What is America about?

After getting into two highly acrimonious debates with individuals who are more interested in promoting political correctness than to listen to reasoned dissent, I have to ask myself what Americans think their country is about. 

The political division that currently exists suggests that there are three possible answers. The liberal would argue for economic, or redistributive “justice,” the neo-conservative would argue for power, and the libertarian for individual freedom. 

I have come to realize that constitutional and libertarian arguments will only make sense to those who value personal freedom – and it appears that for many Americans, that value is expendable. Those who see America in terms of economic equality or military power will support the notion that Ron Paul is an old crank who is off the rocker they think he should be seated on.  

"From each according to his gullibility,
to each according to his greed!"

The economic redistributionist rejects free enterprise, because it entails risk. Risk is unacceptable to the poor because they cannot, of course, accept financial loss; and is unacceptable for the rich because it creates wealth that (in their view) is not earned. Without risk, there is no opportunity, but for them that is a small price to pay. The end game, though, is to replace an elite based on wealth with one based on political correctness. For them, the goal is not really justice -- it is power for those who toe the party line. Their means is to write more extensive and tighter regulations to discourage anyone from taking any initiative that has not been blessed by their government.  

For such people, the charge of racism is a handy way to bully those who disagree with them. If you want to replace the welfare state, you are a racist. If you want an educational system that teaches young people how to find the truth, you are a racist. If you believe in the Anglo-American heritage of rule by law and would insist on using the English language so that everyone can fully understand that heritage, you are a racist. 

Those who see America’s purpose as being a military power see personal freedom as expendable to protect our “national security.” They cannot be persuaded by reasonable arguments that trade, diplomacy, and taking the moral high road can be effective levers to promote our national interest. They think applying the Golden Rule to international relations is ridiculous and perhaps even dangerous, and then they wonder why the Iraqis and the Afghans are intent on getting us out of their countries – after all, we came on a mission to build free and fair societies – according to our customs and standards. Ask the neocons about how they would feel if, for example, the Chinese invaded this country on the same basis, and they will mutter something about “American exceptionalism.” 

To a reasonable person, “American exceptionalism” is nothing more than arrogance, pure and simple. 

As I was recently reminded, those who see America in terms of power cannot understand any argument that undermines their almost religious belief that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest (or maybe second greatest) of Presidents. Yes, he preserved the Union, but was it really worth the cost: 660,000 battlefield casualties, the mass murder of Georgia’s civilians during Sherman’s March to the Sea, his blatant hypocrisy on slavery? The surrender at Appomattox began a process of consolidation into an all-powerful federal government that continues to this day. We had a Constitution to protect our rights. Why did he find it necessary to destroy it in order to save the Union? If the issue was slavery, he could have followed the lead of Britain and France (which Brazil later followed) and simply bought out the slaveowners, which would have been cheaper than going to war. If he valued freedom, he could have shown good faith to the Southerners who were willing to negotiate a settlement to prevent their secession.

When looking at mysteries of this kind, some wise people have said, “Follow the money.” Prior to the Civil War, wealth was fairly evenly spread across the land – North and South. Lincoln was backed heavily by New York bankers, who greatly benefitted from his rule. In the 1870s, wealth heavily concentrated in New York City, while the South was reduced to abject poverty, and would remain so for nearly a century.

Fergit, hell!

The evidence for each of my statements is easy enough to find in any standard history of the Civil War or Reconstruction; but of course, my bringing it up is “revisionist.” And, of course, the neocons join the liberals in promoting the notion that any white male whose family has resided in the South more than a generation or two is the absolute scum of the earth. That notion is completely contrary to reason if you believe that people are individuals who deserve to be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin or the accent of their voice; but Lord, don’t let Martin Luther King, Jr.’s beliefs stand in the way of those who loudly sing his praises! And Christians should keep their religion to themselves if they aren’t willing to idolize the state, support foreign wars, and promote social conservatism!

Just before I wrote this, I asked myself how anyone could believe in personal freedom and not let those who feel they have been wronged to form their own nation; especially when they respected law enough to follow due process as it was understood prior to 1865.

I thought I didn’t get it. Unfortunately, I do now. The way the Republican Presidential primary is shaping up, it is becoming clear that America is not about personal freedom. If President Obama is defeated in November, we will establish that America probably is not about redistribution of wealth, at least not the way the Democratic and Socialist idealists look at it. So I guess it's about power. We will continue to be ruled by those who have the most to gain from holding power.

It’s enough to make a grown man cry.

I’m finished ranting now. Please return to your regularly-scheduled programming.

... and I am NOT a "conservative" ... or am I?

My Nolan Chart

According to the Nolan Chart (based on the "World's Smallest Political Quiz"), I definitely am not "conservative" in the sense that I generally favor social restrictions with my economic liberty. In fact, I appear to be just a bit left of center, a fact that never ceases to amaze me.

However, in 2007, Harrison Bergeron gave a rigorous definition of conservatism in Conservative Heritage Times that also appeals to me, even down to the defense of marriage (though we probably disagree as to whether government should bolster that defense).

In Mr. Bergeron's view, conservatism essentially takes three political positions: to favor limited, decentralized government, preservation of traditional culture, and a rejection of intervention "at home and abroad." What he means by the last is that conservatives are opposed to social re-engineering projects, taking of property to effect equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity; and of course, military adventures abroad.

By contrast, neoconservatives favor big centralized government, universalism ("local culture at home and abroad are impediments to their globalist agenda"), and global interventionism.

Leon Trotsky

Mr. Bergeron then goes on to show how neoconservatives have even admitted that their philosophy is based on that of Soviet Communist Leon Trotsky. Here are two examples:

President George Bush follows the Neocon/Trotskyite agenda of global liberation in his second inaugural address:

Because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

And here is a confession from Stephen Schwartz in 2003 published in National Review, long thought to be a "conservative" publication:

“And the fact is that many of the original generation of neoconservatives had a background of association with Trotskyism in its Shachtmanite iteration; that is, they belonged to or sympathized with a trend in radical leftism that followed the principle of opposition to the Soviet betrayal of the revolution to its logical end. The Shachtmanites, in the 1960s, joined the AFL-CIO in its best Cold War period, and many became staunch Reaganites.
This path had been pioneered much earlier by two Trotskyists: James Burnham, who became a founder of National Review, and Irving Kristol, who worked on Encounter magazine.”

And how does that author feel about Trotsky today?

“To my last breath I will defend the Trotsky who alone, and pursued from country to country, and finally laid low in his own blood in a hideously hot little house in Mexico City.”

Click to enlarge
Trotsky appropriately depicted at lower left

Both liberals and neocons have this agenda, as observed by the Chicago Tribune April 21, 1934 (cartoon at left -- the link explains the roles of the men riding the donkey and the cart).

In other words, neoconservatives are liberals in sheep's clothing. Keep this in mind the next time that Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or even David Webb try to confuse you or your friends into thinking that neocons are "conservative." And for my part, I will consider the possibility that I am.

Virtual buckeye to Rebellion.

Rasmussen Reports: President Obama has a 1 point lead over Ron Paul

According to a Rasmussen Report poll released on Tuesday, Ron Paul is running only one point behind President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 matchup (39%-38% of likely voters). However, the same source states that among likely Republican voters, Dr. Paul is favored by only 9%, behind Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Michelle Bachmann. Dr. Paul enjoys a ten-point lead among independent voters.

This suggests that the Republican primary will be a bigger hurdle for Dr. Paul than the election itself.

I cite these figures as a strong indicator that the libertarian message is beginning to reach the American people. However, I am not confident that, if Ron Paul be elected, that he would be able to effect significant change, because I cannot envision a Congress that would cooperate with him.

In my opinion, independence would be much easier and more effective as a means for restoring liberty in Ohio than to turn around the Leviathan in Washington.

However, both ideas are non-starters until we can persuade the Republican loyalists and neoconservatives that militarism is against our national interest.

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.

Is there hope for liberty in our time?

Jacob Huebert, a resident of Columbus, presents a realistic view of the liberty movement today. He disproves the notion, widely held by the Left, that there is a lack of intellectuals either among libertarians, or in Ohio.

Don't waste your time, Ken

Roll Call (via Hannah News Service) reports that Ken Blackwell is considering a run for the U.S. Senate next year. He is supposedly leading the polls right now, but that is probably because he is the only Republican who has run a statewide campaign who has announced so far.

Do us all a favor, Ken. Don't waste your time or our money. We've had enough of you.

"My country, right or wrong"

Often quoted out of context, here is what Missouri's U.S. Senator Carl Schurz really said:

In 1872:

“The senator from Wisconsin cannot frightenme by exclaiming, ‘My country, right or wrong.’ In one sense I say so, too. My country – and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” (Source: The Congressional Globe, vol. 45, p. 1287)

Chuck Baldwin tells us that Sen. Schurz then later expanded on this short statement in a speech delivered at the Anti-Imperialistic Conference in Chicago, Illinois, on October 17, 1899. He said,

“I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves . . . too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of TRUE patriotism: ‘Our country–when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’” (Source: Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, 1913, p. 119) (Emphasis in
original.)

Virtual buckeye to Chuck Baldwin in DumpDC.

Telling the truth about Lincoln

Continuing Glenn Beck week at The Ohio Republic:

Historian and persistent Lincoln critic Thomas DiLorenzo explains (in LewRockwell.com) how Mr. Beck has distorted history in his defense of Abraham Lincoln -- which is, at best, ironic, given the often controversial truth Mr. Beck has expressed on other historical subjects.

Specifically, Prof. DiLorenzo cites these falsehoods:

• Mr. Beck refers to the Confederate Constitution as the "Slaveholders' Constitution." As Mr. DiLorenzo points out, and I can confirm from my own reading, the Confederate Constitution was almost identical to that of the United States, Where it differed, it further limited the powers of the federal government by limiting its President to one six-year term, giving its President a line-item veto (a power that state governors were beginning to receive in state constitutions at the time), outlawing protectionist tariffs and subsidies to corporations, and removing the "General Welfare" clause.
• Mr. Beck echoes the widely-held misconception that the War between the States was about slavery. It was not. It was about states' rights. Granted, the Confederates used states' rights to protect slavery -- but the difference is important, because states' rights covers a whole lot of territory that has nothing to do with slavery -- and as Prof. DiLorenzo points out, the strongest defense of slavery at the time came from Lincoln himself, in support of the Corwin Amendment. Lincoln didn't care about the slaves -- he wanted only to preserve the Union for the benefit of the New York bankers who supported him!
• Mr. Beck has "adminrably" (to Prof. DiLorenzo) attacked the notion of "collective salvation" in every context except Lincoln's. As Prof. DiLorenzo points out, the spirit of the age in the North was of collective salvation -- by purifying the lives of the people as a whole through the temperance movement, abolition of slavery, and the abolition of Roman Catholicism.

Glenn Beck urges his listeners not to take his word for it, but to research the facts for themselves. I agree. Especially when it comes to the facts about the War between the States, which Mr. Beck insists on distorting in the service of neoconservative statism.

"Secession" is "not the rantings of extreme kookism anymore"

Thus says none other than heretofore neoconservative Rush Limbaugh, in response to a caller on his show August 5.



Let's see, secession has now been treated seriously by some mainstream media (Fox News, The Arizona Republic) and by talk radio commentators (Glenn Beck, in addition to Mr. Limbaugh).

Reasonable people are now concluding that getting out from under a régime that fails to work for the people who elected it is not such a crazy idea anymore!

On "American exceptionalism"

There is nothing "exceptional" about Americans. We are human -- and being human, we are just as generous and greedy, wise and stupid, intelligent and ignorant, virtuous and venal, diligent and lazy, as anyone else.

"American exceptionalism" is nothing more than a convenient sophistry used by the builders of empire to persuade good people to allow them to pursue their evil designs.

We cannot save our country until we understand and accept these truths.

More warnings for the Tea Party Nation

Chuck Baldwin, who was the Constitution Party's Presidential candidate in 2008, has added his voice to those warning that the Tea Partiers are being co-opted by opportunistic establishment Republicans like Sarah Palin and Rob Perry, echoing many of the concerns expressed in this space on Monday and yesterday:

I say again, be careful, Tea Party Nation. You are being infiltrated. You are being compromised. You are being neutered. Stick to your principles. Stick with the Constitution. Keep opposing unconstitutional, preemptive wars. Keep calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. Keep fighting for less taxes, reduced federal spending, and states' rights. Keep opposing the Patriot Act and the New World Order. Don't abandon Ron Paul. Be wary of people such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. You don't need "big name" celebrities to give you credibility. As Samson's strength depended on
keeping his hair uncut, your strength lies in keeping your principles intact. And unless you want to wind up like the Republican freshmen in 1994, avoid Newt Gingrich like the plague!

Even worse, a professed Tea Partier is running against Ron Paul for his Congressional seat! I agree with Rev. Baldwin -- if that isn't a sign the movement is being infiltrated, I don't know what is!

And here's yet another concurring opinion (which is the source of some of Rev. Baldwin's remarks) from Jane Hamscher at the Huffington Post.

Quotation of the day

"Thoroughly vet those who preach conservatism this election year. Are they walking the walk? Does their record match their rhetoric? Are they merely trying to ride the coattails of a popular mass opposition to socialism? If so call them out, no matter who they are."

-- Michael Wolfe, Jefferson Democrat for Congress in the 15th District Ohio

Virtual buckeye to Terri Cain Owens.

South Carolina secedes again!

I have seen this before, but hidden in the humor may be a fairly clear idea of how secession will actually occur in North America in the near future.

December 16, 2008

Transcript of a phone conversation between Mark Sanford (roman) and President George Bush (italic):

“Good Morning, Mr. President. This is President Mark Sanford of the Independent Republic of South Carolina. I hope you’ve seen a copy of the diplomatic instruments we delivered last night to the State Department and—”

“Listen, Governor, this whole thing is an outrage! If you think—“

“I am a president, Mr. President, as you will see in those instruments. The people of South Carolina elected me to head the new constitution they approved when they voted so overwhelmingly for separation. Let us treat each other with the respect do to equal sovereigns.”

“Equal, what the hell do you mean equal?! You’re the tinpot head of an illegal and unconstitutional state, I’m the head of the mightiest army in the world, and you ought to be damn thankful that we haven’t bombed you to the Stone Age.”

“We are grateful for that, Mr. President, though of course you know that well over two-thirds of the military personnel in this state—including all of the 27,000 Reserves and National Guard, are supporters of secession, are happy citizens of the new South Carolina, and would not have been a part of any military operation you might have thought of launching. Besides, we have established a kind of camp for the soldiers who did not want to become citizens, and we will ship them wherever they want to go, at our expense, as soon as possible. They, and all other Federal personnel who chose not to take citizenship, are being treated very well and will soon be repatriated.

“And while we’re on that subject, Mr. President, I trust you have read in the documents where we have offered extremely handsome sums for the six Federal military bases. Similarly with Federal office buildings. The Interstate Highways, as you know, are state property, but if you want a return on your original investment in them, we can negotiate that. And as for the national park lands, in the interest of burying the hatchet we will not seek compensation for your seizure, use, and long tenure of them, and just call it even.”

"Listen, Sanford, all this is a load of cow-poo, as we say in Texas. You can’t secede from the United States. It’s illegal, and we proved that 150 years ago.”

”No, Mr. President, it’s not illegal, not even unconstitutional—go read the thing, it says nothing at all about secession—and all you proved back then is that a government that turns dictatorial can carry out the wishes of a rising corporate plutocracy at the cost of an incredible, and incredibly stupid, loss of lives. And you’re not going to do that again.”

“Yeah, why not?”

“Because, sir, you are discredited and disgraced, your Administration has no moral authority whatsoever after your illegal wars, your economic meltdown, your lies, and your shredding of the Constitution--and your military would not obey any orders from you after your thoroughly contemptible conduct as commander-in-chief. Besides, before we declared independence we made sure to get backing for our cause from the United Nations Human Rights Council and thirty-five nations which themselves were created by secession, including all of the former Soviet republics, all of the former Yugoslav states, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Panama, Taiwan, East Timor, Singapore, Portugal, and Ireland. It would be beyond even your crude unilateralism to go up against that much world opinion. Even if you could.”

“Listen, Sanford, we have no intention of letting you get away with this. If I can’t use military force, then we’ll try something else. How about a boycott—how’d you like that? A call to Bentonville, Arkansas, and there goes your Wal-Marts. Another to Minneapolis, and no more Targets. How you people going to like that, Mr. Secession?”

“Go ahead and try it, won’t worry us. Why shouldn’t Wal-mart want to keep on doing business here, in another foreign country, like they do around the world? No never-mind to them that we’re not part of the U.S. Except that they could figure that people would have a whole lot more disposable income if they weren’t sending off $23 million in taxes to Washington, DC every year. That might make them very eager to do more business with us.”

“You think I’m a Texas knuckle-knocker, boy? I know full well you get a lot more money from us up here than you pay in. You’re not getting that any more. You’ll be living in tin-roof shacks.”

“Well, that is one thing you’re right about, Mr. President. In fact we get about 25-35 cents back for every dollar we send you in taxes. But in the first place, we’re no longer a part of that failed economic system you people put together, and that odious trillion-dollar bigshot bailout, no longer liable for the immense debt you ran up, no longer going to even be using American currency, and we’re not going down your dollar-based rathole. Second, you forget that most of that money that comes from Washington goes straight to the military establishment here, doesn’t do much for the wider economy, and we won’t need to be supporting that military any more cause we have our own national guard, so we just don’t need the money. And to top it off, we now no longer have to pay all that money to follow all the rules and regulations you’ve put on agriculture, and businesses, and industry, and schooling, and everything else the Feds put their noses into, and we’ll have a whole lot of extra money."

“All in all, Mr. President, we figure we’re going to be a little Southern Switzerland, running our own economic affairs for our own benefit, free and transparent banking, small markets with a lot of self-sufficiency, proud and prosperous and, may I say, palmy.”

”You sunuvabitch, you won’t get away with this. We’ll—"

“Forgive me for interrupting, Mr. President, but it might be wise for you to take some time to reflect on what I’ve said. Perhaps get some of the wiser heads in that city together and let them tell you not just how legal and permissible is what we have achieved, but how right and just and proper, and how it may even point the way for other states to follow our lead and allow your rotten and incompetent Federal government to shrink to a reasonable size where democracy and accountability can be restored.

“In sum, Mr. President, we ask you to remember the flag that was created for the first American Navy at the beginning of the War of Secession in 1775 by an honored son and delegate of the South Carolina colony by the name of Colonel Christopher Gadsden, a copy of which was also given to the South Carolina legislature to fly at the capital. It showed a fierce eastern diamondback rattlesnake—an animal that did not exist in Britain—whose tongue was flickering and hissing, with the words beneath—and I would like to impress them on you, Mr. President—DON’T TREAD ON ME.

“Good morning, Mr. President.”

And that’s the end of the transcript.


Virtual buckeye to Kirkpatrick Sale at the Middlebury Institute.

Republicans: It’s time to hang it up

This will not be an easy post to write. I have been registered as a Republican since 1971, and as a young adult, I ran twice as a Republican for local offices and was a party activist. However, after 152 years, it’s time for the Republican Party to call it quits.

In the last century, the national Republican Party has suffered from bipolar disorder, where the poles may neatly be described as paleoconservative and neoconservative. The paleoconservatives, of which I consider myself one, have consistently advocated limited government, particularly at the Federal level, balanced budgets, a strong national defense but avoidance of foreign wars; and social and economic freedom. Examples of paleoconservative Presidents are Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower (with the qualification that President Eisenhower was unable to balance his budgets – partly due to World War II debt and partly due to a Democratic Congress through most of his administration).

Neoconservatives have consistently advocated the use of the military to expand American interests throughout the world, economic freedom, and a more proactive approach to the regulation of business. Since 1980, neoconservatives have advanced a social agenda reflected in the preferences of the Religious Right, They have been outspoken for Second Amendment rights, and have tended to expand Federal powers affecting secrecy and individual rights. Early examples of neoconservatives (before the term came into use) are Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. More recent examples of neoconservative Presidents are Ronald Reagan, and our current incumbent.

The bipolar shifts have confused Republicans to the point where many wonder whether the Party has a philosophy at all; and it has alienated the general public to the extent that a recovery in four years may not even be possible.

Therefore, I would like to offer a not-so-modest proposal. For now, America would be best served by a vibrant three-party system.

The Democrats would remain as is, less a few conservatives who would be more attracted to one of the other parties, since neither now would be called “Republican”. The Democrats would continue to represent the liberal tradition of governmental activism both at home and abroad.

A Populist Party would represent the paleoconservative tradition, best represented today by Ron Paul. It would seek a return to Constitutional limitations on Federal power, would emphasize both social and economic freedom, and support a strong national defense – but for defense only.

The neoconservative home might be called the “Christian Conservative” Party, because it would represent the desires of the Religious Right regarding homosexuality and abortion, favor military interventions abroad, and be less committed to decentralism than the Populists. Sarah Palin might be a good example of a Christian Conservative.

This partisan alignment would lead to shifting coalitions based on issues. For example, the Christian Conservatives might ally with the Populists on economic issues, but with Democrats on foreign policy. The Populists and Democrats might see eye to eye on social policies, while the Christian Conservatives and the Democrats might ally on economic stimulus issues.

I do not expect such a system to be permanent – American history teaches that sooner or later the parties will again become only two – but while it lasts, it would give the American people an opportunity to see issues more clearly and to decide for themselves just what this nation is about.

President-elect Barack Obama

For many Americans, the election of a President is a deeply emotional experience. This is understandable. For those who are candidates and political activists, a campaign consumes everything: physically, mentally, and emotionally -- perhaps more than any other human activity, except combat.

For African-Americans, Sen. Obama's victory was a sign that racism in America, while not quite dead, is no longer a threat to their legitimate opportunities and aspirations. Yes, a person of color can be elected President. Those of us who have not had the experience of being black cannot appreciate its meaning. One black friend said that the pillows that night were wet with his and his wife's tears of joy.

For many Republicans, the election was a sobering reminder that "success is never final." Some, finding their work now in vain, need to remember the other half of that quotation from Winston Churchill: "Failure is never fatal". Neoconservatism is dead, and rightly so. The Republican Party will have to go back to the drawing board, and determine what conservatism means today. It would do well to consider its paleoconservative roots in limited government, balanced budget, strong national defense (and no more), states' rights (relative to the Federal Government), and freedom both economic and social.

Many observers have become overwrought. Liberal euphoria has made the image of Sen. Obama as a "messiah" stick in the minds of many. Conservative despair looks to the onset of socialism, if not Communism in the United States of America.

Let the truth bring assurance to both camps. Barack Obama is human, like the rest of us. Being human, he is subject to the temptations of great power. The test of his Presidency will lie in his ability to harness the power he has toward ends that will make America a better nation; and in his ability to prevent himself and others from abusing that power. For every President, except the current one, the Presidency has changed the man. The candidate filled with ideals is sobered by the realities and responsibilities of actually holding the office. I have no reason to believe that President Obama will be any different.*

I do not expect the messianic age to come, nor do I expect the spectre of Stalinism to rise over the United States -- at least not right away. Once the honeymoon is over -- and it ends sooner or later for all Presidents -- I anticipate that there will be very little real change. We will still be moving toward consolidation of the Empire, as we have at least since 1913, the rights and liberties of the people will still remain in danger while the President and the Congress (especially with both Houses controlled by the same party) remain in session.

History may well recall that, from a policy standpoint, the significance of an Obama Presidency may prove to be nothing more than that of replacing red covers with blue ones on the deck chairs of the Titanic. If the ship does sink, keep in mind that those of us who preach secession will be there with the lifeboats.

In the meantime, pray for the best.

* The reason President Bush is the exception lay in a combination of his lack of intellect and his unwillingness to entertain difference of opinion.

Take from the poor and give to the rich

We all know that taxes are a form of legalized extortion; but this proposed bailout (does anyone really think that it will stop at $700 billion?) makes Secretary Paulson a reverse Robin Hood. I haven't had much time to digest this myself -- fortunately, others have...

We begin with Ohio's BizzyBlog, whose writer detests being stampeded into something. While he is willing to set aside the $700 billion, he has a few strings attached: He would demand proof of loss and a full explanation of why the loss occurred for each bad loan involved on a case by case basis, attested to by a CPA firm other than the one AIG, Fannie, or Freddie currently uses. Any money advanced ahead of that to keep the markets functioning would be treated as loans, not gifts, until such proof is provided.

Rebellion is giving out the call to contact Congressmen and Senators by phone and fax to oppose the bailout. In their post, they quote financial expert Ric Edelman:

''The insurers got rich selling policies with fat premiums, brokerages got rich selling new securities, lenders got rich selling more loans than ever, builders, real estate agents, title settlement companies, appraisers, inspectors - everyone got rich from the ensuing real estate boom."

Mr. Tuggle then dryly adds, "He could have included the politicians who enabled the irresponsible lending of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they knew these ''government-sponsored enterprises'' - since bailed out by the government at a potential cost of $200 billion to taxpayers - would line their campaign coffers."

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland) has already developed a comprehensive program to attack the problem. While some of it reads a bit too much like paleoliberalism, I will give him credit for at least making the effort to define a public interest. Some of his ideas include:

• * Reinstatement of the provisions of Glass-Steagall, which forbade speculation


• * Re-regulation of the finance, insurance, and real estate industries


• * Accountability on the part of those who took the companies down; including: resignations of management, givebacks of executive compensation packages, and (this is where the paleoliberalism comes in) limitations on executive compensation.


• * (This one is interesting:) An equity position for the taxpayers; including some form of ownership of assets using a credible formula for evaluating the price of the assets that the government is buying; AND


• * Full public disclosure by members of Congress of assets held, with possible conflicts put in blind trust, a ban on political campaign contributions from officers of corporations receiving bailouts, and a requirement that 2008 cycle candidates return political contributions to officers and representatives of corporations receiving bailouts.

Rep. Kucinich is also demanding some mechanism for direct assistance to homeowners saddled with unreasonable or unmanageable mortgages, as well as protection for renters who have lived up to their obligation but fall victim to financial tragedy when the property they live in undergoes foreclosure.

Some observers have ominously called this bailout proposal "the economic USA PATRIOT Act". Clearly, we need to exercise our vigilance now or risk losing our liberty later. Write your Congressman or our U.S. Senators and urge them (1) not to act in haste, (2) not to rubber-stamp Secretary Paulson's plan, and (3) to consider the public interest. If you're feeling gutsy, I suggest you throw in a recommendation to throw out the Federal Reserve Bank and replace it with silver-backed currency. Most of the follies we have recently experienced could not have happened if money creation had been regulated by silver or gold.

Ohio’s Senators may be reached by e-mail at:

George Voinovich:http://voinovich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Sherrod Brown:http://brown.senate.gov/contact/

Your Congressman (links to home page -- each one has an e-mail link)
(If you do not know who your Representative is, use the handy tool at the top of this page.)

Fannie and Freddie

Now, it's the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae, a public entity) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac, a "privately owned and sponsored government enterprise" -- like the Federal Reserve!), have gone under; and like Bear Stearns and (probably) Lehman Brothers, they have gone to the Feds for a bailout to save the Wall Street barons that ran them into the ground. It is not in the public interest because most of the holders of those mortgages have already been refinanced or foreclosed.

I cannot improve on BizzyBlog's analysis of the situation, and I won't even try. I will note, as he did, that the potential liability to the taxpayers could be as much as $200 billion (which we add to the $53 trillion of unfunded liabilities that Uncle Scofflaw currently owes).

In the mid 1990s, in the process of balancing the budget, President Clinton and the Congress went on an ambitious and mostly successful program of welfare reform, which ended keeping most able-bodied people on the dole without preparing them for useful employment.

Isn't it about time we did the same to Wall Street? The same psychology applies -- why should investment bankers and mortgage lenders be prudent and careful at a risk to their bottom line when the taxpayers are sure to bail them out? BizzyBlog calls it fraud. I think he has a point.

9-11

Seven years, as one writer suggested recently, is long enough for the immediate shock and pain to wear off, but not long enough to recede into history.

It is a tragedy whose aftermath continues to gnaw at us. Some people believe that 9-11 was a conspiracy internal to the United States, used to create a hysteria that would provide the pretext for abridging our Constitutional liberties and paving the way for a police state. They base that belief on anomalies in the official explanation for the event (for example, the slow military response to the hijacked airliners).

Whether or not the conspiracy theories are true, it is evident that 9-11 has been used by the United States government to create a "war on terror" that is being used to support an unjustifiable war in Iraq (while only belatedly acknowledging our neglect of a totally justified war in Afghanistan), increase Federal surveillance over the American people, and using our collective fear as an excuse for ignoring the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

One question that I frequently receive as a secessionist is, how can I justify secession when terrorism is still a threat to America? After all, doesn't the terrorist rhetoric call for conversion of the entire world to Islam by force? Isn't al-Qaeda still well-funded and well-organized?

Yes, I have heard the terrorist rhetoric about forcing Islam on the world, and yes, evidence suggests that al-Qaeda is still well-funded and well-organized; and has successfully resisted attempts to smoke them out in the ungovernable tribal regions of Pakistan.

However, I have no doubt that terrorism is not a threat to a Republic of Ohio that peacefully pursues its own interests in the world. How can that be, you ask? Look at it, not fearfully, but rationally. Al-Qaeda's goal is to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate that existed until 1924. No country, no organization has unlimited resources. Those that are successful in achieving their goals must focus their time, their money, and their people toward achieving them. The United States found themselves in the crosshairs of al-Qaeda, because the American military presence in Saudi Arabia following Desert Storm was religiously offensive to them. With the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the United States government dedicated itself to frustrating the ambitions of al-Qaeda. Assuming that the conspiracy theories are false (and I am not taking a position either way), this is the reason 9-11 occurred. Removing Ohio's troops from the Middle East following independence would remove any motivation for al-Qaeda to commit terrorist acts against Ohio. The same could be said of any other state or country that did the same.

To some, this might sound cowardly; but I suggest that it takes great courage to admit that we poked around where we had no real business -- except that of protecting our sources of oil, which are peaking in production capacity, and from which we should be weaning ourselves. In other words, to admit that we were wrong to take this course of action, which can be justified only in terms of imperialism and aggression. I have no doubt that George Washington and most of the Founding Fathers would have sternly disapproved of this action; and am confident that a President as recent as Dwight Eisenhower would have felt the same way.

True national security comes from having a strong national defense that focuses only on defense, from effective border controls; and from a citizenry that, while ever vigilant to threats on their liberty, remains satisfied that their government consistently acts in their interest as opposed to the selfish interests of an élite, or those of a foreign power. Firm in this belief, I remain confident that the Republic of Ohio would have little to fear from Islamic terrorism; but might have to cast more a wary eye on a District of Coercion that uses pretexts like 9-11 to advance its own agenda.

The need to dream and to hope

Sean Penn is not my favorite actor, and by his own admission is not a professional journalist; but his analysis of the current political situation in America is spot on. In his speech before the Open the Debates Super Rally, he reviews terrorism in this country going back to Tim McVey's bombing at Oklahoma City. He then asks, what part do we play as a society that enables these acts to occur. The answer Mr. Penn offers is very interesting indeed:

"This should lead us to demand in ourselves, to remember and to honor the wondrous foundation of security and freedom that is born from our United States Constitution. Citizens rights, human rights, rights to a quality of life and the fulfillment of the human need-the NEED not luxury–to dream.

"To believe in the possibility of change built on reason, the possibility for peace, and our responsible stewardship of the Constitution. When do such acts as those in Oklahoma City or those in Santa Cruz become pervasive? Again, we are excusing no one their violence, but they become pervasive every time we devolve our Constitution. Each generation’s responsibility is to be more complete than the last in its commitment to Constitutional principals [sic].

"The major parties are both running candidates who not only approved the un-Constitutional misuse of FISA warrants, but also supported retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies who violated the public trust, who violated the rule of law, and who violated our Constitution hand-in-hand with the current administration’s unlawful and un-American wiretaps.

"We are in fact, their employers. And the Democratic and Republican candidates who seek our employment as our next president, are both on record as participants in devolving our Constitution...

I have heard our politics described as narcissistic and adolescent, but Mr. Penn lays it out quite bluntly:

"Let’s demand to hear all the voices for change that represent the needs of all Americans. We must demand it in our media. We must demand it of John McCain. We must demand it from Barack Obama. I’m sick of this High school, with suits on, called the Democratic and Republican parties. I’m telling you, you go around and you’ve heard it. They brandish their party credentials by snickering away open debate like a clique of wormy snobs. We saw our republican brothers and sisters punked out by spin and marginalization which was brought to them by their pundits and public servants. They even allowed it to co-op their own thought. But the Republican Americans are anything but our enemy. They are just as important to the fabric of this country as any of us.

"But we watched as they were suckered into serving interests which betrayed their own countries and their own people. As they confidently presented the official line, it was really an exploitation of them by their leaders. And we are no better. It can
happen to us, and to many it already has.

"So, the question is, are we going to fight for the public discourse of facts? Or will we be shamed into hiding? Not only by the O’Reilly’s and the Limbaugh’s and the Hannitys, but also by the confident disparaging of thought handed down by the James Carvilles of the mainstream media.

"Hope is never arrived at through staunch pragmatism, and it’s for that reason that I am still considering my own decision as to whom I will vote for. But in fairness to Ralph Nader, the American hero in this building with us tonight; to the Bob Barrs, the Ron Pauls, Cynthia McKinneys and the independent spirit of Dennis Kucinich: When we are told not to vote for someone because he or she is a spoiler, let’s remember that Barack Obama himself is considered the greatest spoiler of all– by a narcissistic branch of democrats who simply have forgotten their manners, a slip of hubris which most certainly has Dr. King clawing at his casket...

"In whatever decision we make, it’s imperative that we address the future. That’s what this is all about. Quality of life is the singular global issue, and it’s upon all of us to seek it for all the rest. Our hopes for our children are the clearest path to that end, and I would like to sum up in this way...

"The defining moment really, is that whoever you vote for, you better hold his ass to the fire. Putting on pressure district by district, media outlet by media outlet–that as it is our job, it is theirs to serve this country’s great Constitution. The next time somebody says the words, 'How dare Ralph Nader run,' you ask them what they did for their country today. We should demand, by any means, that his voice–so truly representative of so many of ours–is heard.

"We have got to stop telling people not to think and speak."

We simply must stop this business of "political correctness," because it is used to suppress the truth. The problems that face the Empire cannot be resolved peacefully or effectively until those issues are squarely faced and openly debated.

Thank you, Sean Penn, for stating so clearly what so many of us have been thinking.

Virtual buckeye to The Liberty Voice.

China packet

Two quick takes on China:

First is an item from the Associated Press. President Bush met with Chinese human rights activists at the White House yesterday. The President's hypocrisy on human rights is getting downright breathtaking. If he really cared about human rights, he would close Guantánamo and rescind about 30 Executive Orders having to do with national security that basically rip the First and Fourth Amendments out of the Constitution. But I guess human rights are only good for the other guys...

Second is today's lead story from the Columbus Dispatch. According to the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, Ohio lost 102,000 jobs to China, just since 2001! And we Ohioans are supposed to put up with this, why? And the Feds are doing what to help?

Does anyone care about our interests? Or are we so addicted to Wal-Mart that we don't even care about our interests?