What a let down....

This last presidential race showed a glimmer of hope when it looked like Ron Paul might actually have a shot. Then, the movement (or at least it's existence inside of the GOP) was steam rolled by the mob mentality fostered by our demo-gouging politicians. While I was had almost entirely given up on the Republican party as a legitimate political option already, the rejection of Ron Paul was the last straw for me. Naturally, like many of my friends in the liberty movement, I ended up voting for Gary Johnson and threw my support behind the libertarian party. 

It is incredibly interesting to me that people think Romney would have had a significantly different presidency. If the trends in the 20th century show us anything, one presidents mild abuses of power have translated into the following presidents furthering of such abuses.  

Examples....

• The Patriot Act under Bush and NDAA under Obama.

• TARP and stimulus packages under Bush and Auto Industry bailouts along with more stimulus packages under Obama (stimulus usually meaning that we printed more money and either redistributes the stolen currency value among the citizens or to some private corporations or other group). 

• And lastly how could you forget the health industry in which Bush signed a $400 billion Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act and as if Obama had to show him up, he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

This year has given me ample opportunity to become pessimistic about our societies ability to reason and wake up to many of the alarms and it does diminish my hope for us to be a truly free people. It seems that people are just intent on sleeping through the merger of our growing nanny and police states to one day wake up to fascist government when it is, of corse, too late. 

I have to then examine myself and my own learning experiences in the cause of Liberty. It wasn't long ago that I was possibly the most devout "conservative" you might meet in your short stay on earth.  If I could see the little erosions through my Teddy Roosevelt (You may exchange Teddy for Franklin if it helps you relate in a Democrat scenario) colored glasses so can the people around me. 

Whether more Liberty comes through the election of a Gary Johnson (or maybe the GOP redeems itself with the likes of Rand Paul or Justin Amish) or it comes through our resistance (hopefully peaceful but recognizing that the tree of liberty sometimes must be watered with the blood of both patriots and tyrants) to totalitarianism, I look forward to being a part of that movement spreading liberty.

Identifying a Crazy Person. (Newt Lasso's the Moon)

a newt

In my experience, you can tell that someone is crazy once they start coming up with elaborate plans like get rich schemes and unusually lengthy and hard to follow explanations of the mechanics thereof. A con-artist comes to mind.  I usually apply the same common scrutiny sense in identifying a loon as I do the politician giving a speech.  People can swap some goofy stories about people trying to get their friends to go in on some sure-fire Ponzi scheme but Newt Gingrich takes the cake!

Not too long ago, crazy uncle Newt pitched his grand idea in Florida to colonize the moon! Several things set off the crazy alarm on this the biggest and most notable being the condition of our economy. With high unemployment and soviet style run away spending, why would anyone want to increase by 15% our already bloated debt?  How does one claim to be the conservative alternative to a "Massachusetts moderate" and then have great money inflating ideas like that?

Is it fair that we try to put a tin foil hat on Ron Paul who is basically saying that we've tried the Keynesian/big government thing, lets try sound money and more individual Liberty? This man is clearly been channeling the paleo-conservative ghosts of Reagan, Goldwater and Eisenhower. Is that fair when his opponent so vocally defies all reason with ideas of recession-funded moon colonies that would make John Maynard Keynes proud? If you can't see the horrible delusion in that, please sign up for the new moon colony. I'm sure you'll like it.

Drugs...

Much fear is conjured up in the hearts of social conservatives at the mention of repealing drug laws. Instantly, they see images of crackheads and heroine addicts roaming every street, panhandling for drug money and stealing the copper pipes from plumbing systems all across this great land. As soon as the ban is lifted, our children, friends, spouses and even our selves will loose all sense of responsible behavior and become heavily addicted to hard drugs.

It is sad how easily we give into the notion that the government must prohibit something for our own safety. This has always been ineffective and in many cases extremely counter productive. One only needs to look at the enormous black market and gang activities that grew from alcohol prohibition and the enormous spike in drug usage as more and more restrictions were made in the past 60 years.

The problem is not that there aren't enough laws but we have been slowly losing our sense of personal accountability and responsibility. We have given up the healthy local community interaction and the charitable and educational responsibilities that go with it for government quick fixes in an effort to find a sort of "silver bullet" legislation that will end our drug consumption problems once and for all.

In removing those local influences of the community, for the ineffective mandates of Federal government, all we have done is give up more of those essential liberties that Ben Franklin warned us about for the temporary safety we were warned against. The only thing we have gained is a new outlet for government control in our lives. It sounds like a noble idea to rid the world of meth addiction through the crafty plans of our Federal government but has only proven to be a pipe dream. No matter how good the intentions of the Nanny State, they have only agitated he problem. Sixty years ago, we had a problem with people smoking marijuana and taking "bennies" and those instances were fairly rare. At that point in our history, we started trying to prohibit our way out of the problem. Look at ourselves today in contrast. Not only does our government want to pass tougher drug laws but they have extended their reach into what we eat for food. There are now movements that want to prohibit your fast food consumption and make sure you are eating a healthy diet.  Until we take back these responsibilities at the most local levels, we will not solve the problem.

Ron Paul Could Destroy the Two Party System...

Ron Paul could destroy the very flawed two party political system. If he were to win the Republican nomination and in turn the presidency, he could then run as a Libertarian or and Independent. An incumbent president running against two other parties with the ideologies of Ron Paul would cause panic in both parties! He strongly appeals to the fiscal conservatives in the Republican party and just as strongly appeals to the Democrats who vote based on civil liberties. This sort of scenario could easily play out splitting the vote 3 ways and if he won re-election it would give credit to alternative parties such as Constitutionalists and Libertarians.

Wouldn't you just love to see establishment politicians bouncing off the walls in panic to posture themselves to garner support from not just one person but two people running against them? I believe that atmosphere would change our current process from that of a popularity contest into more a of a refining procedure. Politicians would more easily be seen as the demogouges they are and the more honest ones would stand out in contrast as would be expected when you have more choices.

I remember being told in political science classes that a two party system is far better than a mult-party system. After taking the time to research I was confronted with the election of Abraham Lincoln. The election of 1860 was one of the most important in our nations history in which Lincoln ran against not one party, not two parties but three parties! A four party race is what unfolded and the we elected Abraham Lincoln who is thought to be one of the greatest presidents in our nations history. If more Abraham Lincolns are what we have to look forward to with multiple parties, I cannot wait. I look forward to expanding our political options and limiting the options of tyranny. I look forward to voting for Ron Paul and hope that he does make a third party run in his re-election campaign. 

Let's redistribute our wealth to Israel...

Some of the most ludicrous logic I have come across in listening to talk radio conservatives lately is that we cannot vote for Ron Paul because he would stop giving aid to Israel. For some reason all support for private charity and opposition to the Marxist ideology of re-distributive wealth just go flying out the window. What is most astounding about it is that even the most constitutional and paleo-conservative types practice this ignorance.

From a personal level, as a Christian, I see the need to support Israel.  The Bible clearly states that those who bless Israel will be blessed. That being said, how does it reflect on us if the only way we support Israel is through the government confiscating our money and paying it on our behalf? That is no more charitable or Christian than a man who steals from you at gun-point so he can give your money to the soup kitchen or put it in the offering plate. It makes neither the person who the money was stolen from or the robber any more moral.

It is quite frustrating to see so many people who can spot the Marxist ideology in every government program except for when it is in the foreign aid to Israel. I think if we really believe in Liberty, we need to stop giving up our individual duties and responsibilities up to the government. When we believe that we need to "stand with Israel" as Glenn Beck would put it, we need to put our money where our mouth is.

Ron Paul IS electable

The statement that Ron Paul is not electable more than baffles me as of late. I could understand that four years ago when people were still in a stupor, proclaiming the line of propaganda that "the fundamentals of  our economy are healthy".  After the market crashed and gold shot through the roof the Federal Reserve should have been revealed for the scam it is and Ron Paul the near-prophet he is!  These things (and the odd lack of attention from the media towards such a man) forced me to take a second look at the candidate that I once accepted as fringe. I researched his policies from A to Z (In his book, Liberty Defined, he literally defines his position on the issues in alphabetical order) and I quickly became a Paul-tard as the Levin-tards (see what i did there?!) would so eloquently put it.

Ron Paul has accurately predicted the expansion of government in every area. Each predictions have happened in the time-frame he gave for them as well!  He pointed out the abuses of the Patriot Act, future legislation such as NDAA, PPACA (that's Obummer-care for you Levin and Limbaugh listeners!), TARP, multiple wars and military adventurism and unstable conditions and the overthrowing of governments as what happened with the Arab Spring. All of this incredible foresight from a man that is so easily written off as un-electable.

On top of that many who call him fringe and kooky, are quick to support candidates like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. What is the problem with that you might ask? Ron Paul is very literally more electable than both!  He consistently does better than each candidate in polls comparing them to Barrack Obama. What's more is that if any candidate deserve the title "un-electable" it is these two!  They have failed to qualify for the ballots in multiple states while Ron Paul is on the ballot in every state!

Whether you like it or not, Ron Paul IS electable. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are not. Live with it. 

First they came for Awlaki...

I have been contemplating the recent events surrounding the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki and its relevance to our 6th amendment rights. While I lack any respect for Awlaki, I do however hold our constitution in high regard. If we are to lift the blindfold of justice for even the most vile people, it makes it that much easier to lift it for those who are less and less reprehensible. This reminded me of the poem "First They Came..." by Martin Niemöller. The poem reads as follows....

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The historical context of this poem comes from the atrocities that took place in Nazi Germany.  We all know that they largely targeted the Jewish population but the first thing they did was take out the communists. This was the easiest target as the national socialists were always at odds with the communists (which has always been difficult for me to understand because of their natural inclination towards overly-centralized government). Their unpopularity in Germany made them an easy target and from this point the poem's relevance should be clear.

If Awlaki had been tried, I have no doubt that he would have been convicted and sentenced, but since the executive branch of our government decided to bypass this right, nothing more than an accusation stands in the way of the executive branch of our government assuming the role of the judicial branch. Today it was Awlaki who had connections to the Fort Hood shootings and the failed Times square and "underwear bomber" attempts. Tomorrow, the executive branch may direct its new-found might towards a private militia or even those "hateful" and "vitriolic" tea party protesters. All they need is an accusation. There is no need for pesky trials when you have the power of fiat on your side.

New focus.

Since starting this blog, I have decided that the things I intended to post may not have been interesting enough for me to keep up with. I'm going to stop kidding myself and the main focus will be politics as I see it from my libertarian point of view. There may be an article about something of non-political interest from time to time but I intend to keep the topics political and non-dinner table friendly. Hope to see plenty of challenging and thoughtful comments.