Sometime yesterday, Congressional staffers (government employees) walked out on their jobs to the front steps of the House of Representatives to protest the laws (written by themselves) that led to the death (at the hands of other government employees) who were enforcing the will of government employees. Instead of meaningless symbolic gestures, why don't they protest by making it legal to sell "loosies" without a punitive tax that pays their own (government employee) salaries? Lord have mercy, what a pack of doofuses....
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Friday, December 12, 2014
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Does anyone know anything at all about the new proposed budget?
Something has happened in the U.S. House Of Representatives but I have no idea what it is. Most commentators are acting as if the lion has gotten cozy with the lamb. I haven't seen anything like it since Jimmy Carter got Begin and Sadat to hang out at Camp David for a few weekends.
It has something to do with the House agreeing on a possible budget deal, but no one is mentioning the most important thing about a budget. If you read this within a couple of days after December 12th, check out Memeorandum for some typical articles. None of them will tell you the most important thing about the budget.
I'm afraid that people are going to start "reaching across the aisle" and "getting something done".
"Tea Party groups have been marginalized." That phrase is showing up a lot.
Nancy Pelosi has said that they should "embrace the suck". Whatever that means. Something about restoring $20 billion in defense cuts. As if we need more defending.
The New York Holy Times has no important details about the proposed budget.
CNN has no details. But economic conservatives have experienced "diminished influence".
Everyone in the mainstream media is typing their asses off about this budget, but no one has written the most important thing.
How much further are they going to put you in debt?
All the rest is noise....
It has something to do with the House agreeing on a possible budget deal, but no one is mentioning the most important thing about a budget. If you read this within a couple of days after December 12th, check out Memeorandum for some typical articles. None of them will tell you the most important thing about the budget.
I'm afraid that people are going to start "reaching across the aisle" and "getting something done".
"Tea Party groups have been marginalized." That phrase is showing up a lot.
Nancy Pelosi has said that they should "embrace the suck". Whatever that means. Something about restoring $20 billion in defense cuts. As if we need more defending.
The New York Holy Times has no important details about the proposed budget.
CNN has no details. But economic conservatives have experienced "diminished influence".
Everyone in the mainstream media is typing their asses off about this budget, but no one has written the most important thing.
How much further are they going to put you in debt?
All the rest is noise....
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Dear Elizabeth....
Dear Elizabeth.....
You seem concerned about an economic issue, and now that you're a senator, this is scary for all of us.
You got elected by standing up for the little guy. Your idea of accomplishing this, as I understand it, is to throw a check and some food pellets in the little guy's mailbox every month, and also by interfering in the workplace to raise the little guy's pay to a level that is higher than his productivity. (This encourages more automation, outsourcing, unemployment, etc., but that horse has already been beaten to death elsewhere.)
Now....look at this, from The Austrian Economists site:
These increases in productivity seem to have helped "the poor". What the hell have you risked for the poor, Elizabeth? Anything? Ever poured your own money into R&D for something that might not work?
But wait, that's not all!!!
Efficiency and productivity increases help the little guys more than the help the big guys!!! Mostly because there are more of them !!
I hope this has helped. And don't feel bad. As long as Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are alive, you won't be the biggest idiot in Congress.
But Christ Almighty, you are so close.
You seem concerned about an economic issue, and now that you're a senator, this is scary for all of us.
You got elected by standing up for the little guy. Your idea of accomplishing this, as I understand it, is to throw a check and some food pellets in the little guy's mailbox every month, and also by interfering in the workplace to raise the little guy's pay to a level that is higher than his productivity. (This encourages more automation, outsourcing, unemployment, etc., but that horse has already been beaten to death elsewhere.)
Now....look at this, from The Austrian Economists site:
| % Households with: | Poor 1984 | Poor 1994 | Poor 2003 | Poor 2005 | All 1971 | All 2005 |
| Washing machine | 58.2 | 71.7 | 67.0 | 68.7 | 71.3 | 84.0 |
| Clothes dryer | 35.6 | 50.2 | 58.5 | 61.2 | 44.5 | 81.2 |
| Dishwasher | 13.6 | 19.6 | 33.9 | 36.7 | 18.8 | 64.0 |
| Refrigerator | 95.8 | 97.9 | 98.2 | 98.5 | 83.3 | 99.3 |
| Freezer | 29.2 | 28.6 | 25.4 | 25.1 | 32.2 | 36.6 |
| Stove | 95.2 | 97.7 | 97.1 | 97.0 | 87.0 | 98.8 |
| Microwave | 12.5 | 60.0 | 88.7 | 91.2 | 1.0 | 96.4 |
| Color TV | 70.3 | 92.5 | 96.8 | 97.4 | 43.3 | 98.9 |
| VCR | 3.4 | 59.7 | 75.4 | 83.6 | 0.0 | 92.2 |
| Personal computer | 2.9 | 7.4 | 36.0 | 42.4 | 0.0 | 67.1 |
| Telephone | 71.0 | 76.7 | 87.3 | 79.8 | 93.0 | 90.6 |
| Air conditioner | 42.5 | 49.6 | 77.7 | 78.8 | 31.8 | 85.7 |
| Cellular Telephone | 34.7 | 48.3 | 0.0 | 71.3 | ||
| One or more cars | 64.1 | 71.8 | 72.8 (2001) | 79.5 |
These increases in productivity seem to have helped "the poor". What the hell have you risked for the poor, Elizabeth? Anything? Ever poured your own money into R&D for something that might not work?
But wait, that's not all!!!
Efficiency and productivity increases help the little guys more than the help the big guys!!! Mostly because there are more of them !!
I hope this has helped. And don't feel bad. As long as Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are alive, you won't be the biggest idiot in Congress.
But Christ Almighty, you are so close.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Some updates from the Texas Libertarian Party
From Pat Dixon, State LP Chair. Here's how the Texas Libertarian Party has done in the last three presidential election year cycles:
That's coming along nicely, don't you think?
Give us a few more years of The Fed printing money, undeclared wars, insane spending, a former pot-smoking black man locking tens of thousands of black men in cages for smoking a plant, crony capitalism, regulatory hell, and a goofy healthcare mandate, and we'll start electing some candidates.
Or will the voters start doing the right thing, and voting for liberty, without hitting rock bottom first?
| Average results for the last 3 presidential election years | 2004 | 2008 | 2012 |
|---|---|---|---|
| US House races (3-way) | 1.70% | 2.40% | 2.60% |
| US House races (2-way) | 6.90% | 13.10% | 17.60% |
| Texas House (3-way) | 2.70% | 2.80% | 3.80% |
| Texas House (2-way) | 9.70% | 13.40% | 16.20% |
| Statewide Judicial races (2-way) | 15.10% | 18.10% | 21.70% |
That's coming along nicely, don't you think?
Give us a few more years of The Fed printing money, undeclared wars, insane spending, a former pot-smoking black man locking tens of thousands of black men in cages for smoking a plant, crony capitalism, regulatory hell, and a goofy healthcare mandate, and we'll start electing some candidates.
Or will the voters start doing the right thing, and voting for liberty, without hitting rock bottom first?
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....
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....
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Matthew Solodow for Congress !! Texas 12th Congressional District
My friend Matthew Solodow is running as a Libertarian for Congress in U.S. District 12. His opponents are Democrat Dave Robinson and Republican Kay Granger.
It looks like Kay Granger, (if you go here), loves herself some Patriot Act. She has also supported more than 50 million dollars in earmarks for the Trinity River Vision project, a porkfest headed by her son, J.D. Granger. Here's the Washington Post article on "Public Projects, Private Interests".....
Granger also supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, a bizarre piece of legislation that claims to protect marriage by restricting gay and lesbian participation, but doesn't go so far as outlawing divorce.
Matt's Democrat opponent, Dave Robinson, has a reputation as a decent guy. But he supports the Buffett rule, which Republicans claim would support our deficit spending for 11 hours but that Democrats claim would say would support our deficit spending for up to 18 hours.
He also supports ObamaCare, opposes the privatization of Social Security, dislikes teacher testing, and claims that there's Republican obstruction in Congress. (I don't know if Dave is aware of how many Democrat senators voted for Obama's last two budgets....)
Now, back to business.
Here are Matt's positions on the big issues:
Here's a map of Texas U.S. District 12. If you live in Western Tarrant, Parker, or Wise County, and like what you've read here, I hope you'll consider voting for Matthew Solodow !!
It looks like Kay Granger, (if you go here), loves herself some Patriot Act. She has also supported more than 50 million dollars in earmarks for the Trinity River Vision project, a porkfest headed by her son, J.D. Granger. Here's the Washington Post article on "Public Projects, Private Interests".....
Over the past decade, Granger has helped obtain $51.9 million in earmarks toward a project to make over downtown Fort Worth and reroute the Trinity River. Until 2010, Granger co-owned a condominium building with her son about a half-mile south of the project. Her son is director of the group in charge of the project.Hit the link for more info on "Lake Granger". Fascinating stuff in there about Personalized Pork.
Granger also supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, a bizarre piece of legislation that claims to protect marriage by restricting gay and lesbian participation, but doesn't go so far as outlawing divorce.
Matt's Democrat opponent, Dave Robinson, has a reputation as a decent guy. But he supports the Buffett rule, which Republicans claim would support our deficit spending for 11 hours but that Democrats claim would say would support our deficit spending for up to 18 hours.
He also supports ObamaCare, opposes the privatization of Social Security, dislikes teacher testing, and claims that there's Republican obstruction in Congress. (I don't know if Dave is aware of how many Democrat senators voted for Obama's last two budgets....)
Now, back to business.
Here are Matt's positions on the big issues:
No more bailouts
Republicans and Democrats keep interfering in our economy, making taxpayers pay when big businesses make bad decisions. That just encourages them to act irresponsibly. The government should stop picking winners and losers. No more bailouts.
End foreign wars
Republicans used to say they opposed nation-building, yet they have led nation-building efforts in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats promised to end the wars abroad, but they have only prolonged them. We need to end our policies of foreign interventionism now, stop the drone attacks, and bring our troops home.
End the war on drugs
The war on drugs has been expensive and destructive. The government has thrown people in prison who never hurt anyone, and has also created huge violent black markets. Drug abuse can be a serious health issue, but it should not be a crime. It's time to end the war on drugs.
Shut down federal departments
We need to shut down federal departments such as Education, Commerce and Homeland Security. Republicans have often promised to reduce these departments, but have not followed through on these promises. Over the last twelve years, Republicans have frequently voted for massive increases in these departments. Let's shut them down instead.
No more farm subsidies
Politicians from agricultural states use farm subsidies to buy votes. Farmers don't need subsidies, and most of the benefits go to huge agribusinesses. Let's reduce the burden on taxpayers by ending farm subsidies.
End the TSA
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) wastes our money groping us at airports. The TSA is just wasteful security theater that violates our rights. Let's end it.
Get government out of job creation
Government jobs programs destroy more jobs than they create. By redirecting money away from the productive and efficient private sector, they harm our economy and cause a net loss of jobs. Let's end these programs.
Cut entitlements
We've promised people far too much. They are not going to get what they've been led to expect. Let's be honest and stop making false promises. We need to cut entitlement spending now.
Stop mortgaging our future
Government debt has placed an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren. Republicans and Democrats often complain about the debt, but they're the ones who keep causing it. We need to cut federal spending by more than 40% right away, to stop increasing this burden.
Cut taxes ("Fair" Tax instead)
If you've read this far, you've seen many ways to cut federal spending. Once all those items expressed above are cut, we'll be able to make huge cuts in federal taxes. A "fair" tax will simplify our tax code, thus eliminating the current loopholes benefiting the politically-connected and empower people to choose how they will be taxed based on their purchases, not their income. We might even be able to get rid of the IRS.
Republicans and Democrats keep interfering in our economy, making taxpayers pay when big businesses make bad decisions. That just encourages them to act irresponsibly. The government should stop picking winners and losers. No more bailouts.
End foreign wars
Republicans used to say they opposed nation-building, yet they have led nation-building efforts in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats promised to end the wars abroad, but they have only prolonged them. We need to end our policies of foreign interventionism now, stop the drone attacks, and bring our troops home.
End the war on drugs
The war on drugs has been expensive and destructive. The government has thrown people in prison who never hurt anyone, and has also created huge violent black markets. Drug abuse can be a serious health issue, but it should not be a crime. It's time to end the war on drugs.
Shut down federal departments
We need to shut down federal departments such as Education, Commerce and Homeland Security. Republicans have often promised to reduce these departments, but have not followed through on these promises. Over the last twelve years, Republicans have frequently voted for massive increases in these departments. Let's shut them down instead.
No more farm subsidies
Politicians from agricultural states use farm subsidies to buy votes. Farmers don't need subsidies, and most of the benefits go to huge agribusinesses. Let's reduce the burden on taxpayers by ending farm subsidies.
End the TSA
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) wastes our money groping us at airports. The TSA is just wasteful security theater that violates our rights. Let's end it.
Get government out of job creation
Government jobs programs destroy more jobs than they create. By redirecting money away from the productive and efficient private sector, they harm our economy and cause a net loss of jobs. Let's end these programs.
Cut entitlements
We've promised people far too much. They are not going to get what they've been led to expect. Let's be honest and stop making false promises. We need to cut entitlement spending now.
Stop mortgaging our future
Government debt has placed an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren. Republicans and Democrats often complain about the debt, but they're the ones who keep causing it. We need to cut federal spending by more than 40% right away, to stop increasing this burden.
Cut taxes ("Fair" Tax instead)
If you've read this far, you've seen many ways to cut federal spending. Once all those items expressed above are cut, we'll be able to make huge cuts in federal taxes. A "fair" tax will simplify our tax code, thus eliminating the current loopholes benefiting the politically-connected and empower people to choose how they will be taxed based on their purchases, not their income. We might even be able to get rid of the IRS.
Here's a map of Texas U.S. District 12. If you live in Western Tarrant, Parker, or Wise County, and like what you've read here, I hope you'll consider voting for Matthew Solodow !!

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?"
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?"
Labels:
Bosnia,
congress,
haiti,
Iraq,
John Jay Myers,
Korea,
lebanon,
liberia,
libya,
pakistan,
pete sessions,
Ron Paul,
somalia,
stamping out ignorance,
Teleprompter Jesus,
united nations,
war,
yemen
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
Ok, whose turn is it this year to be the "responsible, small government party"?
This is from Weasel Zippers. A summary of the 2006 vote to raise the debt ceiling.
Please note how many small government Republican senators voted to put us further into debt.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress — 2nd Session
As compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res.47 )
Vote Number: 54 Vote Date: March 16, 2006, 11:17 AM
A cynic might claim that our two political factions enjoy taking turns.
Please note how many small government Republican senators voted to put us further into debt.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress — 2nd Session
As compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res.47 )
Vote Number: 54 Vote Date: March 16, 2006, 11:17 AM
A cynic might claim that our two political factions enjoy taking turns.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies." - Barack Obama, 2006
Friday, June 17, 2011
Barack Obama and Libya and Superman and The Justice League and The Beatles
We are supposed to be a nation of laws.
One of those laws states that Congress alone has the power to declare war. If there's an emergency, the President can use the troops and planes and boats and bombs and nukes all he wants, but he has to get Congressional approval for anything lasting longer than 60 days.
We've been bombing the crap out of Libya for longer than 60 days. If this had been done by anyone but a Nobel Peace Prize-winning, warm and fuzzy, anti-militaristic Democrat, the calls for impeachment would be on the front page of every newspaper.
John Boehner, under some pressure from people who wonder why we're getting involved in war number 4 or 5, depending on how you count, finally sent The Teleprompter Jesus a letter demanding to know why we were still involved without Congressional approval. Here's what he got back:
The initial phase of U.S. military involvement in Libya was conducted under the command of the U.S. Africa Command. By April 4, however, the United States had transferred responsibility for the military operations in Libya to NATO and the U.S. involvement has assumed a supporting role in the coalition's efforts. Since April 4, U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.
Where to begin, where to begin.....
Let's start with this: We are NATO. Just like we were with The Allies in the war against The Axis. Just like Superman is a member of the Justice League. If the Justice League fights together as a team, Superman is still fighting. Having Aquaman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, and Captain Marvel by his side doesn't negate the fact that he's still fighting.
Whenever Allen Patterson pounds something really stupid into the internet, he can't blame it on The Whited Sepulchre when he sobers up. In the words of the Beatles....
"I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together."
The United States is 75% of NATO. It wouldn't exist without us.
Moving on, let's get to the business about providing "non-kinetic" support. If Mexico were to invade Texas, and Cuba was supplying the Mexican navy with "non-kinetic" support, we would sink the Cuban supply ships that were providing Mexico with "non-kinetic" support. We wouldn't think twice about it.
If we shot down a Mexican Air Force plane over San Antonio, and Cubans were aiding the Mexicans in search and rescue, we would try to stop the Cubans. We would consider them as hostile combatants.
Okay, about that "no-fly zone".... If Mexico declared Texas to be a "no-fly zone", and Cuba helped "suppress and destroy" our air defenses, we would see it as an act of war on the part of Cuba, not the incident result of a non-kinetic military action.
Regarding Obama's last point about "unmanned aerial vehicles".... If you're getting bombs dropped on your head, I don't think you care if it's being done by the pilot in the plane, or an Air Force kid with a joystick at a base somewhere in Wisconsin. The result is the same. We're dropping bombs on Libya.
Barack Obama needs to ask Congress for a declaration of war against Libya, because we're at war with Libya.
Congress needs to man up and demand it. Then vote it up or down. That's how it is supposed to work.
Speaking of "I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together", here are The Beatles doing "I Am The Walrus".
One of those laws states that Congress alone has the power to declare war. If there's an emergency, the President can use the troops and planes and boats and bombs and nukes all he wants, but he has to get Congressional approval for anything lasting longer than 60 days.
We've been bombing the crap out of Libya for longer than 60 days. If this had been done by anyone but a Nobel Peace Prize-winning, warm and fuzzy, anti-militaristic Democrat, the calls for impeachment would be on the front page of every newspaper.
John Boehner, under some pressure from people who wonder why we're getting involved in war number 4 or 5, depending on how you count, finally sent The Teleprompter Jesus a letter demanding to know why we were still involved without Congressional approval. Here's what he got back:
The initial phase of U.S. military involvement in Libya was conducted under the command of the U.S. Africa Command. By April 4, however, the United States had transferred responsibility for the military operations in Libya to NATO and the U.S. involvement has assumed a supporting role in the coalition's efforts. Since April 4, U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.
Where to begin, where to begin.....
Let's start with this: We are NATO. Just like we were with The Allies in the war against The Axis. Just like Superman is a member of the Justice League. If the Justice League fights together as a team, Superman is still fighting. Having Aquaman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, and Captain Marvel by his side doesn't negate the fact that he's still fighting.
Whenever Allen Patterson pounds something really stupid into the internet, he can't blame it on The Whited Sepulchre when he sobers up. In the words of the Beatles....
"I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together."
The United States is 75% of NATO. It wouldn't exist without us.
Moving on, let's get to the business about providing "non-kinetic" support. If Mexico were to invade Texas, and Cuba was supplying the Mexican navy with "non-kinetic" support, we would sink the Cuban supply ships that were providing Mexico with "non-kinetic" support. We wouldn't think twice about it.
If we shot down a Mexican Air Force plane over San Antonio, and Cubans were aiding the Mexicans in search and rescue, we would try to stop the Cubans. We would consider them as hostile combatants.
Okay, about that "no-fly zone".... If Mexico declared Texas to be a "no-fly zone", and Cuba helped "suppress and destroy" our air defenses, we would see it as an act of war on the part of Cuba, not the incident result of a non-kinetic military action.
Regarding Obama's last point about "unmanned aerial vehicles".... If you're getting bombs dropped on your head, I don't think you care if it's being done by the pilot in the plane, or an Air Force kid with a joystick at a base somewhere in Wisconsin. The result is the same. We're dropping bombs on Libya.
Barack Obama needs to ask Congress for a declaration of war against Libya, because we're at war with Libya.
Congress needs to man up and demand it. Then vote it up or down. That's how it is supposed to work.
Speaking of "I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together", here are The Beatles doing "I Am The Walrus".
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Legislative maneuver of the week
Y'know, Senator Rand Paul just might be for real.
On Wednesday, Paul, with little notice, attached an amendment to the small-business re-authorization bill. The amendment, which chastises President Obama for his actions in Libya, urges members to adopt the president’s own words as “the sense of the Senate.”From Hot Air:
To make his point, Paul quoted, in the legislative language, from Obama’s 2007 remarks on the subject: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” According to Paul’s office, “the measure aims to put the Senate on record affirming Congress as the body with constitutional authority on matters of war.”
GOP sources tell National Review Online that Paul’s proposal flummoxed Reid, who does not want his members to have to weigh in on Obama’s dusty quote about congressional authority, even if the vote is only to table the measure.
If you’re Boehner or Cantor or Allen West or Mike Pence, how do you vote in order to simultaneously (a) support the Air Force and Navy while they’re executing a mission, (b) protect the GOP’s hawkish credentials, (c) express your doubts about the utility of the mission and how it’s being executed, and (d) challenge Obama on his absurd hypocrisy about the president’s military prerogatives, especially given the contempt he’s showed Congress thus far? Tough vote. So tough that I wonder if Reid’s tempted to vote on a resolution in the Senate just to force Boehner to take it up and choke on it.I'm starting to like me some Rand Paul.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Is there a Master Teleprompter? Can we prove that He exists?
From Breitbart TV:
Is it a coincidence when reporters and anchors all use the exact same words when describing the 111th Congress in such flattering and historic language? From network anchors in New York to local news across the country, where do they all get the same words?
This video contains some pretty funny stuff, and it raises a theological question, just in time for Christmas.... Is there a Master Teleprompter Programmer? A single higher power before whom we should all bow and pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?
After all, if the spokespeople of all these primitive cultures speak the same language, use the same words, and have the same value system, doesn't that imply that there is a Great Typist In The Sky who has written these words in all our hearts?
If not, then these are just a bunch of Statist sock puppets reading the required list of Democrat talking points.
You decide.
Is it a coincidence when reporters and anchors all use the exact same words when describing the 111th Congress in such flattering and historic language? From network anchors in New York to local news across the country, where do they all get the same words?
This video contains some pretty funny stuff, and it raises a theological question, just in time for Christmas.... Is there a Master Teleprompter Programmer? A single higher power before whom we should all bow and pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?
After all, if the spokespeople of all these primitive cultures speak the same language, use the same words, and have the same value system, doesn't that imply that there is a Great Typist In The Sky who has written these words in all our hearts?
If not, then these are just a bunch of Statist sock puppets reading the required list of Democrat talking points.
You decide.
Monday, November 1, 2010
What If ?
From John Jay Myers, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Congress, 32nd District, Texas:
What if we were not all fighting constantly about what we wanted from government?
What if we understood it is not the role of government to pass out favors or be involved in business, or to “create jobs”?
What if we didn’t have to tirelessly keep track of our politicians, trying to find out what crazy thing they are doing now?
What if we understood that governments role is to protect our life, liberty and property?
What if we knew that wars always end poorly whether they be wars on terror, drugs, poverty, or about education?
What if we knew that people should be able to do what they want with their lives as long as they don’t harm other people?
What if we were shown that the freer the society the more prosperous the whole of the people, time and time again?
What if we lived in a more libertarian society?
When you pull the switch tomorrow, please vote Libertarian !!!
What if we were not all fighting constantly about what we wanted from government?
What if we understood it is not the role of government to pass out favors or be involved in business, or to “create jobs”?
What if we didn’t have to tirelessly keep track of our politicians, trying to find out what crazy thing they are doing now?
What if we understood that governments role is to protect our life, liberty and property?
What if we knew that wars always end poorly whether they be wars on terror, drugs, poverty, or about education?
What if we knew that people should be able to do what they want with their lives as long as they don’t harm other people?
What if we were shown that the freer the society the more prosperous the whole of the people, time and time again?
What if we lived in a more libertarian society?
When you pull the switch tomorrow, please vote Libertarian !!!
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Why Libertarian?
My friend John Jay Myers recently explained himself on The Libertarian Party Blog. (John Jay is running as a Libertarian for Congress against Pete "Bailout" Sessions in Texas 32nd district). Since no one who visits this site EVER hits a link, I've scraped the whole thing and put it in place below. This is the absolute best justification I've ever read for The Libertarian Party. I've put so much of John Jay's stuff here, I might as well give him a password:
Why Libertarian ?
I am asked, “Why don’t you run as a Republican? You could do so much good in the Republican Party.” I should not be upset. After all, it’s sort of a compliment - “They like me. They really like me!” It’s hard to respond because I don’t feel like knocking anyone's attempt at freedom or smaller government.
Some in the Libertarian Party might take exception to my comment “I believe in Principle before Party.” I do believe this, but let me say I also believe the Libertarian Party needs to flourish and become a true option for the American people. It would be silly for me to tell people that they should not always vote for party and then tell them that they should only vote for mine. However, I would like to take this time to explain the many reasons why I believe people should vote Libertarian and run as Libertarians.
But My Teacher Says...
I was forwarded a letter the other day from the Texas Secretary of State. It was an instructional tool for teachers to help them explain to students why we have a two-party system. It went on to say that “it helps preserve majority rule in a democratic state.” If you know me, you would understand why this completely gets under my skin. We don’t have a two-party system. If you look in the constitution, you will not find any mention of having parties whatsoever. I am quick to point out that the words majority rule, democratic, and democracy are also all not found in the constitution. Not once.
Democracy is the idea that people can vote themselves things. But the first question is where do things come from? That is where it should hit you. A direct democracy is theft. It is legal theft, but it is not much different than a gang with guns stealing from you. Because if you do not submit to the will of the majority, a man with a gun will soon come and take your stuff, and possibly put you in jail.
A simpler analogy is that democracy is simply two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner, and you can bet that the answer will be lamb chops.
So we actually live in a republic. The difference is that individuals have rights, and the government has no power to take them away. This is why we have a constitution. So as Thomas Jefferson put it, “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.”
I personally do not have any confidence in the man known as a politician, except that he is probably a "confidence man" (con-man for you kids out there). Which is why I ask the left and the right, “If we are all so sure the government is corrupt, why be so quick to give them more power?”
When we are taught that we only have two parties, they are robbing us of choice. What we really have is a majority opinion, and no one standing up for the opinion or rights of the minority. This smells a lot like lamb chops cooking to me.
Libertarians endorse many methods of ending the two party monopoly. Among them are Ranked or Approval Voting. Either is a step in the right direction from where we are now.
R’s and D’s are opposites?
Let’s play a game: which side supports the drug war, Iraq, Afghanistan, Patriot Act, and Gitmo? If you said Republicans, you would be right; if you said the Democrats, you would be right as well.
Which side supports socialized medicine, bailouts, stimulus, and debt? If you said the Democrats, you would be right; if you said the Republicans, you would be right as well.
Far from being opposites, neither will bring the troops home, restore fiscal responsibility, deal with entitlements, or promote free markets.
You may be starting to see why it is important that we have a strong Libertarian option. Libertarians would have a none-of-the-above approach on all of these issues.
Libertarians are the Party of Principle. The others are Principally Party.
America is ripe with crony capitalism, foreign intervention, debt and inflation, economic controls, and Ponzi schemes. Yet every election cycle we are led to believe that the major challenges facing us are “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and mosques. Well ladies and gentlemen, I am here to tell you that we need to focus on the issues that unite us, and stop being divided by the idiocy of the election cycle. It is time to stand up and say, “Stop stealing my stuff!”
As long as we remain divided and so full of hate towards one side or the other, we will always fail to notice the two major parties slipping out the back with our wallets, our future, and our freedoms.
This is where the constitution comes in, and why we must return to it. Right now the Republicans and the Democrats are constantly giving deals to Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Big Energy, Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Auto, Big Agriculture, Big Education, Big Foreign Aid, Big Religion, and Big War. I ask you, by what right? By what right can they do this? It is not our government’s job to take our stuff and give it to the politically connected friends of politicians. Their only job is to protect our life, liberty, and property. This is a relatively simple job the current crop of leaders seems completely unable to handle.
If you turn in your constitution to Article 1 Section 8, you will find the 17 enumerated powers of government. Where do you see the power to give our money to any of those industries? It is not there. War is actually in there, but we don’t even have an officially declared war going on. We have strayed far from what our founders envisioned and more towards what Eisenhower warned us about, the corruption of the Military-Industrial Complex.
But we can change the Republicans...
No, you can’t. God bless ya for trying. We may be able to get a few reasonably good Republicans in there, and in my opinion Ron Paul is one of the greatest men in America. But, most of the liberty candidates were shot down, and even Rand Paul has had to fly very low on the radar, and either has intentionally toned down his message or is not as much like his father as I had hoped.
But my question is, where do you think all the hardcore neo-con nanny staters are going to go? They simply are not leaving the GOP. Those people believe we need to outlaw masturbation and have constant wars with half the world regardless of the cost or the lack of sense that it makes. Those people believe being fiscally conservative is not good enough - they have to tell people how to live their lives, and in some cases die.
They are not leaving the Republican Party, and their influence and power is growing. Christine O’donell didn’t win the primaries because she wants to end the wars and let people be free. She won because she is a social conservative who is willing to say, “We should stop spending money, and live within our means” - the meaningless mantra of every shell Republican who can’t figure out that Barack Obama’s health care plan did not double our debt during George Bush’s 8 years in office.
Do you believe these people are just going to disappear? It’s not going to happen. The Republicans will always find themselves bitterly divided, and that will not work when it comes to spreading liberty. It is a package deal. You can’t just take a little freedom.
Do you want to spend years of your life pounding your head against a brick wall only to find that half the bricks will never break?
The Power of Being Libertarian
This year I think we are going to see some very good poll numbers from Libertarians despite the fact that the media ignores us, and then they don’t allow us in the debates because they say we haven’t gotten enough media attention. If it wasn't so horrifying I would have to laugh. For some strange reason they say we don’t poll that well when we either aren’t included in the polls, or haven’t been mentioned in the media.
But, there is another reason why we should vote and run as Libertarians - because we are right. Our message is true, and we do not have to sacrifice some of our policies in order to appeal to a hard core wing of our party. We do not have to soft sell the message. The message is freedom, and when we start turning in numbers from 10-20%, we just may see that the Democrats and the Republicans, who are two sides to the same coin, just might start thinking a little more Libertarian. This to me would be a small victory on the way to major party status.
It is however very important that Libertarians stay true to the message of Less Government and More Freedom, and stand strong behind Social and Fiscal freedoms, which include religious freedom and tolerance, and ending the wars.
"But I am an Independent!"
No you are not; you are dependent. You are dependent on the two major parties to come up with a candidate that you are going to vote for. But as we have already shown, both sides are the same. Who is going to get the candidate who shares your belief on the ballot? Now is not the time to think, “The two parties got us into this mess and I am done with parties.” You would still only have those two. Now is the time to support a party that most represents you.
If those people only knew how hard it is to achieve and maintain ballot access for anyone but the two major parties, they would be more willing to help. Libertarians work very hard to get on the ballot especially considering we get no donations from major corporations because when elected they know we would not give them anything.
For those people who say they are independent I say, sorry, you are very dependent. If you don’t help a third party, any third party for that matter, you always will be.
John Jay Myers is Running for Congress against Pete Sessions in Texas’ 32nd District.
He is the Vice-Chair of the Dallas County Libertarian Party.
He is on the Executive Committee for the Texas Libertarian Party.
For more information go to www.johnjaymyers.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


.gif)



