amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be.
The Financial Crisis Is a Moral Crisis
Many are now acknowledging that a financial crisis looms but few understand it’s, in reality, a moral crisis. It’s the moral crisis that has allowed our liberties to be undermined and permits the exponential growth of illegal government power. Without a clear understanding of the nature of the crisis it will be difficult to prevent a steady march toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it.
Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they want; option #1 or option #2. There is no other choice. Claiming there is a choice of a “little” tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a “touch of pregnancy.” It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government central economic planning is a worthy compromise. What we see today is a result of that type of thinking. And the results speak for themselves.
A Culture of Violence
American now suffers from a culture of violence. It’s easy to reject the initiation of violence against one’s neighbor but it’s ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people—practically at will.
Because it’s the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate. Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt. It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to “do good.” They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the “consent of the people.” The minority, or victims of government violence never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority. Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse.
This attitude has given us a policy of initiating war to “do good,” as well. It is claimed that war, to prevent war for noble purposes, is justified. This is similar to what we were once told that: “destroying a village to save a village” was justified. It was said by a US Secretary of State that the loss of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, in the 1990s, as a result of American bombs and sanctions, was “worth it” to achieve the “good” we brought to the Iraqi people. And look at the mess that Iraq is in today.
Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms. The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified, is the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits and becomes a political crisis as well.
First, we recognize that individuals shouldn’t initiate violence, then we give the authority to government. Eventually, the immoral use of government violence, when things goes badly, will be used to justify an individual’s “right” to do the same thing. Neither the government nor individuals have the moral right to initiate violence against another yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim this authority. If this cycle is not reversed society will break down.
When needs are pressing, conditions deteriorate and rights become relative to the demands and the whims of the majority. It’s then not a great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use violence to get what they claim is theirs. As the economy deteriorates and the wealth discrepancies increase—as are already occurring— violence increases as those in need take it in their own hands to get what they believe is theirs. They will not wait for a government rescue program.
When government officials wield power over others to bail out the special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen, they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us into undeclared wars with many casualties resulting, never lose sleep over the death and destruction their bad decisions caused. They are convinced that what they do is morally justified, and the fact that many suffer just can’t be helped.
When the street criminals do the same thing, they too have no remorse, believing they are only taking what is rightfully theirs. All moral standards become relative. Whether it’s bailouts, privileges, government subsidies or benefits for some from inflating a currency, it’s all part of a process justified by a philosophy of forced redistribution of wealth. Violence, or a threat of such, is the instrument required and unfortunately is of little concern of most members of Congress.
Some argue it’s only a matter of “fairness” that those in need are cared for. There are two problems with this. First, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than the poor. Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it’s fair to those who end up paying for the benefits. The costs are usually placed on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money out of thin air, and there is no cost. That deception is coming to an end. The bills are coming due and that’s what the economic slowdown is all about.
Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. It is the tool for telling the people how to live, what to eat and drink, what to read and how to spend their money.
To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. Granting to government even a small amount of force is a dangerous concession.
Limiting Government Excesses vs. a Virtuous Moral People
Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.
Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government. The sad part is that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty. The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and the massive expansion of debt. The real question is: if it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what “a virtuous and moral people” means and how to promote it. The Constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state-and frequently their own wealth and power.
If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power and love of freedom.
If this is the problem all the tinkering with thousands of pages of new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem.
It is self-evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and the apparent prosperity we still have, is nothing more than leftover wealth from a previous time. This fictitious wealth based on debt and benefits from a false trust in our currency and credit, will play havoc with our society when the bills come due. This means that the full consequence of our lost liberties is yet to be felt.
But that illusion is now ending. Reversing a downward spiral depends on accepting a new approach.
Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties.
The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government regulation.
Many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support greater dependency on the state by supporting war, welfare and corporatism and ignore the need for a virtuous people.
I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom.
Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek. Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is impossible.
If this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one’s natural ability, in the most productive manner possible, according to one’s own talents.
Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us; it only gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal becomes a bailout or a subsidy and these cannot provide a sense of personal achievement.
Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions. The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior. Without accepting these restraints, inevitably the consensus will be to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliance and productive, become the true victims.
Conclusion
What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five.
1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny. 2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of “blow-back” is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result. 3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression. 4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood. 5. World government taking over local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking, a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns.
Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends.
What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal.
The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity.
What could be more utopian than that myth—considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. It’s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.
No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior. Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny. This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty.
The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried. The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time. It’s time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do.
Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. There’s every reason to believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the obsession with war and welfare.
What I’m talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance.
The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist without a moral people. Just writing rules won’t work if the people choose to ignore them. Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington DC.
Benjamin Franklin claimed “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” John Adams concurred: “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people’s beliefs or habits.
A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society. All great religions endorse the Golden Rule. The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials. They cannot be exempt.
The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.
The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.
The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change.
It doesn’t mean that political action or holding office has no value. At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is taken for the right reasons it’s easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone sacrificing his principles.
Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it’s the virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish.
The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if the people’s attitudes aren’t changed.
To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgemental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.
The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected.
I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out “the plain truth of things.” The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.
If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.
Mitt Romney is getting pummeled in the polls and it's being reported that he is even less likable than George W. Bush, here, a very unpopular president except among hardcore Republican loyalists. Even the online gambling site, Intrade, is giving Obama a 79.2% probability of winning vs. 20.9% for Romney.
Is Romney the problem or is the Republican Party the problem? Well, it's both. Romney may be a stiff, insufferable and insensitive dork but the Republican Party itself has morphed into a party that mostly makes folks cringe.
The Republican Party is actually stuck in a time warp while the arrogant and clueless elites who control the Republican Party tenaciously cling to the same tired old mantra that all it has to do to win elections is romance the religious right and get them to the polls to vote. To be sure, the Republican Party has always suffered a profound deficit of solutions for our immense problems and its only bankable strategy has been to mobilize the dangerously unpopular social conservatives.
Well, the game plan is no longer working. Who could ever forget the memorable cringe worthy moments from the Republican primary debates?
Newt Gingrich shouts 'kill them' on the debate stage and gets a standing ovation, here. Ron Paul suggests invoking the Golden Rule and gets booed, here.
Rick Perry is cheered when he boasted that he was proud of his Texas execution record, here.
When a debate moderator raised the issue of just letting the uninsured die, the crowd went wild with loud cheers, here.
Gays in the military? The Republican audience booed loudly, here.
What made me personally cringe is that I was once a Republican until I saw the Republican base for the bloodthirsty hate-filled psychopaths that they really are. Is the Republican base the reincarnation of the Nazi Party? It's a horrifying thought that may be closer to the truth than we care to admit.
I sincerely doubt that Romney shares the views of the Republican mob. Unfortunately, he was forced to shamelessly pander to them to secure their primary votes. Moreover, the Republican Party elites kept screaming over and over that Romney was the only candidate who was electable in a general election. How utterly wrong they were!
The only Republican candidate with the testicular fortitude to directly confront the mob mentality with logic, compassion, humility and humanity was Ron Paul and the Republican mobs crucified him at the primary ballot box. The fatal flaw of Mitt Romney is that the guy was so obsessed with becoming president that he literally refused to take a principled position on anything.
What happened later was even more horrifying as the RNC/GOP machine changed its rules to permanently guarantee that liberty and grassroots activists will never again be able to participate in the nomination process because all RNC and Republican power has now been concentrated into the hands of a few party officials.
Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to do what they've always done - create a campaign strategy that demonizes the other party, even if the other party is no different than the Republican Party except for the highly inflamatory social issues that most Americans are bored with anyway.
Precisely because the Republican Party doesn't stand for anything except more of the 'same old, same old' tied old failed policies that got American into this economic nightmare, the Republican Party is doomed and possibly permanently.
While the Republican Party elites and the Republican base may be at odds, both are even more alienated from the American people and the magnitude of the problems that we face.
Finally, the Republican Party itself is a far bigger problem than the hapless and clueless Mitt Romney.
In 2008, the professional election pundits and pollsters contemptuously thumbed their noses at Intrade, the online gambling site. It was inconceivable that ordinary bettors could possibly best America's most astute and brilliant election pundits and pollsters. But in the end it was the Intrade gamblers had the last laugh in 2008. The Intrade gamblers got closer than anybody on their calls and by a wide margin. They predicted that Obama would win with 364 electoral votes. Obama won with 365 electoral votes to McCain's 173.
In 2008 Intrade had given Obama a 65% probability of winning, here.
The New York Times chirped in on the issue and acknowledged that its own highly respected pundit, Nate Silver, was off by 18 electoral votes.
Fast forward to 2012. Right now Intrade gamblers are giving Obama a 57.1% probability of winning in November to Romneys' 42.5%. Obama isn't quite as strong as he was in 2008 but the Man of Change who didn't change a damn thing is still comfortably ahead even through he will lose some of the red to purple states that he managed to flip to blue in 2008.
Colorado 54:45
Florida 51:48
Nevada 55:43
New Hampshire 54:45
New Mexico 57:42
North Carolina 50:49
Ohio 51:47
Virginia 53:46
The current Intrade numbers have pretty much remained the same throughout the 2012 election season and after the fiasco known as the RNC Convention, Romney just can't seize on anything that could deliver a sustainable bump. The customarily staid, flip flopping and boring Romney fails to inspire any voter excitement and ditto for his equally boring VP choice. Paul Ryan is coming under attack from a variety of ideological sides on issues ranging from his lies about running a marathon in under 3 hours to his insanely convoluted and big spending budget that doesn't even balance the budget until 2040 while spending trillions on the wars and military.
Obama has definitely incurred the wrath of the largely anti-war Democratic base over his continuation of Bush/Cheney foreign policy while starting new military interventions but the Republican base can't seem to want for anything except more wars. By appeasing the Republican base, Romney succeeded in alienating independent voters. Then there's the GOP's vicious treatment of the 2 million plus Ron Paul supporters who were literally run out of the Republican Party and the RNC Convention.
Romney and the Republican Party may be in dire need of holding on to every possible constituent voting block to even stand a chance of winning in November but they instead have opted to pursue a policy of arrogance and utter contempt for those conservatives who refuse to toe the party line by questioning the sanity of its big government agenda.
The GOP's scorched earth policy will indeed butt heads with the scorched earth policy of conservative liberty activists who are so incensed that their only goal is to guarantee that the Republican Party loses in November.
Clearly, it's been a miserable summer for liberty activists and the Paulites. We've been disenfranchised, smacked, slapped and stomped on by the Republican enemies of liberty. However, this afternoon the RNC delivered its grand gang rape to Lady Liberty via a teleprompter vote that made permanent Nazi style RNC rule changes. The Ayes Have It: Boehner Ignores Voice Vote, Makes Decision Via Teleprompter
“The ayes have it.”
Tuesday afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner called for a vote on a Resolution to Adopt the Rules of the Convention, as written, at the Republican National Convention. When he asked if there were any objections, it was clear from the floor and from those watching at home that delegates were objecting, but Boehner continued on, as if he had not heard them at all.
Boehner proceeded with the vote. The results of the vote were once again very clear, with a huge uproar of folks shouting, “nay!” from the floor. Boehner said, “the ayes have it”, even though it was obvious that the “nays” were far more numerous. Why?
Witnesses on the floor say that the teleprompter scrolled the words, “the ayes have it” before the nay vote was even called."
All I can say is WOW. These draconian rules changes effectively concentrate all GOP power into the hands of a few ruling elites for the purpose of forever banning any challenges to their CFR and NWO candidates. The RNC will now have the absolute power to veto any delegates it doesn't like or want.
All Republicans grassroots initiatives have been systematically squashed.
Gee, silly me thought the purpose of the primary was for We the People to select our candidates. Well, We the People just got gang raped along with the Lady Liberty.
Any sane, decent, moral and honorable person must immediately sever all ties with the Republican Party.
The Republican Party has officially morphed into the Nazi Party.
It's been a most disappointing 2012 Republican primary season for the dedicated liberty activists striving to restore the Constitution and liberty. Unfortunately, they hit a brick wall and that brick wall is the liberty hating Republican voting base.
2012 Republican Primary Votes:
Romney 9,809,662 or 53%
Santorum 3,909,460 or 21%
Gingrich 2,720,135 or 15%
Paul 2,063,043 or 11%
In 2008, Ron Paul got 1.1 million votes and 5.5% so his 2012 primary performance was a hugely significant improvement over 2008. Still, establishment Republicans have declared WAR on the Republican liberty activists and claim that Ron Paul delegates deserve to be disenfranchised, which they were, because these delegates exceeded their actual representative on a proportional basis.
However, this assumption is totally flawed and contrary to how political parties operate. In fact, the social conservatives and religious right have been very successful, at least since the 1980's, in having representation in the Republican Party that exceeded their actual numbers. How did they do it? They simply became political grassroots activists, same as the Paulites, and showed up at precinct, county and state conventions to assert their power by playing by the RNC's own rules. It was a very effective strategy.
In analyzing the Republican Party, it's best to understand its ideological composition which contains 3 legs, 2 big legs and one small leg.
The 3 legs of the Republican Party:
1. The commie, neocon, fascist Rockefeller R's (Mittens, Bush) - they murder in the name of the state, empire, resources and fascism while ruthlessly imposing totalitarian tyranny everywhere, including America.
2. The commie, neocon, fascist theocratic Warvangelical R's (Sanitorium, Huckabee) - these pagan fake Christians murder in the name of a deity, while ruthlessly imposing totalitarian tyranny everywhere, including America.
3. The Constitutional liberty activists who want peace, liberty and prosperity - something you will never get from the Rockefeller and Warvangelical R's.
Furthermore, the 2 big legs of the Republican Party combined forces and declared war on the liberty activists. It was a war that they won but what did they really win? We'll know in November.
It's important to note that the Democratic Party is pretty much identical to the Rockefeller Republicans. However, the Warvangelicals are also quite similar to the Democratic Party with their overt and profound social intolerance being the only difference. Still, it's a significant difference that fires up irrational passions on both sides.
So what chance does liberty stand in this cesspool of statist warmongering liberty slashing collectivists?
While Lady Liberty has definitely lost another battle, she hasn't lost the war because the liberty movement is growing and its growth is siphoning off voters from both the left and the right.
Do liberty activists have any ballot box power? It's a valid question and one that will undoubtedly be definitively answered in the November general election. In 2008, Obama defeated McCain 53% to 46% and by a staggering 9.5 million votes.
Unquestionably, the Republican Party does not have the advantage in 2012 as it lags in critical swing states according to all the polls. However, the greater question is can the Republican Party afford to lose the 2 million plus Ron Paul supporters, most of whom will not be voting Republican in November?
The Republican Party has calculated, perhaps erroneously, that it still has a solid and cohesive base that can and will deliver general election victories. Moreover, the Republican Party absolutely believes that the Paulites and liberty activist really aren't Republicans, never were Republicans and that these rogue rabble rousers attempted to illegally invade and and occupy the Republican Party.
As a liberty activist who has never voted for a Democrat, I can categorically state that I absolutely will not vote Republican in November because I'm morally compelled to reject statism, socialism, wars, empire, collectivism, corporate welfare and the wholesale destruction of civil liberties (NDAA, Patriot Act).
How alone am I? I really don't know but my guess is that I'll have 2 million or so voters standing right beside me in rejecting Republican tyranny.
