The wall of silence is cracking

Steve Sack, Minneapolis Star-Tribune

Forbes, a business magazine I have always liked for its independent attitude, has broken the mainstream media's wall of silence against Ron Paul. I saw evidence of that wall of silence this weekend while traveling -- USA Today refused to even mention Ron Paul in its coverage of the foreign policy debates Monday evening. Pollster John Zogby, in an op-ed piece published Nov. 9, thinks that the intensity of support behind Ron Paul makes him a force to be reckoned with:

 I don’t expect Paul to drop out, or for very many of his supporters to abandon him when the process comes down to the two-person race many anticipate between Mitt Romney and Herman Cain or Rick Perry. Instead, I could see Paul gaining support, especially if Cain’s candidacy is blown up by sexual harassment charges.

Mr. Zogby likens Rep. Paul's candidacy to those of Ralph Nader, in that both have been strong rejections of the existing two-party (or one-party with two faces*) system. In his view, Rep. Paul's candidacy will pressure the other hopefuls to cater more to the libertarian wing of the party -- but notes that the reward might not be worth the risk to candidates, such as Mitt Romney, who will be facing a President Obama posing himself as a "centrist" against the "extremist" GOP.
Mr. Zogby concludes:

Paul gets labeled a fringe candidate. But in this era of a closely divided electorate, anyone who commands the allegiance that Paul does from an activist libertarian movement must be accounted for in the political calculus.

I personally do not think a Ron Paul nomination is completely implausible. The media have been feeding on Presidential candidates like piranha in the Amazon, destroying the candidacies of one after the other. I would not rule out the possibility that Rep. Paul might be the last candidate standing come June. With a choice as sharply defined as the one a Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama election would provide, we would know for sure just where the American people want to go.
On a personal note, I know my output has been low this month. I am finishing work on my book (really), and expect to get back up to speed next week.

* As evidenced by their Congressional delegations "failing to agree" on a deficit-reduction package. It's not a failure to agree -- in fact it was the reverse. They agreed to continue business as usual indefinitely.

The burning issue

We face many issues in national politics today. Building our economic base to employ our people, resolving our foreign wars, maintaining value in our currency, ensuring access to health care, and ensuring the stability of Social Security and Medicare, are just a few of them. We hear debates between candidates that offer many approaches to these and other issues.

However, all of these discussions boil down to one burning issue. Its resolution will determine how, and how well, the others will be addressed. It is this: Do we have the confidence to govern ourselves?

 

Those who have that confidence favor local solutions, personal responsibility, defense at home, and entrepreneurship. They share Thomas Jefferson's vision of a nation of farmers and artisans, living perhaps more modestly, but in harmonious and spiritually satisfying relationships with God and their neighbors. They want to enjoy the wealth that they have created through their own efforts. They want charity to come from the heart as they cheerfully give of their bounty. Jeffersonians seek impartial justice. They seek the highest expression of human creativity and service.  They are willing to accept the risks of financial insecurity in exchange for the blessings of liberty.

Those who lack that confidence favor top-down solutions, collectivism, empire-building and corporate investment. They share Alexander Hamilton's vision of a wealthy and powerful nation that builds on the sacrifices of its people.  They find that religion and tradition hinder progress. Their notion of charity is doling out money from the government as it confiscates the work of others. Hamiltonians seek a perversion of justice that favors their friends. They seek productivity and a strong bottom line above everything else, and condition the people to accept the loss of liberty in the name of personal security.

This burning issue has been with us since 1787. In the early years of the Republic, the clash between the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian visions provided a creative tension that helped build the nation. When Andrew Jackson shut down the Bank of the United States, the Jeffersonians prevailed, but only for a generation. Abraham Lincoln's crusade to "save the Union" supposedly resolved the issue for all time, as the Hamiltonians gained, and continue to hold, the upper hand.

Today, we see where Hamiltonian corporatism has taken us. The federal government has nearly destroyed the initiative of the people and the states to solve their own problems. It has confiscated the wealth of its people in taxes and destroyed the desire to create new business opportunities. American manufacturing has become a faint memory of the past, as its jobs and money have been exported to other lands. The Hamiltonians have built a "nanny state" that has even turned many of our adults into spoiled children living as its dependents; instead of the productive, contributing people God meant us to be. It has brought us to economic ruin. The near future is likely to bring poverty for the majority, hyperinflation, slavery to the state, mass frustration, and revolution.

The differences between Democrat and Republican, "conservative" and "liberal" are no longer relevant. Both Republicans and Democrats are Hamiltonians. The Jeffersonians have been relegated to minor parties, Tea Parties, media obscurity; and being informed by their self-appointed betters that they and their Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, are "wingnuts" unworthy of being reported in the media, let alone enjoying a place at the table.

The Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian visions are utterly incompatible. Those who would harmonize the two positions might as well try to make a compromise between good and evil. The only people who benefit from a powerful national government are bankers, the military-industrial and medical-insurance complexes, and the politicians they can buy in Washington. The rest of us not only suffer financially, we suffer from the wasteful loss of lives in wars that have nothing to do with defense, and everything to do with greed.

Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. Every election in the last sixty years has replayed the same struggle. Yet, regardless of which party has been in power, the result has been the same: more power and more money to Washington, less freedom and less opportunity for us. We keep hoping against hope that things will be better after the next election. We should have learned by now that elections alone cannot fix a corrupt system.

Can we cure our own insanity? Right now, we can work with our state legislators to defend our interest through nullification and secession, but this opportunity will not last long. We can assert the self-confidence to rule ourselves and to cultivate the virtues we need to maintain a free society. Or we can settle for the tyrant who promises security, even after he begins to jail and murder us by the tens of thousands. Do not say it cannot happen here. We are human. We have known for thousands of years that our actions will eventually bring predictable consequences. The laws of human behavior do not respect "American exceptionalism."

This is the burning issue: do we have the confidence to rule ourselves? Its resolution will determine how, and how well, the others will be addressed.

Forbes says it all

Forbes is a business magazine that delivers its news and opinion with style and wit. A good example is today's opinion piece by Joel Kotkin. The title should invite you to read the article: "Obama's Economic Trifecta: How the President Helped Kill, Progressivism, Capitalism, and Moderation."

Which wouldn't be so bad, except that the GOP is so inept that their contribution may well be to re-elect the President, so he can, in Mr. Kotkin's words, "screw up even worse."

My dream ticket

I still believe that trying to elect a President and Congress that will reverse the trend toward bigger government is an exercise in futility; but at the same time, it is unchristian to completely lose hope. So with that attitude, I propose the dream ticket for the Republican and Libertarian Parties:

Ron Paul and Karen Kwiatkowski

Rep. Ron Paul

Ron Paul does not need much introduction. He is the gadfly Congressman who opposes the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya; is a stickler for the feds obeying the Constitution, and wants the Federal Reserve Bank to be audited. No better man can be found for reversing the destructive trend we are facing in America.

But you may be thinking, Karen who?  Karen U. Kwiatkowski (SourceWatch biography, Wikipedia biography*) is a retired lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force. She is very knowledgeable about military matters and understands strategic issues. With this background and experience, she can reassure fearful Americans that demilitarization will not leave us as vulnerable to the terrorists and Chinese as they might think. Her knowledge is not limited to military matters. She can speak articulately to the needs of families and education (and why they are not the business of the federal government!). She is a regular contributor to the libertarian website LewRockwell.com, and has appeared twice in The Ohio Republic (via LewRockwell, of course). At the same time, she is relatively young (50), energetic, and provides a nice counterpoint to Ron Paul's sometimes dry, academic style. And I have no doubt that, if it became necessary, that she would make an effective President in her own right. She is also a registered Libertarian and a candidate for Congress in Virginia's Sixth District.

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret.)

I do not propose Ms. Kwiatkowski because she is a woman, but let's face it, we need a woman as President or Vice President. We need someone to counteract the excessive hubris that pervades the District of Coercion. Those who are impressed with Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin need to think about their weaknesses, as well as their strengths.

Pairing the wise, grandfatherly Ron Paul with the vigorous Karen Kwiatkowski is a winning strategy for regaining our freedom in 2012.

* Minor correction to the biographies. The article that got her started politically was in the Akron Beacon Journal.

Iran? Forget it.

I understand Rick Santorum and some of the other Republican neocons are rumbling about attacking Iran. I have two words for them: forget it.

Kabuki theatre

I have heard the debt ceiling debates described as "kabuki theatre," a highly stylized Japanese form of drama and dance with elaborate sets and costumes. Those who refer to the debates as "theatre" are strongly implying that they expect those debates to achieve little or nothing. Jim Quinn, in The Burning Platform, finds that, to the mainstream media, anyone not willing to act according to the kabuki rules is by definition an "extremist."

Kabuki would not work without the backstage people who create the sets and design the costumes. In the same fashion the Congressional kabuki requires smoky backrooms, Madison Avenue advertising people, and Congressional staffers to design the talking points.

Everything we have heard boils down to a few talking points on each side (quoting Mr. Quinn):

Republican Talking Points 

• We refuse to increase taxes on all Americans to fix a spending problem.
• Spending has been out of control since Obama took control of the White House (reference $800 billion stimulus package, home buyer tax credit, and Obamacare).
• Say that Obama doesn’t have a plan and mention his ten year budget.
• Tell the American people Republicans are fiscally responsible and the real party of change.
• The people told them to change Washington with the 2010 election.

Democratic Talking Points 

• The Tea Party EXTREMISTS have hijacked the Republican Party and want to destroy the country by forcing the country to default on its debt.
• The Bush tax cuts and the Bush wars are to blame for the entire increase in debt and deficits.
• The Republicans want to protect the richest Americans while cutting Medicare and Social Security benefits for the poor.
• The Democratic Party will never cut Medicare or Social Security.
• The Democrats are willing to compromise and act like adults, while the evil Republicans resist all offers to strike a deal.

Mr. Quinn then brings on board political consultant James Carville, who makes a revealing comment about the groupthink inside the Beltway:

Carville’s shrill diatribe against the Tea Party freshman in Congress was the most humorous piece of misinformation of his entire rant. He inadvertently struck upon the most revealing point of this entire debt ceiling farce. He said:


“These Tea Party congressmen act as if they don’t care if they are re-elected in 2012.” (Emphasis his)

Mr Quinn continues:

And there you have it. These people are not doing what is in their own best interest to get re-elected. They have shocked the vested interests in Washington by sticking to their principles and not playing the games that left the country bankrupt. This is an outrage to non-principled shills like Carville and Rove. This behavior is declared EXTREMIST by the liberal pundits and self interested Washington hacks. People acting in the long- term best interests of the country are seen as EXTREME by neo-cons like Charles Krauthammer and moderate RINOs like John “Crash” McCain. The entrenched Washington ruling class is uncomfortable with any change. The establishment would prefer to lie to the American public again and let future generations worry about the $100 trillion unfunded obligations they’ve created. 

Only in America would people trying to balance the national budget be branded extremists.

I believe that history will rehabilitate Barry Goldwater, who fought the liberal establishment of that day (and was buried by it). At the 1964 Republican National Convention, his quotation of Marcus Tullius Cicero proclaimed a truth that gives courage to people in every age who struggle in liberty's cause:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." (Emphasis mine)

Getting real

Over on Facebook, an interesting discussion has taken place on my friend Bill Yarbrough's wall about how (or whether) the Libertarian Party should interact with the Tea Party. The struggle in the Party is between those who would insist on absolute fidelity to the Party Platform in all decisions, and those who understand that (as my Republican political mentor, Robert E. Levitt* put it) "the purpose of the ... Party is to elect candidates." In other words, we need to be faithful to our values, but understand that, in politics, our values are a destination. Decisions made by Libertarian officeholders will fall short of the Platform's goals, but the Libertarian must be held accountable for bringing us closer to them.

Bill, who has the virtue of being both a Libertarian and a realist, puts it this way:

I agree the country and state are not ready for a third party - and they don't have to be. The Libertarian brand simply has to overcome obscurity to the point that one really good candidate wins one prominant U.S. House seat. That should be ...the focus - one winnable race of note. From there, the sky's the limit. The LP needs to sink all its money into a winnable race before the [realists] of the world will find us worth their time.

A political party that cannot elect candidates is useless. On the other hand, neither of our major parties appear to be grounded in principle, even though many of their candidates and officeholders are personally so grounded.

On the Tea Party side, there is complete agreement on where we need to go -- and total confusion as to how to get there. Some Tea Partiers are libertarians who want less government across the board, but others are conservatives who embrace the social constraints and militarism favored by many Republicans. Because many of the most visible supporters of the Tea Party are Republicans, there is a perception that the Tea Partiers are nothing but GOP hacks. Part of this confusion stems from the amorphousness of the Tea Party. The Tea Parties and related organizations stem from many roots. As Bill Yarbrough observed, to properly judge a Tea Party, one has to look at each individual local organization.

Leadership and members in both movements need to understand that candidates and officeholders can only work with the legislation as it is. Legislators can amend bills and try to persuade others toward our Platform goals -- but they can only vote on what is in front of them.

Thomas Sowell reminds us of this reality in today's Townhall:

One of the good things about the Tea Party movement is that it resisted the temptation to actually form a third political party, which has been an exercise in futility, time and time again, under the American electoral system.


But, if the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party becomes just a rule-or-ruin minority, then they might just as well have formed a separate third party and gone on to oblivion.

It is not in the interest, either of the Tea Party or of the people, to insist that Congressmen or state legislators commit political suicide in support of a long-range goal. For example, I agree that Congress should take a hard line both against raising the debt limit and raising tax rates; but if we don't completely balance the budget, we are not sacrificing our principles. We are still moving toward our goals. We are preparing Congress and the people for a greater victory later on. The point is, that victory will not come until we take the intermediate steps.

On a personal note, Mr. Sowell also explains why I should not run for office:

Writers can advocate things that have no chance at the moment, for their very writing about those things persuasively can make them possible at some future date. But to adopt the same approach as an elected member of Congress risks losing both the present and the future.

* Robert E. Levitt (1926-1997) was a Republican state representative and longtime chairman of the Stark County Republican Party. I worked as his executive director 1978-1982, where I got quite an education in political reality.

Why I am a Libertarian

... with a capital L. News release from the Libertarian Party Apr. 5 about Paul Ryan's alternative federal budget:

Libertarians say Paul Ryan is worse than Bill Clinton

WASHINGTON - In response to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's new budget proposal, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle issued the following statement today:

"Americans hoping to get real about our national debt just got sucker-punched by Republican Paul Ryan.

"Republicans want to spend $40 trillion over ten years. That averages a staggering $4 trillion per year. As recently as 2000, federal spending was only about $1.8 trillion.

"They also want to increase the federal debt from $15.0 trillion to $23.1 trillion. I hope our children and grandchildren enjoy paying interest on that extra $8.1 trillion.

"People should not judge the quality of this Republican plan by the standard President Obama has set. Everyone knows Obama is a big spender. Democrats rarely campaign on cutting government. What this budget shows is, Republicans are hypocrites. They have no intention of cutting the federal government down to size. In 2021, Paul Ryan still wants the feds to be spending 19.9% of GDP. That's a higher percentage than during Democrat Bill Clinton's second term. In 1997, federal spending was 19.5% of GDP, and it dropped to 18.2% by 2000. Paul Ryan is worse than Bill Clinton.

"Another unfortunate but predictable thing about Paul Ryan's budget is that it continues to mollycoddle the Pentagon. Paul Ryan is the Military-Industrial Complex's best friend. He apparently can't find one penny to cut from Obama's bloated levels of military spending. Only a big-government Republican could come up with language like 'reinvesting $100 billion in higher military priorities.'

"It's interesting that when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House from 2001-2006, they did nothing to shrink government, or even slow down government growth. On the contrary, back then, Paul Ryan was busy voting for expensive foreign wars, No Child Left Behind, and the huge 2003 Medicare expansion. More recently he's voted for the TARP bailouts and even ethanol subsidies.

"We Libertarians propose eliminating federal functions that are not authorized in the Constitution. Furthermore, Libertarians propose ending foreign wars and foreign troop deployments, allowing huge cuts in military spending. Libertarians would cut the federal government down to less than 10% of GDP, and we'd keep cutting once we got there."

Remember what I wrote last fall about Republicans and their "Pledge to the Gullible."


 

Governor John R. Kasich

John Kasich is a passionate man. He is anxious to roll up his sleeves and solve the problems that have plagued Ohio for over a generation. Because he is passionate, he is vulnerable to being portrayed as the bull in a china shop and prone to the occasional gaffe (such as an opinion he expressed last month about state employees). He left a bad taste in many mouths for the rabid negativism of his campaign against Gov. Ted Strickland. It seems, however, that political campaigning brings out the worst in otherwise worthy and virtuous people. On the other hand, I remember him as an energetic Congressman who wanted to show the American people what fiscal responsibility looked like; and partly as a result of his prodding, the federal budget was balanced from 1998 to 2000.

The purpose of an inaugural address* is to set the tone for an administration, to help the citizens understand where the new Governor is coming from, and to provide a general direction. Policy matters are deferred to the State of the State address, usually given in March.

The inaugural address, which Gov. Kasich says he wrote on Christmas Day, did not convey the arrogance that sometimes came across during the campaign. Rather, it was a statement of his fundamental values: faith, family, friends, and teamwork.

On teamwork:

I want to thank Ohioans, all Ohioans, for giving me the chance to form a team. To form a team. And to transform our great state. You know, years ago, I used the word “I” an awful lot. I don’t know whether it is age or whether it’s prayer or it’s the constant beating that my friends give me, but it’s not “I” any longer. It’s “we.” I learned long ago working with my great pal [U.S. House Speaker] John Boehner, only teams, only teams can accomplish great things. And you know, ’ole Woody was right, there is no “I” in team. And together, we, as Ohioans, can get this job done.

You know, my inauguration, the conductor of a great orchestra, with all of you playing an instrument in that orchestra, my inauguration is your inauguration. I want everyone to understand that I hope you can realize we accept this responsibility together. I have a sense that across Ohio, people know we have a challenge. So today, we’re all inaugurated into a better day. You know, I’m only a servant, I am only a servant, a public servant . I report to the people. I report to you, the people.

And, later, he said with refreshing humility, “I am a servant of the Lord.”

He shares an observation I have made in this space many times:

You see, Ohio has wide horizons, we have unlimited opportunity. Ohio is an exciting place. And I have come to understand as a grown man what Ohio is all about. We are about common sense. [Emphasis added]

Common sense. Reforming state government so it provides better services at less cost. With respect to doing more with less, this has been a mantra in state government since Gov. George Voinovich used those words in his first inaugural address twenty years ago. If anyone can bring innovation to Ohio government, it would seem to be John Kasich. It helps that he is supported in both houses of the Ohio General Assembly by Republican majorities.

Not that innovation will be easy:

It’s our mountain to climb. Can you see it? Can you see that mountain? I know you can. We can climb it. One step at a time. Helping each other to be strong. Together, that mountain, we will reach the summit.

When the going gets tough, when the legislature balks, when the newspapers are nipping at your heels, remember you said this, Gov. Kasich, and keep those words in your heart. In so doing, you will find success.

Best wishes for a successful Administration, Gov. Kasich.

* Text of Gov. Kasich’s inaugural address, from the Columbus Dispatch.

The Constitution is "confusing"

So says Ezra Klein at the Washington Post in an MS-NBC interview with Norah O'Donnell, as reported by NewsBusters.

The liberal establishment just can't understand this obsession with the Constitution. After all, according to Mr. Klein:

The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.

This statement was to support Ms. O'Donnell's assertion that the emphasis on the Constitution is nothing more than a political gimmick. "I wouldn't make too much of this," Mr. Klein replied.

Now, the Constitution is really a simple document, only 7,000 words long. A high school graduate should not have any problem with understanding it. It specifically lists the powers granted to the federal government, the powers prohibited to it, and the powers prohibited to the states (Article I, Sections 8-10). And to make it crystal clear, the Bill of Rights added the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.*

Still, I can understand why liberals find it confusing. They have bought into their own rhetoric about a "living Constitution,"  which means whatever the Supreme Court wants it to mean at the time. Understanding what the Constitution means isn't that difficult. If the literal meaning is unclear, check the record of the debates at the Constitutional Convention. If that isn't clear, check the Federalist Papers. If that isn't clear, clean your glasses.

The liberals want us to be impressed with their learning. But learning is useless without common sense, something these two commentators clearly lack.

One more thing. If the Republicans don't "make too much of this," they will join the Democrats  behind the woodshed in 2012, as the frustrated American voters administer to both parties a whipping they will never forget.

* Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed [by the courts] to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Tenth: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively; or to the people.

Another reason not to get too excited about the GOP victory

Gary North, the contrarian economist and writer for LewRockwell.com, says that incoming U.S. House Speaker John Boehner will sell out the Tea Parties. How? By promising that the GOP will repeal Obamacare. If it fails now, they will keep up the pressure in the 2012 campaign, and elect a Republican President and U.S. Senate. In 2013, they will repeal Obamacare.

And then replace it with something else that will also be a budget-buster.

The truth is, the Good Old Boys of the GOP's first loyalty is to the Bigs: Big Business, Big Pharma, Big Oil, and Big Banking.

There is only one way to keep that from happening. We have to keep their feet to the fire on balancing the budget and limiting powers to those provided in the Constitution. Constantly.

The next two years could be grueling -- but the alternative would be a lot worse.

Quotation of the day

"To all my Tea Party friends who believe that voting for the GOP candidates is the best option/the lesser of two evils: When you feed the Monster, the Monster grows larger and more difficult to control. If you continue to feed the Monster, someday the Monster will eat you. The Monster has no heart, no mind, no soul and an unquenchable appetite for power."

-- Charlie Earl, Libertarian candidate for Secretary of State, on his Facebook page

It should be clear by now that principle means nothing to the two major parties. President Obama promised hope and change in 2008. Change we definitely got, but it wasn't what we hoped for. As to the Republicans, they want to fool us again the way they did in 1994. For both major parties, its about power, and nothing else. (Need more proof? See my post Oct. 28).

The "lesser of two evils" is still evil.

Ten questions to ask your candidates for Congress and U.S. Senate

Thomas R. Eddlem at The New American* has some suggested questions to help you distinguish between the candidates who claim "Tea Party values" and those who really do. The remainder of this article is a direct quotation from Mr. Eddlem's, except for the comments in brackets, which are mine.

1. When should the federal budget be balanced? (If they have a deadline any time later than the next two-year election cycle — the term for which representatives are currently seeking election — suggest that the candidates should suspend their current campaign and run for office later when they’d fight for a balanced budget. They’re as phony as a $3 bill.)

2. How would you balance the federal budget? Other than cutting “waste” and “pork,” something even liberals claim they want to do, what programs costing more than $1 billion per year would you vote to eliminate entirely in order to balance the budget? (This is an especially relevant question if the candidate says he or she is for tax cuts, as many Republicans do. If a candidate cannot name a single program of $1 billion or more he’d cut out entirely — such as foreign aid — in the face of an annual deficit of $1,400 billion, he is lying when he says he wants a balanced budget or that he wants to reduce the size of government.)

3. Would you balance the budget based on the current level of federal revenue — or reduce taxes while also cutting spending? Congressman Ron Paul says he would eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with nothing. Do you think this could be done, and if so, how?...

4. Would you vote to abolish the Federal Reserve and replace it with a gold standard?

5. Do you believe the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade abortion decision, which took the issue of abortion out of the hands of states, was a direct assault on the Constitution’s 10th Amendment? [Interesting take on that issue, don't you think?]

6. Would you pull U.S. military forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan? [Don't take any waffling on this issue. You need to know whether a candidate's "conservatism" is an attempt to hide a pro-war, any war stance].

7. Would you also pull U.S. military forces out of South Korea and Germany, and in general support a non-interventionist, mind-our-own-business foreign policy?

8. Would you end all foreign aid, including aid to Israel, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

9. Would you insist that the NSA and the rest of the federal government abolish all warrantless wiretapping and honor the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that all searches have a warrant and probable cause? Would you seek to get the executive branch to punish violators with prison sentences?

10. Would you insist that the federal government not engage in torture, which violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and vote for a law banning waterboarding and extraordinary rendition? Would you insist that the Fifth Amendment be vindicated and the right to trial by jury be upheld, even for terrorism suspects?

* Yes, I know that The New American is published by the John Birch Society, but that affiliation doesn't affect the quality of the questions.

A pledge to the gullible

I have finally read A Pledge to America, offered up to us by our Congressional Republicans. While I have read some comments on it, this post will only include my impressions of it.

Frankly, I am disappointed. Not surprised, but disappointed.

With this document, the Republican Party has placed itself on the same level as the Democrats. They don't really care about fundamental change that will help us preserve our liberty and stave off economic catastrophe. They just want to get back into power.

The sad part is, they just might get away with it.

Why do I say this?

The Republicans know what we want to hear. The Pledge begins:

America is more than a country.

America is an idea - an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government's powers are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any man or woman can - given economic, political, and religious liberty - advance themselves, their families, and the common good.

America is an inspiration to those who yearn to be free and have the ability and dignity to determine their own destiny.

Fine words. The reference to the Declaration of Independence is a nice touch; which becomes a snare to the unwary reader in the very next sentence:

Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course. [Emphasis added]

The liberties of the people are in danger whenever the government has an agenda -- any agenda. Government is meant to carry out the agenda (if we have to use that word) of the people who elected representatives to it.

We live in revolutionary times. Merely changing an agenda will not resolve the problems we face. It is like trying to treat arterial bleeding with a Band Aid.

The GOP wants to require that every bill going through their Congress contain a citation of Constitutional authority. (I wonder how many times they will cite the catch-all "General Welfare Clause," which does not of itself confer any "Constitutional authority.") The Pledge displays a great deal of confusion on the Constitutional role of government. The following examples, taken from the document, display a rank ignorance of, if not contempt for, the limitations the Constitution placed on the federal government:

• "We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values." That's nice, as long as the Congress doesn't try to legislate on any of those subjects. I wonder how long the conservative base will stand for silence on abortion restrictions and preventing homosexual "marriages." *
• "Instead of pushing off our long-term fiscal challenges, we will reform the budget process to ensure that Congress begins making the decisions that are necessary to protect our entitlement programs for today's seniors and future generations." Please show me where the Constitution authorizes any entitlement program.
• "We offer a plan to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care." Repeal, great! Replace -- uh, please show me where the Constitution authorizes any government intervention in health care.
• "End TARP once and for all." Good. Now, what will your corporate contributors demand in its place?

The Pledge contains a number of serious political problems as well:

• "We will further encourage small businesses to create jobs by allowing them to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income." About the health care act requiring small business to report purchases of over $600 with forms 1099 to Infernal Revenue: "We will repeal this job-killing small business mandate." "We will help the economy by permanently stopping all tax increases, currently scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011." All of these are baby steps in the right direction, but they only address symptoms. The problem is a system of collecting income tax that is too complex, too intrusive, too expensive, and totally unfair. The best thing to do is to abolish the income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment. The second best thing to do is to institute a flat tax -- no deductions, no exemptions, no "progressive" rates, and no excuses. The rich still pay more than the poor, but get to keep what they earn.
• "With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt." Uh-huh. You can't be serious about debt reduction if you're only cutting governmental spending by 4.3 percent! Ohio's state government has routinely cut spending by 10 percent and more in recent years! Restoring fiscal sanity will require sacrifices, both to the Congress and to those who hoped to receive the entitlements.
• The Republicans want to "[impose] a net hiring freeze on non-security federal employees." Now that's a lot of nothing, given the federal propensity to justify almost everything on the basis of "national security."
• They also want to review every government program "to eliminate wasteful and duplicative programs." Then you'll file the report in a box in the National Archives, right? How about sunset legislation?
• "... we will reform the budget process..." Like you did during the George W. Bush Administration, right?
• "We will give all Representatives and citizens at least three days to read the bill before a vote." To read the Health Care Act (2,300 pages) in three days would require a person to read almost 1,500 words of dense legalese per minute, allowing only four hours per day for sleeping and breaks. (The fastest speed readers can read about 1,000 words per minute -- most of us plod along at 200-400).
• The Pledge makes it clear that the Republicans are still pro-war, any war: "We offer a plan to keep our nation secure at home and abroad that will provide the resources, authority, and support our deployed military requires, fully fund missile defense, and enforce sanctions against Iran..." This is not national security. This is more of the same old, same old. National security lies in minding our own business -- getting out of the Middle East for starters -- and in arming our borders and nothing else. The plan does address border security by ensuring that the federal government "fulfills its constitutional duty to protect our citizens and our Nation, working closely with our state and local governments."
• "We will work to ensure foreign terrorists... are tried in military, not civilian, court. We will oppose all efforts to force our military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel operating overseas to extend "Miranda Rights" to foreign terrorists." I have no objection to this statement, except in what it leaves unsaid. There is no commitment here to habeas corpus, one of the most fundamental human rights. We are untrue to our own commitment to personal liberty, if we decide that an accused terrorist should be locked up indefinitely without a fair trial. Not all accused terrorists prove to be guilty. That "fair trial" can be in military court according to military law, but even the worst of them are entitled to that much.

In summary, the Pledge to America is a slick political document appealing to motherhood, apple pie, hot dogs, and flagwaving conservatism. It offers policy solutions to a structural problem.

What is that structural problem? Just this. The Founding Fathers designed the federal government to consist of three branches that would be competing centers of power -- each jealous of its own prerogatives under the Constitution. They never imagined that the feds would evolve into a state of collusion, where a dictatorial President enlists a rubber-stamp Congress to approve vague legislation that a compliant Supreme Court upholds. Even that collusion could have been prevented if the Seventeenth Amendment (direct election of Senators) had not been adopted, stripping the states of their direct voice in the federal government.

The Republicans preach reform at a time when we need a revolution. Given Washington's love of power, I seriously doubt that the needed structural changes will ever occur on the federal level. This is why I preach secession -- returning power to governments on a more human scale.

So, voter beware. Remember, the lesser of the two evils is still evil. At minimum, support the third-party and dissident Republican candidates who understand the truth and are willing to proclaim it. Better yet, support candidates for the state legislature that will aggressively press for nullification of unconstitutional federal laws -- and if that fails, independence.

* I am not in favor either of abortion or homosexual "marriages", but neither should be regulated by law -- and certainly not at the federal level!

An Apology to America

I still haven't read the document that inspired this, but right now we all need some levity, which Travis Irvine, Libertarian candidate for Congress in Ohio's 12th District is more than happy to supply.

Keep in mind that the best humor is based on truth...

Why liberals resort to namecalling

Charles Krauthammer at the Washington Post has written a neat summation of what we all know, but which the mainstream media refuse to acknowledge. The left tries to "marginalize" the American people because they can no longer use reason to back their arguments.

... Promiscuous charges of bigotry [example] are precisely how our current rulers react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

• Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
• Disgust with the federal government’s unwillingness to curb illegal immigration? Nativism.
• Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.
• Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near ground zero? Islamophobia.

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities oppose Obama’s social-democratic agenda, support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a ground-zero mosque...

It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms).

Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them,” a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, “just downright mean”?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama overread his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.

But don't start counting the chickens yet. The likely beneficiary of this revolt will be mainstream Republicans -- the same people we were so eager to get rid of just two years ago.

What we need is a revolution, a peaceful one if at all possible; but one which restores rule to the people of the several states, as our Founding Fathers envisioned. Merely switching from one élite party to the other isn't going to cut it.

More reasons why the GOP is no answer

Some readers might wonder why I have been so hard on the Republicans lately (recent examples 1, 2, and 3). It certainly isn't because I like the Democrats! If we are to regain our freedom, lower taxes, and maintain a sustainable economy that benefits all of us, we have to change our thinking. It's not about just R and D anymore. We have to think outside the box and look at other possibilities (such as my L or our friends' C).

Here is why we need to do so, from Rebecca Sink-Burris, a Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate from neighboring Indiana. While I think her race for U.S. Senate is a waste of time (not because she is Libertarian, but because she is running for U.S. Senate), her message is clear and needs to be broadcast to the general public.

Remember: the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Virtual buckeye to Jeremiah Arn via Facebook.

Doublethink

In George Orwell's novel 1984, the residents of socialist "Oceania" spoke an updated form of English, called Newspeak. The purpose of the language was to limit the ability of an individual to think creatively by reducing the number of words and ideas that can be communicated. For example, every idea that could be construed as contrary to the will of Big Brother could only be expressed as crimethink.

Doublethink is defined in the novel as

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth "

Libertarian candidate for Governor of Ohio Ken Matesz (without saying so in as many words) believes that the Republicans are practicing doublethink. According to House Minority Leader John Boehner:

“House Republicans are leading the drive for smaller, more accountable government and better solutions to the challenges facing our nation.”

Uh-huh. Mr. Matesz observes that memories must be growing shorter and shorter. He reminds us that before President Obama's stimulus package of 2009 came President Bush's stimulus package of early 2008, which President Bush called "a booster shot for our economy." At the time, it was said to prevent the onset of the recession.

Agreed, Bush’s spending spree was smaller, at “only” $168 billion, but it was a government stimulus program nonetheless. Proponents want to argue with me that Bush actually wanted to send checks to the little guy, so that makes it better. Sorry guys, government spending is government spending, no matter what it is spent on – your mortgage or someone’s pet alternative energy project. Either government spending solves the economic doldrums or it doesn’t. I know that government spending always hinders the free market economy; it’s not just the spending programs put in place by Democrats that do damage.

Now, here's where it gets interesting. Not a single Republican voted for the Obama "porkulus" package, but President Bush's stimulus received support from every Ohio Republican in the Congress! Including, of course, Rep. Boehner. Who also voted for the Wall Street bailout.

Now, Rep. Boehner, why should we believe you? There is an old saying, "Fooled once, shame on you; fooled twice, shame on me." Rush Limbaugh is saying that voting Republicans back into the Congress is a better solution than secession. Seems to me that Mr. Matesz has made clear that a Republican comeback will do nothing but continue the insanity we are now experiencing with a few cosmetic changes.

There is only one way to get government to act in the interest of the people. And since we know that the interests of both Republican and Democrat are in continuing the present system, the only way to do that is to throw both parties out and vote Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and independents in!

A better solution is to throw the Republicrats out of office in Ohio, replace them with Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and independents, and then declare independence from the United States -- but that's a step that even Mr. Matesz is not ready to consider.

If you think you can explain how electing candidates from the major parties will solve any problems that both of them had a hand in creating, you're welcome to post a comment!

The GOP for small government? I don't buy it. Neither should you.

I remember a time when the Republican Party did stand for less government. Unfortunately, that hasn't been true since 1980 -- Ronald Reagan's rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

Do the Republicans think that we are so desperate for legitimacy, or have such short memories as to think that they are sincere when they try to embrace Ron Paul and the Tea Parties? If the GOP does embrace them, it will be a bear hug that will save the party and kill them.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com expands on this idea:

This is what Republicans always do. When in power, they massively expand the power of the state in every realm. Deficit spending and the national debt skyrocket. The National Security State is bloated beyond description through wars and occupations, while no limits are tolerated on the Surveillance State. Then, when out of power, they suddenly pretend to re-discover their "small government principles." The very same Republicans who spent the 1990s vehemently opposing Bill Clinton's Terrorism-justified attempts to expand government surveillance and executive authority then, once in power, presided over the largest expansion in history of those very same powers. The last eight years of Republican rule was characterized by nothing other than endlessly expanded government power, even as they insisted -- both before they were empowered and again now -- that they are the standard-bearers of government restraint.

Have we forgotten how we felt only 15 months ago?

What makes this deceit particularly urgent for them now is that their only hope for re-branding and re-empowerment lies in a movement -- the tea partiers -- that has been (largely though not exclusively) dominated by libertarians, Paul followers, and other assorted idiosyncratic factions who are hostile to the GOP's actual approach to governing. This is a huge wedge waiting to be exposed -- to explode -- as the modern GOP establishment and the actual "small-government" libertarians that fuel the tea party are fundamentally incompatible. Right-wing mavens like Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin and National Review are suddenly feigning great respect for Ron Paul and like-minded activists because they're eager that the sham will be maintained: the blatant sham that the modern GOP and its movement conservatives are a coherent vehicle for those who believe in small government principles. The only evidence of a passionate movement urging GOP resurgence is from people whose views are antithetical to that Party. That's the dirty secret which right-wing polemicists are desperately trying to keep suppressed. Credit to Mike Huckabee for acknowledging this core incompatibility by saying he would not attend CPAC because of its "increasing libertarianism."

Some people in the liberty movement may be ignorant, but they're not stupid. The difference? Stupidity is permanent. Ignorance can be fixed.

Virtual buckeye to Elizabeth Wright at Issues and Views - The Blog.

Black Republican gives Harry Reid his comeuppance

Here's one African-American who isn't afraid to say what he really thinks. Lt. Col. (Retired) Allen West is seeking the Republican nomination for Congressman in Florida's Tenth District. He sent out a letter castigating Sen. Harry Reid for his remarks about President Obama, as reported by the Washington Independent blog:

Greetings,
The revelation of Senator Harry Reid’s comments referencing “negro talk” is just indicative of the true sentiment elitist liberals, and indeed the Democratic party, have toward black Americans. The history of the Democrat party is one of slavery, secession, segregation, and now socialism. It is this new aged socialism born from the Johnson Great Society programs that have castigated blacks as victims needing government dependency. One need only to look upon the city of Detroit to ascertain what liberal social welfare policies have produced for the inner city… the new plantation for black Americans...

One can only imagine the insanity and media outrage if Reid’s quote had come from a member of the Republican party. I look forward to hearing from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on Reid’s comments… or has liberal hush money paid for the silence of these proprietors of poverty and victimization theory. Actually, if President Obama had any courage he would demand Reid step down as Senate Majority Leader, and discontinue any support for his Senate reelection… notice I said “if”. I am quite sure the Soros money which elevated Obama to the position of President has bought his servitude.

Rev. Jackson has weighed in -- to him, Sen. Reid's remarks were merely "an inartful way of speaking the truth".

Why am I running for US Congress as a Republican? Simple. I would rather stand proudly and be called “an Uncle Tom and a sellout” than lose my self-esteem and be considered an inferior by liberals. I understand the legacy of the GOP and the black community… not the revisionist history espoused by liberal educators. I am not, shall never be, and will not raise my daughters to be a part of the liberal 21st century plantation. I am not just some articulate, clean, well spoken negro. I am an American warrior, Congressional candidate, and shall never submit to the collective progressive ideal of inferiority.

Senator Harry Reid’s comments are disgusting, despicable, and unacceptable. They are representative of how intellectual elite liberals do indeed speak of black Americans in their closed private spaces. Next week I have been invited to NYC to address the Hudson Institute, a conservative organization, conference on “Reclaiming American Liberty”. That invite came to me because I took advantage of the opportunities this great Republic offered. I followed the guidance of my parents and set my standards above all others around me. I speak well and have impeccable communicative skills because my Father and Mother prioritized that quality. I shiver to think what my future could have been if I listened to the insidious rhetoric of charlatans such as Harry Reid, and the ambassadors of affirmative action who reside in the Congressional Black Caucus.

Sure, the “stuck on stupid” blacks are going to address me in derogatory names...

Of course. When liberals can't reason, they result to namecalling. It's how they work.

...but I possess something which they lack; Honor, Integrity, and Character. To them I say, continue to be slaves to the liberals for your vote… and in a year you will be calling me Congressman West.

Steadfast and Loyal,
LTC(R) Allen B West

Next Monday, I shall be honoring four African-Americans who have been outspoken proponents of liberty. Lt. Col. West is not on the list (because I didn't know about him until today) -- but at this rate, he will soon be added to it.

On a related note, here is a column by Michael Barone that shows how the liberal "educated class" likes to put down the tea parties. He concludes:

On these issues [gun control and global warming] the educated class is faith-based and the ordinary Americans who increasingly reject their views are fact-based, just as the Obama enthusiasts are motivated by style and the tea partiers by substance.

As the educated class bitterly clings to its contempt for the increasing numbers not enlightened enough to share its views, other Americans have noticed, even in the liberal heartland of Massachusetts, where Republican Scott Brown seems on the brink of an upset victory in the special Senate election next Tuesday. That would have reverberations for the educated class an awful lot like that tea party back in 1773.

As the liberals said joyfully in 1968, "the times, they are a'changing," but they're not going to like the changes coming down this year.