Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Why the Repulblican Party Should Be Very, Very Afraid

This is why we fight.... Last night, John Spivey and I got to speak briefly at the first Ron Paul/Campaign For Liberty meetup since the 2012 Republican convention in Tampa. 

At the Tampa convention, Ron Paul's supporters were declared losers in voice votes that they obviously won.  Some of their state delegations weren't seated.  The Republican Party made it very, very clear that the Paul supporters weren't welcome.  Hell, they actually want the government to spend less money !!   

Note to readers in the UK and elsewhere.... Congressman Ron Paul (now retired) was a libertarian with a small l.  He championed all of the same values as the Libertarian party, but usually chose to remain a Republican.  Republicans have been in power longer, have more money, and are on the winning side of the "wasted vote" fallacy. 

(The wasted vote fallacy goes like this.... "I can't possibly vote for the Libertarian candidate.  If I don't vote for the Republican, the Democrat will win.")

There is a growing Liberty movement within the Republican Party.  Unfortunately, it is aligned with the champions of bloated military budgets, gay/lesbian hatred, corporate subsidies, import quotas, the drug war, and the Noah's Ark preservation society. 

Ron Paul lost his bid to be the Republican nominee for president in 2012 because of the blatant dishonesty of the Republican convention process, and perhaps because the majority of the delegates were drunk enough to nominate the godfather of ObamaCare, Mitt Romney. 

Back to what happened at the meeting....

After listening to Jeremy (the group leader) describe a horrifying Republican party convention where Ron Paul delegates and supporters were intentionally kidnapped and driven around Tampa for 3 hours by treacherous bus drivers who had no intention of taking them to the convention site, plus hundreds of incidents of parliamentary skullduggery, and thugs separating delegates from their groups, plus blatant disregard for the will of the delegation,  I got my chance to address the group.
 
I told them what their philosophical, economic, and political brothers in the Libertarian party had been up to.  I thanked them for working so hard for liberty.  And then I couldn't help myself.... I asked the group if any of them STILL voted for Mitt Romney, despite being treated like Zoo Dirt by the Republican Party.

 
Only two men raised their hands.  (I suspect that those two masochists enjoy having their wives spank them with hairbrushes, being made to clean the toilet with their toothbrushes, all while being told that they've been naughty, naughty, naughty.) 

Then someone asked how many people voted for the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. 
2/3rds of the people in the room raised their hands.
Some of these people were delegates to the Republican state convention and national convention! 


Rand Paul (Dr. Ron Paul's son) will not be the Republican nominee for president in 2016.  The Republicans would nominate a cocker spaniel before they would nominate a small-government chip from the Ron Paul block.  Someone like Chris Christie or Paul Ryan will get the nod. 

And once again, THE Libertarian party will be waiting for the Republican Liberty Movement voters with open arms, along with promises that they won't be kidnapped and driven around Tampa for three hours. 
 
We're on the winning side.  Gary Johnson for president, 2016. 



 

Saturday, February 2, 2013

It wasn't the Rotary Club that segregated the public schools

Here are some goodies from Don Boudreaux on what would happen to Civil Rights and Civil Liberties without the heavy hand of government making us behave.

Remember: Jim Crow was legislation, not custom. PLEASE read the whole thing....
Letter to editor: Reacting to Rand Paul’s remarks about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, you say that his libertarian philosophy “is a theory of liberty with roots in America’s creation, but the succeeding centuries have shown how ineffective it was in promoting a civil society….  It was only government power that … abolished Jim Crow” (“Limits of Libertarianism,” May 22).

Don Boudreaux: You’ve got it backwards.  Jim Crow itself was government power.  Jim Crow was legislation that forced the segregation of blacks from whites.  Research shows that people acting in the free market that you apparently believe is prone to racial discrimination were remarkably reluctant to discriminate along racial lines.  It was this very reluctance – this capacity of free markets to make people colorblind – that obliged racists in the late 19th century to use government to achieve their loathsome goals.*
Had Mr. Paul’s libertarian philosophy been followed more consistently throughout American history, there would have been no need for one government statute (the Civil Rights Act) to upend earlier government statutes (Jim Crow) and the business practices that they facilitated.

Once again, hit the link up top to read the whole thing....

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Ron Paul's Farewell Address

Here's Ron Paul's Farewell Address to Congress. 
Pure, undiluted greatness. 

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.

Consider it done !  Please spread this, link it on FB, whatever is necessary.... 

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Adrian Murray on losing our souls

I've recently had three frustrating conversations lately with three different friends about our overseas military adventures.  One friend is a Republican, one is a Democrat, and the other, as best I can tell, is indifferent. 

When the subject comes up, I try to point out that if the Chinese had military checkpoints between our homes and our jobs, we'd resent them.  Just a little bit.  Then I question how much we should continue to pay to defend South Korea, Japan, and Germany.  A few times I've offered to take donations for defending Germany's borders.  Nobody contributes.  Regular readers of this blog already are sick of me beating these dead horses with the same old sticks. 

There's also the old standby...."We've got 6% of the world's population, but we're responsible for 45% of the world's military spending."  My friends don't think this is odd or unnecessary, despite Italy, Brazil, Mexico, Japan and Germany having relatively small military forces and they seem to do just fine.  In fact, since they don't have to supply funding to an obscenely expensive army and Hillary Clinton's air miles, some of their manufacturers are doing great. 

These discussions with these three unrelated friends came down to one final point....But this is my job !! My job at Lockheed/Bell Helicopter/Carswell Air Force Base/Owen Oil Tools depends on a huge military.  Think of what it would do the economy if we were to reduce our military.  One of them even said "Whited, you realize this stuff you're doing in politics isn't a game, right?  There are hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake." 

Does it really come down to that?  Are we going to keep blowing up children just to ensure that unemployment doesn't go above 9% ???


My friend Adrian Murray is one of the bad guys that the Lamestream Media often warns us about.  Adrian has been associated with the Tea Party and Glenn Beck's 9-12 group.  He's also an evil capitalist of the worst sort, providing wiring harnesses for cars and trucks, and creating jobs for immigrants, all in exchange for a profit.  Adrian has apparently been thinking a lot about this topic.  Here's something he threw down on Facebook a few days ago: 

 Immediately following the attacks of September 11, 2001, pundits and others in the media said it was a day which would change America forever. We had lost our innocence, they told us. We had lost our sense of security. We had lost our trust of our fellow man.


But no one told us we would lose our soul.

For a brief moment after 9/11, Americans of all shapes and sizes, colors and ages and creeds, came together as one. For that brief moment, forever now lost in the narrow corridors of memory, we were kind to one another. The America that we always sensed, always believed in, was there for that brief shining moment. It is gone now. Gone forever, perhaps.

What happened to us that we find ourselves where we are today, tearing ourselves apart in fits of anger and fear and boiling rage? We are a nation being pulled asunder, a nation on the precipice of losing not just our country, but our entire identity as well. We had better understand what is happening to us if we are ever to find ourselves again.

We all have differing memories, different experiences and not all of us came to the same place by the same route at the same time. For me, the unease began in June 2002, when President Bush delivered a speech to the graduating class at West Point:

“Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act……And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.”

We had just completed (or so we thought) a successful military campaign in Afghanistan where we had routed the Taliban and established a seventh century version of a Democratic government in a country permanently locked in the middle ages. We still bore the wounds of 9/11 and while we vowed never to forget, we were beginning to heal.

I remember the unease I felt when I heard those words above. Preemptive action? Were we about to attack somebody? Someday someone may astutely observe that that was the moment America began her slow slide into chaos.

Wars are alternately galvanizing and divisive events. One, of course, wants the home team to do well, to fight with honor and to come home safely. To do that, other people must die, many of them innocents. Many, sadly, are children. But they’re not our children so our grief is not long lasting. We move on to other things - celebrity weddings and all of that.

It became popular during the Iraq war to show one’s support for the troops with yellow ribbon stickers on trunk lids and rear windows. It was, we felt, fitting to show our support for the soldiers while not tacitly endorsing what was being done in our name and on our behalf.

No one at the time believed we would be supporting those troops in Iraq for nearly a decade. The Pentagon went in thinking they’d be out in six months. As 2003 turned into 2004 and 2005 turned into 2006 and the brutality and horror of what was happening in Iraq was too shocking for most Americans to behold. Major news networks, in order to protect American sensibilities, shielded us from the true nature of the carnage, showing just enough to provide a hint that there indeed was carnage, but never going so far as to actually show the beatings, the tortures, the slaughter of children and women, the destruction of homes and property, the random, senseless killing. We knew it was there, we all did, yet many turned away or changed the channel. America is a shining light in the world and we can do no wrong.

The slaughters then in Iraq and Afghanistan and now in Pakistan and Yemen, are remote to us. They come to u in thirty second bites on the evening news or as crawls at the bottom of the screen. We talk about bombings and air strikes and killing as casually as we discuss the weather, as if what is being done in our name is of no consequence to us, as if other life has no meaning. We weep for the baby in a well but close our eyes to the babies in hell.

I watched a video the other day, one that in one moment I wish I hadn’t watched and then in another I am glad I did. It was raw footage, purportedly from Libya , but I have no way of knowing, of bombs dropping near villages, bombs with huge fire and mushroom clouds hundreds of feet in the air, footage of screaming, terrified children in the streets, running in search of shelter or loving arms, footage of living children with their jaws blown off, shrapnel wounds the size of grapefruit in the back or limbs, dead children by the roadside, blown apart and I thought to myself, my dear God, what have we become?

My God, what if they were our children?

I don’t mean to be harsh towards those I do not know and they are many, I am sure, who came to this revelation long ago. But, America, out of our horror and our sadness and our anger from the events of 9/11, we have become a cold and a brutal people, content to inflict misery on others in order to prevent it from being inflicted upon us. We are like the citizens in the Capitol of Panem , cheering on children killing each other in order to be spared some personal discomfort. That may be fine for now and it may buy us some time and some leisure, but one day we are going to have to answer for all this, in this world or in the next.

Have we lost our soul?

Today it was reported by the Washington Post that President Obama has authorized the CIA and the military to expand the drone bombing campaign in Yemen. There was a time I would have read that and not given it a second thought. So what? I would have thought. Doesn’t impact me. Kill the bastards.

But then I thought of who we were and what we have become. The article in the Post contains this statement: “The expanded authority will allow the CIA and JSOC to fire on targets based solely on their intelligence ‘signatures’ — patterns of behavior that are detected through signals intercepts, human sources and aerial surveillance, and that indicate the presence of an important operative or a plot against U.S. interests. Until now, the administration had allowed strikes only against known terrorist leaders who appear on secret CIA and JSOC target lists and whose location can be confirmed.”

So now, just because we can, we kill people without discrimination or identification based on patterns of behavior. Just who authorized this in Yemeni government, or is the only sovereignty we respect our own?

The image of young military personnel lined up at computer screens deep in a mountain side in Colorado, joystick in hand, dropping bombs on people they don’t even know and can’t really even see thousands of miles away on the other side of the world based on “patterns of behavior” is not my image of America. It is not what I conjure up when I think of the home of the brave. It is most definitely not what John Winthrop envisioned when he told his fellow settlers in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, “For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”

The eyes of all people are indeed upon us, but they no longer see that shining beacon of light and liberty. They see a nation fearful of liberty. They see a nation seeking the security of bondage. They see a nation that has lost its soul.

For our own sake and for the sake of our children and for the sake of children halfway around the world living in ramshackle villages sewers flowing in the streets, we must regain our sense of who we are or at least of who we were before we became who we are. We need to rediscover ourselves - and quickly. The time is running out. The choices before us are stark. We can either continue closing our eyes to the horrors around us, continue sinning the sins of the weak and the fearful, or we can shed the shackles of fear and restore America to her ideals.

There’s only one man left running for President who understands that. It took me much longer to come to that conclusion that it should have. If you’re on the edge, get off it. It’s an exhilarating discovery to realize Ron Paul has been there all along. Take the plunge.

It’s for America’s soul. 
 
 
Great essay, there, Mr. Murray. 
And just in case Ron Paul drops out of the race or doesn't get anywhere at the Republican convention, there's going to be a Libertarian candidate on the ballot who believes in the exact...same...things. 
 
Go Gary Johnson !  Or Lee Wrights !  Or anybody but one of the Obamneys !!! 

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Adrian Murray and Ron Paul

A friend of mine from the Conservative/Republican side of the spectrum was at the Ron Paul event at the Will Rogers auditorium in Fort Worth last night.  Adrian Murray is one of my Hometown Heroes, and I was delighted to see him at that event. 

Here's Adrian Murray, writing on Facebook about his experience there:

COULD I BE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE?

Sometimes I think this whole world
Is one big prison yard
Some of us are prisoners
Some of us are guards

Bob Dylan

Having lost my preferred choice for a presidential candidate on Tuesday, I determined that after a suitable period of mourning and reflection the only viable option was to shake it off and begin the search anew, the presumptive, media-anointed frontrunner not being desirable or acceptable.

Last night, as part of this Quixote-like quest, I ventured into the heretofore unexplored dimension of a Ron Paul rally and was witness to something that can only be described as all parts exhilarating, befuddling, encouraging, depressing, moving, maddening and, ultimately, inspiring. More on all that later.

Over the years I have been to more political rallies, events, forums, roundtables, discussion groups, debates and whatever than I care to remember. While a whole range of adjectives from boring to thrilling could be used to describe these events, I have never before been moved to use contradictory metaphors for the same event. Attending a Ron Paul campaign rally is a singularly unique experience. I have never seen anything like it before. Perhaps phenomenal is the word that comes closest in accuracy, not in the ordinary “awesome” sense, but in the other-worldly, spatiotemporal sense.

A little truth in advertising first: I come from an old school of conservatism, a hodgepodge of Strauss, Kirk, Buckley, Reagan and a smattering of other modern day conservative thinkers who shaped my thinking while coming of age in the midst of a persistent nuclear threat during the so-called Cold War, replete with duck and cover, fallout shelters and a young girl sitting in a meadow picking the petals off a daisy. One is shaped by the world one is raised in and then, if playing the game right, uses those experiences to shape the world for those who will inherit it.

The purpose of this piece is not to analyze Mr. Paul’s specific policies, although my worldview does not coalesce with his on many fronts. I do not write this piece from the point of view of a longtime Paul devotee, many of whom (and you know who you are) I have exasperatingly debated over the fallacies I see in some (not all) of his positions. Over the years, though, I have learned (much to my surprise and dismay) that not everyone will agree with my positions on all things and I often frustratingly find myself having internal disagreements with my own stated beliefs. Such is the nature of evolving thought.

I have spoken before a lot of groups in the last several years as we have all grappled with the seeming dissolution of our country. I have half-jokingly said on many of these occasions that the other side doesn’t really have to defeat us politically, they just have to wait for us all to die off so they can implement their plans. My point has been that the greatest issue facing the conservative cause is a demographical one, a lack of diversity that will shortly render the conservative message irrelevant. Where are the youth? I and others have asked. Where are the people of color? Why doesn’t the conservative message resonate?

The answer to where they are could be found last night at the Will Rogers Auditorium. Often at political events there is a sense of excitement, anticipation, a certain buzz in the audience while waiting for the main event. Excitement, anticipation and buzz are weak and inadequate words to describe the pre-rally crowd last night. Energy is even inadequate. What undulated through the thousands who thronged outside before the doors opened last night was a kinetic power, the power of hope, the power of liberation, the power of anger at a system turned upside down, the power of liberation and, yes, the ultimate and emancipating power of freedom. You had to be there to understand it.

Once inside, for the only time in my politically active life, I was transported to a world I had not seen before. There was enough energy in that room to power a skyscraper. Teenagers, college students, whites, Hispanics, African Americans, Asians, middle-aged, elderly, every racial, ethnic, socio-economic, cross cultural ingredient of the American melting pot was there. The auditorium was a cauldron of American citizens who understand and have grasped the true nature of the tyranny which has befallen this nation, a conflagration, if you will, of passion and anger and joy and determination. This is where the fire starts this time. The eruption when Mr. Paul took the stage was deafening.

While I didn’t find much to cheer about on the foreign policy portion of his speech, it is on domestic policy that I find much agreement with Ron Paul. In fact, he could have lifted whole tracks of his speech from my book, Common Ground America. Foreign policy, while a crucial element of any president’s agenda, has slowly shifted from my center of attention to domestic policy, I having long come to the conclusion that the greatest threat to American freedom comes not from foreign governments, but from our own. Sadly, America has become one of the least free nations on earth. Increasingly, everything in our lives is being regulated by a faceless bureaucracy, to a degree that neither Orwell nor Huxley could have imagined. Want to add a room onto your house? Get permission. Want to get married? Get permission. Want to open a business? Get permission. Want to fly a flag in your front yard? Get permission. Want to own a gun? Get permission. Want to open a lemonade stand? Get permission. Want to play Frisbee on the beach? Get fined. Want to preach politics from the pulpit? Get fined. Want to protest your government without permission? Get arrested.

We have become a nation of regulations and licenses and permits, fines and punishment and intimidation by a remorseless, uncaring government. We have become, as Dylan sang in 1971, “One big prison yard”, in which our guards are always watching, always monitoring, always snooping, always threatening, always ready to swoop in with a fine or a cuff or a taser or a bullet should we wander outside the boundaries of what is allowed. The IRS can now revoke your passport should you owe too much on your taxes, making you not just a literal prisoner but a figurative one as well. It has been so long since we were truly free that we don’t even recognize it anymore. Freedom is slowly being snuffed out in American.

Obamacare is only the latest affront to freedom. While lawyers and pundits debate the constitutionality of this provision or that, what goes unstated is the insidious evil of the bill itself. Your very body, your existence, you own life will now belong to the state should Obamacare stand. If your physical body belongs to the state, how then is American freedom defined?

What exactly is our national security securing? Certainly not our liberty. We have been sacrificing ever larger chucks of our liberty to the gods of security for decades now and in the interests of securing our liberty have given it all away. Go to an airport if you want to witness the loss of liberty in all its glorious humiliation. One wonders if we actually were taken over by another power and our Constitution dismantled what exactly could they do to restrict our movements, monitor our activities and control our actions that would be any worse or oppressive than what our own government is doing right now?

This part of Mr. Paul’s message, if I have interpreted it correctly, is what resonates with me. All the other things pale in contrast to our becoming a nation of slaves.

Can Mr. Paul become the next president of the United States? At the risk of inflaming his supporters, I must say I doubt it. The media’s message is that he no longer exists, the question is settled and Mr. Romney is the Republican nominee. It is true Mr. Paul’s most ardent supporters are strenuously working at the precinct level to tilt the delegate count at the Republican convention in his favor. Do they have the numbers to pull that off? I don’t know. But knowing the ones involved locally I would guess their chances are better than 50/50. Will that type of organized effort be successful in enough states nationwide to put Mr. Paul over the top? Your guess is as good as mine. I’m not even going there.

So what did I come away with last night? It can be captured in one picture. Before Mr. Paul was introduced, part of his family took the stage: his wife, one of his sons, a smattering of cousins, nieces and nephews. That picture tells us all we need to know. They are us. They weren’t pulled from central casting, exquisitely coifed and finely tailored, prepped and ready for the cameras. No. They are a family. They are us.

Where personally do I go now? As I said, I have more internal debates than an outwardly sane person should admit. For over three years now I have been looking for an army - an army to take on the anti-Americans, the Communists, the statists, the outright criminals running our government. An army of citizens fiercely devoted to liberty and the founding principles of America. One rose up three years ago but slowly faded away. As I looked around the room last night, I saw a lot of faces I recognized from the past, from the ghost army that either became dispirited or no longer believed in the message. So this is where you all went….

The flame of liberty’s torch is no longer just slowly being extinguished. Each day brings new Executive Orders, new laws, new regulations, each more ominous than the last. Corruption in our government and our financial markets is rampant. The disease of dependency is infecting every layer of society. America is dying. We need an army of citizens, motivated and committed, to restore liberty in America, to breathe new life, new vibrancy into a nation on life support. We will not return our nation’s vitality with lawyers. We will not be prescribed the cures for our ailments by opportunistic politicians pedaling the latest edition of What Will It Take to Buy Your Vote. We simply will not. America is on the brink of flatlining.

Which logically only leads to one question:

Is there a doctor in the house?

Which logically only leads to one answer:

Ron Paul 2012

Adrian Murry has now been exposed to The Gateway Drug.  We all know what the next step is for him, don't we?  The man is too well-read and too smart to be in any party except.....

Ron Paul: Gateway Drug To Libertarianism

I went to hear Ron Paul speak at the Will Rogers Auditorium in Fort Worth last night. 
It was pure greatness. 
I tried live-blogging it by cell phone.  If you have the patience to wade through that failed effort, you can go here, and hit "next post" after every 1.875 sentences. 


I saw Anna Tinsley from The Fort Worth Star-Telegram in the crowd, and managed to get interviewed again.  Here's Anna's piece that ran today:

FORT WORTH — U.S. Rep. Ron Paul isn't getting out of the presidential race anytime soon.
But the Lake Jackson doctor did say that fellow Republican Rick Santorum's decision to suspend his campaign has led many to ask Paul about his plans.

"There were 12 [GOP candidates] at one time. Now there are three," he told a standing-room-only crowd at the 2,856-seat Will Rogers Auditorium on Wednesday night. "It looks like we are cutting the field down.
"They ask me if I'm going to quit. I thought we were just getting started. We have a revolution to fight, a country to change."

Paul, who trails Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, reiterated his themes of limited government, personal liberty and a balanced budget.

He said that troops should come home, that government should be reduced, that the Patriot Act should be repealed, that foreign policy interactions should decrease, and that the middle class needs to stop shrinking and stop becoming poorer. As for the nation's healthcare plan, "the easiest thing is to repeal the whole thing and start all over," he said.

Many in the crowd, who stood throughout Paul's speech, waited for hours to get in. Once inside, they were quick to show their support.

Four shirtless men had painted "R-O-N-!" on their chests. Others spontaneously chanted "President Paul." And many carried signs or wore promotional buttons and T-shirts.

Cries of "I love you, Ron Paul," could be heard throughout the auditorium once he began speaking.
Paul said such enthusiasm is encouraging.

The people with seats down stairs didn't sit down throughout the entire speech.  Can you imagine someone bothering to stand throughout another Obama lecture?  Or a Mitt Romney Powerpoint Sing-Along?  Ugh...


"People ask, 'When are you going to drop out?' When nobody wants to support the cause of liberty," he said. "There's a lot of people who care about freedom ... so we will keep going until we have victory."

Paul's supporters are expected to be a force at state GOP conventions nationwide -- as they were during his 2008 presidential bid -- trying to become delegates for Paul at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., in August. They hope for a brokered convention that could open the door for Paul to become the nominee.

This is his third bid for the White House. His others were in 1988 as a Libertarian and in 2008 as a Republican.

His goal with this week's three-city Texas tour -- Fort Worth is home to his doctor son Robert -- is likely to make sure that people in his home state hear his message.

"He's trying to preach to people his mission and create a libertarian understanding of politics," said Jim Riddlesperger, a political science professor at Texas Christian University.

"The longer this primary season goes forward, the more opportunities he has to preach the message of libertarianism across the United States.

"The people who have heard his message ... are true believers."

Count Allen Patterson, who heads the Tarrant County Libertarian Party, among those believers.

"Ron Paul has been the gateway drug to libertarianism for a lot of people," Patterson said. "His movement has gained an incredible amount of traction in the past eight years."


Lance Kennedy, 24, of Dallas said he is a fan but is afraid that Paul might not be able to win the nomination.
Kennedy, a law student at Southern Methodist University, said that even if Paul doesn't win, his libertarian message will continue -- perhaps through his son U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

"The movement will continue, and I think we could still see a Paul in the White House eventually," Kennedy said.

Marion Hostetler, 45, said his drive from Ovilla was worth it to see Paul.

"Ron Paul is one of the few people I actually believe," he said. "When he says something, I think I can count on it being true.

"Hopefully America will start waking up and see we only have one candidate."

I beg to differ with Marion on that.  The Libertarian Party will select a candidate in a week and a half.  Once RP drops out of the race, and he will drop out of the race, there will be two real choices:  The LP candidate or one of the Obamneys. 

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Ron Paul, on "An Administration Gone Rogue"

Guess who scored a ticket to Ron Paul's speech at the Will Rogers Memorial Center in Cowtown on the 11th???
That should be good. 

BTW, Ron Paul has hired relatives as staffers, he's added non-germane earmarks to bills, somebody wrote some incredibly disturbing racist stuff in his late 80's-early 90's newsletters, and I think he once lost his patience with an incompetent nurse.  He once farted.  He has delivered more than 4,000 babies, most of whom now contribute to Global Warming.  There are rumors that in the 7th grade, Ron Paul wrote a negative book report about To Kill A Mockingbird. 
(I'm going to start getting all the negatives out of the way early so my Facebook and website trolls don't have to work so hard.) 

Here's Dr. Paul's latest broadside against Those Who Program The Teleprompter.  It's called "An Administration Gone Rogue". 

Have certain parts of the Constitution become irrelevant, as a former Republican leader once told me at a Foreign Affairs Committee hearing? At the time, I was told that demanding a Congressional declaration of war before invading Iraq, as Article I Section 8 of the Constitution requires, was unnecessary and anachronistic. Congress and the president then proceeded without a Constitutional declaration and the disastrous Iraq invasion was the result.

Last week, Obama administration officials made it clear that even the fig leaf of Congressional participation provided by the 2003 "authorization" to use force in Iraq was to be ignored as well. In a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated clearly and repeatedly that the administration felt it was legally justified to use military force against Syria solely with "international permission". Such "international permission" could come by way of the United Nations, NATO, or some other international body. Secretary Panetta then told Senator Sessions that depending on the situation, the administration would consider informing Congress of its decision and might even seek authorization after the fact.

While Senator Sessions expressed surprise at the casual audacity of Panetta in making this statement, in reality his was just a bluntly stated explanation of what has been, de facto, the case for many years.

If we had elected my Libertarian buddy John Jay Myers to Pete Sessions' seat in Congress, John Jay would've done more than merely "express surprise.  John Jay would've jumped the railing and gotten into Leon Panetta's fat, war-profiteer face.  Oh well. 

When President Obama committed the US military to a pre-emptive war against Libya last year, for example, Congress was kept completely out of the process. Likewise, military action in Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and so on, proceed without a Congressional declaration. In fact, we haven't had a proper, constitutional declaration of war since 1942, yet the US military has been engaged in Korea, Lebanon, Iraq, Bosnia, Liberia, Haiti, and Libya with only UN resolutions as the authority. Congress's only role has been authorizing funds, which it always does without question, because one must "support the troops".

Of course we should reserve our harshest criticism for Congress rather than the Administration. If the people's branch of government abrogates its Constitutional authority to the Executive branch, who is to blame? Who is to blame that Congress as a body will not stand up and demand that the president treat the Constitution as more than an anachronistic piece of paper, or merely a set of aspirations and guidelines? The Constitution is the law of the land and for Congress to allow it to be flouted speaks as badly about Congress as it does about a president who seeks to do the flouting.

Just last week the administration announced that it would begin providing material support to the rebels who seek to overthrow the Syrian government. Was Congress involved in this decision to take sides in what may develop into a full-fledged civil war? And what of reports that US special forces may already be operating inside Syria? Still, Congress sits silently as its authority is undermined. Does anybody really wonder why approval numbers for Congress are so low?

Many of my colleagues who stood by as then-President Bush used the military as a kind of king's army are now calling for Congress to act against this president for openly admitting that is his intent. I agree it is time for Congressional action in response to these attacks on our Constitution, but the solution is simple and Constitutional. The solution is simply voting to withhold funds, since Congress has the power of the purse. No money for undeclared wars!


The picture of Barack Obama as a jet fighter came from SodaHead, in an essay entitled "Hey, Obama, What do you say?  How many kids did you kill today?" 

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Republican primary preferences by age group

The Mainstream Media often seems perplexed by the college kids voting for Ron Paul. 
Why do they vote for Ron Paul?
Because he as always advocated a smaller government and a stable money supply. 
Why is that attractive to college students? 
Because they will be the true "producers" who will have to work overtime to clean up their parents' mess. 

It really is that simple. 

Thursday, March 1, 2012

The Daily Paul on Gary Johnson

Someone at The Daily Paul, one of the many unofficial Ron Paul websites, has done an interesting compare/contrast piece on The Good Doctor and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson. 


Johnson is now seeking the Libertarian Party nomination for president.  Here goes:

For a while now, Gary Johnson supporters have been pointing out one simple fact: even as a Republican, the media had completely blacked Gary Johnson out, even worse than what they did for the iconic Ron Paul. Now, after pondering that fact, I think I know why.

Gary Johnson, being so similar to Ron Paul, is a "second witness" to the political truths that Ron Paul expresses. Worse, he is evidence that those truths work.


Gary Johnson, as a libertarian-leaning Republican, ousted incumbant governor of New Mexico by a significant margin (at least 40% more than his opponent) in a state with a heavy Democrat voting population (2-1). This by itself doesn't prove much, but then he got reelected against a hispanic Democrat by a similarly significant margin, being the first NM governor in years to be elected a second consecutive term ever; in New Mexico, there was a law holding term limits to 1. That had changed in 1991, 2 years before Johnson was elected.

This is evidence that a libertarian-leaning Republican can easily compete and win against multiple establishment opponents. This record proves that freedom -- libertarianism -- is indeed popular. If Gary Johnson did it in New Mexico, Ron Paul can do it nation-wide.

While in office, Gary Johnson vetoed so many bills, and line item vetoed even more that he earned a nickname, "Governor Veto." Anytime someone approached him with a bill, he'd ask if government should be involved with that to begin with. Through cutting costs, he succeeded in balancing the budget, even as he cut taxes. He left NM with a surplus. I'm sure that if he had proposed a bill to get rid of the imposed term limits, he could have stayed in the office longer than 8 years.

Gary Johnson did this completely independent of Ron Paul. He was not a "Ron Paul Republican" following the footsteps of his hero. He probably didn't even know he was a libertarian. He just wanted to bring common sense to the governor's chair

Do you see how dangerous this story is to those trying to block Ron Paul out?

Hit the link at the top to read the whole thing. 

I don't believe that there is an organized conspiracy trying to block out Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or anyone else trying to reduce the size of the government machine.  Republican party muckety-mucks and Mainstream Media Munchkins have become so fascinated with their access to power that they can't imagine that power being diluted without it hurting themselves.  They're simply responding to market forces by looking out for their own interests.   

Think about it....If you've spent 20 years cultivating a relationship with John Boehner, either as a Republican party supporter or as a media member, you don't want to see your investment downgraded. 

If a Ron Paul or a Gary Johnson ever win the presidency and if Libertarians ever get control of Congress, think of the miles and miles of abandoned housing and office space that would surround Washington D.C.....there simply wouldn't be a demand for it.  Not much work would be going on there. 

For D.C. residents and workers, opposing this doesn't require a conspiracy. 


The fantasy picture of a post-libertarian D.C. suburb came from here. 
The picture of the Libertarian Party's fantasy ticket for 2012 came from here.