Archive

Archive for July, 2007

The Good News Is Everywhere

July 30, 2007 Leave a comment

The Good News Is Everywhere!

Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski187.html

by Karen Kwiatkowski

DIGG THIS

For libertarian-minded people, that is.

This assertion may seem counterintuitive and even dead wrong in an age of metastasizing American empire, state corporatism-lite at home, a shredded Bill of Rights, and a crazy unitary executive.

But there is good news. It is consumed daily not just by the remnants, or the vanguards of American libertarianism, or free thinkers – but by hundreds of millions of average people across the country.

Heartland and city dwellers, those in small towns and suburbs, are all seeing what we libertarians see, and drawing many of the same conclusions.

And I’m not just talking about the Ron Paul campaign! Dr. Paul is a guiding star for people across a contrived political spectrum and across educational, economic and cultural divides in this country. The very possibility of his presidency is simultaneously exciting and comforting, and the founders would be very proud.

Today, we still accept as normal a massive federal government, fifty growing state governments, and a 20th-century money-printing Federal Reserve that works for whom, we aren’t sure. We live in an era of state/corporate-led mercantilism that we are told is free trade and globalism. While most Americans do not admit to empire, and certainly none of our schoolbooks suggest it, Americans accept the garrisoning of the planet with our military forces and our corporate talons as part of the modern condition. And, like people in countries everywhere, whether emphasizing a glorious past, present or future, we publicly believe our country is strong and glorious.

But you wanted good news. Here’s a start.

Read more…

In Step With Ron Paul’s Campaign

July 29, 2007 Leave a comment

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1873222/posts

Primary People: In step in with Paul’s campaign (New Hampshire)
New Hampshire Union Leader ^ | July 29, 2007 | Clynton Namuo
Posted on 07/29/2007 8:13:01 AM EDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1873222/posts

Primary People: In step in with Paul’s campaign
By CLYNTON NAMUO
New Hampshire Union Leader Correspondent

Dover – Some supporters hold signs on street corners for their candidates.

Others raise money or talk to their friends.

For resident Kelly Halldorson, those acts simply weren’t enough for her favorite candidate, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who faces an uphill battle for the Republican nomination.

So Halldorson, 34, plans to tell more people than the average supporter about Paul when she hands out literature this Saturday while she walks to Concord. From Dover.

“Instead of giving $2,300, I’m going to walk 38 miles,” Halldorson said.

Paul, who represents the Gulf Coast area of Texas, is by every means a maverick. He wants to abolish the IRS and the Department of Education. He believes in withdrawing from free trade agreements and international organizations he says infringe upon America’s independence, including the United Nations, the WTO and NAFTA, among others.

Above all, Paul pushes personal freedom and small government with lower taxes. He also strongly believes troops should be taken out of Iraq.

“His views are so much in line with mine,” Halldorson says. “I agree with him on 95 percent of the issues. How many candidates do you find that you agree with that much?” Halldorson said she knows first hand what government assistance does — not much.

After living in a housing project and then a trailer in Dover, Halldorson said she moved out to Los Angles with her then boyfriend and now husband, Jeff, just in time for the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, which killed dozens and injured thousands.

Disappointed with government

Halldorson said the government’s response after the earthquake had a profound effect on her view that less government is better for everyone.

“I think that had a huge impact,” she said, noting a terrible federal response after Hurricane Katrina as well. “To me the federal involvement was a huge failure.” Earthquake victims lined up and got federal money with little proof they even needed it, Halldorson said. She said federal help overall is a failure and points to her time living in the projects as evidence.

“A lot of the urban housing in these districts have so much crime and so much pain,” she said, adding “I’ve lived in the projects. I don’t think those projects help anyone.” The solution for much of society’s ills is self-reliance, Halldorson said.

She, her husband and their three children — sons Wolfgang, 12, and Griffin, 10, and daughter, Zoey, 9 — have their fair share of money problems, she said, but they get by however they can, whether asking family for help, cutting back on expenses or getting another job.

“You don’t have to have the answer,” she said, noting that her family deals with problems as they arise and always finds a way out.

For example, when her one of her sons hurt his tooth, Halldorson said she had no money to fix it.

So she took him to a free clinic at Dover’s Wentworth Douglass Hospital — but only after making sure the clinic received no public funds whatsoever.

Likes his independence

This ideal of personal freedom and self reliance is a cornerstone of Paul’s campaign, and Halldorson believes more people, particularly in Live Free or Die New Hampshire, would support the congressman if they knew more about him and his views.

With little name recognition and even less media coverage, however, it is up to supporters like her to spread the message. In this case, she’ll spread the message from her home in Dover along Route 9 to Route 4 and all the way into Concord.

“I think the word just needs to get out,” she says.

For its part, the Paul campaign plans to have water and additional supporters along Halldorson’s route, said New Hampshire coordinator Jared Chicoine. He said Paul and his views attract ardent grassroots supporters that are a key element needed to win a primary like New Hampshire’s. “I think it really energizes supporters to get out there and work for him and do incredible things,” he said. Chicoine said the many news stories calling Paul a long shot miss the point that New Hampshire is a state made specifically for those candidates to break out. “From a New Hampshire point of view, if they call us a long shot, fine, fine,” he said. “We’re still gonna work hard and our base is motivated. Our supporters here are ready to go. I don’t get discouraged by it, to be honest with you. I just think it’s more motivation to work harder.”

Halldorson plans to leave her Dover home at 5 a.m. Saturday for the trek to Concord and is shooting to get to the Statehouse by 10 p.m., if not earlier. A vegan herself, Halldorson plans to stop at Susty’s Radical Vegan in Northwood for lunch before continuing on to Concord.

Despite having never walked such a long distance before, Halldorson said the only things that could stop her are thunder and lightning.

“I’m not going to get electrocuted doing it,” she said. “If it’s just raining, I plan to keep going.”

************************************
Gunny G’s GLOBE and ANCHOR
~Sites*Forums*Blogs~
R.W. “Dick” Gaines
GnySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952–(Plt #437, PISC)–’72
“The Original Gunny G!”
***************************
Sites…
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
Forums…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Blogs…
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com/
The GyG Weblog @N54.com
http://www.network54.com/Forum/247172/
GyG’s History/Traditions, etc.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/220604/
The GyG Mailbag* Archive*Bookmarks @FURL
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg
Want On GyG’s E-Mail List?
Send/Reply: GunnyG*At* GMail.com
ADD In Subject Line…
*************************************
NOTE:
Latest Posts-/Archive GyG @ FURL…
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg
USMC, History, Unusual/Controversial, Politically Incorrect, News-n-Views,
Eye-Opening and Thought-Provoking Articles, etc.
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
Take America Back!
Semper Fidelis
Dick Gaines
~~~~~~~~~~

Ron Paul and the Greased Pig

July 28, 2007 1 comment

Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north552.html

Ron Paul and the Greased Pig

by Gary North

DIGG THIS

Presidency, noun: The greased pig in the field game of America’s politics.
~ Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary (1911)

I generally avoid discussing national politics. I always have. That’s because I don’t think democratic involvement makes much difference except at the local level. The size of the permanent national bureaucracy is so enormous, in every large nation, that political activities are capable of changing very little. Except in times of enormous crisis – mainly national wars – political change is marginal. War centralizes everything. This is why national politicians lie their countries into wars. This is a bi-partisan practice. It rarely fails. If you doubt me, click here.
http://mises.org/story/2622

What can national politics accomplish? The American government’s bureaucracy is protected by Civil Service legislation which goes back to the 1880’s. The system’s archetype institution is the United States Postal Service, which recently raised the price of postage. It does that frequently, as you know. We grimace and bear it. If it were not for e-mail, Federal Express, and UPS, we would suffer a lot more.

My professor, Robert Nisbet, once commented that in the year of his birth, 1913, the only contact that most Americans had with the Federal government was the U.S. Post Office.

My father-in-law, R. J. Rushdoony, born three years later, once commented that 1913 was the last year of the golden age of America: after indoor plumbing but before the income tax. That was a long time ago.

Leonard E. Read, the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education in 1946, used to say that Americans live in a country in which various levels of government extract over 40% of their productivity, yet they call this system freedom. “They don’t know the difference between freedom and coercion.”

So, I do not pay much attention to national politics. Politics always reflects the understanding of the voters, and the voters cannot tell the difference between freedom and coercion. Worse: they are unwilling to surrender coercion for freedom.

It is not just America. Citizens all over the world are persuaded of the grand illusion of the 20th century, namely, that government coercion provides personal security: a safety net against hard times. They look at the government’s net and think “safety.” I look at the net and think “entrapment.” Voters say, “Don’t take away the net. We paid for it. We deserve it.” They do, indeed.

A fish caught in a net may get away if it is at the outer edge of the mass of fish caught in the net. It may wiggle through a gap. There are more gaps than rope. But inside that mass of fish, there is no way to escape. Professional fishermen know this. They do not worry about the one that got away.

THEN THERE IS THE CFR

The Council on Foreign Relations was established in 1921. It was a deliberate imitation of the old Round Table group of Great Britain. The Round Table was made up of academics, politicians, and bureaucrats who ran the British empire abroad and hoped to run the domestic political order in the same way. These were the best and the brightest men in Great Britain. They led the country into two world wars, thereby bankrupting the British empire by 1945. They were too clever by half.

Members of the Council on Foreign Relations are just as clever.

In 1935, the Round Table ran the British Empire. The Great Depression had enabled them to gain dominance in the domestic political order. It looked as though they were invincible. In a sense, they were. Tony Blair was only the latest representative of that highly educated hierarchical order. They still preside over the domestic political scene. But voters, year by year, are becoming Muslim. Birth rates determine this.

If this continues, the heirs of the Round Table will be replaced. There is no sign that this will not continue. Demography is destiny unless the national confession changes. Britain’s national confession is, “I’m all right, Jack.” They aren’t.

The CFR has maintained similar control. Within three years of the CFR’s founding, one of the founders, a New York corporate lawyer named John W. Davis, got the Democrats’ nomination for President. Today, no one gains the nomination who is not a CFR member.

The Presidential election is therefore a contest between CFR Team A and CFR Team B.

In 2004, the race narrowed down not just to members of the CFR. It narrowed down to a pair of Skull & Bones members. Bones lets 15 people a year into its ranks. What are the odds against two members gaining the joint nomination of the highest office in the land? Did the media dwell on this? Of course not. The public would not have known of the existence of The Order, had not George H. W. Bush been a member. So, to turn it into a peripheral matter in 1980, Bonesman Gary Trudeau make light of it – featherweight light (his image of Bush, Sr.) – in a series of “Doonesbury” cartoons.

How did Bush get the nomination for Vice President in 1980? Reagan had beaten him, and Reagan said he would not put him on the ticket. Then he reversed himself.

The following story I believe is true. It was told to me by W. Cleon Skousen ( The Naked Communist, The Naked Capitalist ). Immediately prior to Reagan’s smiling announcement of Bush as his VP running mate, Reagan had spent the weekend at a large estate in Leesburg, Virginia. At that meeting was one of Skousen’s relatives (not Mark or Joel). He witnessed two CFR members, very prominent, who cornered Reagan for the weekend. According to this third-hand, unverifiable testimony – which Skousen relayed to me a few years later – they presented Reagan with a choice: Bush as VP with media neutrality or someone else with media skewering. One of these figures was a talking head with enormous influence. The other was a Rockefeller hireling with enormous influence. They are still alive. One of them still has influence.

Did this event take place? I think it did. But even if it didn’t, the implied threat was always there. The media had wiped out Goldwater’s campaign in 1964. It can do this at any time, just as it can raise concern about any of two dozen wars that are going on at any time, merely by focusing on one of them. What is the difference between Darfur and Rwanda? Media attention.

If you look at Reagan’s cabinet, the difference between it and Carter’s in terms of CFR membership was minimal. James Baker ran Reagan’s White House whenever Reagan wasn’t personally committed to a non-CFR project. Baker was then and remains closely associated with George H. W. Bush. He actually had far more influence over Reagan’s White House than he has over George W. Bush’s, where Cheney seems dominant.

The overall direction of politics remains the same: toward centralization.

The CFR is in a position to deny both funding and media semi-neutrality to any candidate who does not toe the bipartisan Party Line on taxes (no major changes), on regulation of the economy (more), on foreign policy (Superpower intervention in 100+ countries at 700+ bases), on the United Nations, and on the military-industrial-oil-banking complex. The only political question is which special interest gets its hands on a larger share of the loot.

Only one candidate breaks ranks on all of these issues: Ron Paul.

1976 VS. 2007

When I joined his Congressional staff in June, 1976, he was the most junior Congressmen, having been sworn in only two months earlier. The Democrat incumbent had been given a position in the Federal bureaucracy, and he had resigned his office. Paul won the special election.

I wrote his newsletters. I also did research on issues coming before Congress. In my three-person tiny office was Dr. John W. Robbins, a former student of Hans Sennholz in economics and of Gottfried Dietze in political science. In the main office was Bruce Bartlett, who later became one of the leading defenders in Washington of supply-side economics. This was a high-powered staff for a Congressman with two months’ seniority.

Unlike every other Congressman, he had no administrative assistant. That meant he ran a decentralized office. Staffers reported to him, not to some professional screener.

When I joined the staff, little did I suspect that three decades later, he would be a candidate for President, with a campaign bank account with a couple of million (depreciated) dollars in it. There was no Web in 1976. There were no desktop computers other than the Altair, a brand-new gadget for techies.

There was no Alexa Web traffic ranking. To use Alexa, I used Google to search for these names: Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani. I then selected the top Google link for each name. One by one, I entered these on http://www.Alexa.com. Oddly enough, I had selected the names in order of their Alexa rankings.

* http://www.RonPaul2008.com, 23,600
* http://www.MittRomney.com, 65,500
* http://www.JohnMcCain.com , 106,500
* http://www.JoinRudy2008.com, 108,500

Barack Obama’s site ranks 21,000. Hillary Clinton’s is 22,000. John Edwards’s is 59,000.

Ron Paul is #3 in the digital race. Everyone else is an also-ran.

Political pundits are employed by two relentlessly shrinking sectors of the economy, network TV and paper-based newspapers. They seem unaware of all this. Anyway, they remain silent.

Ron Paul has come out of cyberspace, which is where the future is, according to everyone except the political pundits. How was this possible? What does this mean? The pundits’ response: “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.”

THE SCREENERS WILL SCREEN

The American political party system has had only three successful outsiders in American history: James Polk in 1844 (won), William Jennings Bryan in 1896 (lost three times), and Barry Goldwater in 1964 (lost overwhelmingly).

Reagan was twice elected as a governor. He had been an almost-ran in 1976. He was a semi-outsider with an insider as his VP.

Reagan got his shot because of new technology: his famous TV speech, late in the Goldwater campaign, which was paid for by the Goldwater campaign. It has been known ever since as “The Speech.” It is a good speech on paper. On radio, it was powerful. I have not been able to locate a full version of the TV version, but it was riveting. The audio version is here .

The Republican Party in 1964 paid to have a version of that speech shown locally with paid-for TV time. I recall no other speech ever used this way. The Republican Party’s professionals fought this decision, but Goldwater insisted.

[Note: The speech did not stick with Hillary Clinton, a "Goldwater girl" in 1964. Her parents sent her to Wellesley. Too bad.]

Reagan won in 1980 because of Richard Viguerie’s direct-mail techniques, 1965–80, based on 12,000 names and addresses of Goldwater campaign donors.

Bryan won the nomination because of a speech, arguably the most important political speech in American history. Reading it today, we wonder why, apart from the famous “cross of gold” line. That speech lost the Democratic Party for the gold standard, low-tax wing that had dominated ever since Andrew Jackson’s era. It turned the party into the high-tax, interventionist party it has been ever since Woodrow Wilson took office in 1913. Bryan’s brother Charles mastered the technology of direct mail. He later was Davis’s running mate as VP.

Technology matters.

I am not persuaded that technology can overcome the screeners’ ability to raise funds in 2008. The major political parties since at least 1912 have been controlled by the banking interests and their allies. There is no candidate in American history more hostile to the existing anti-gold banking system than Ron Paul. He also opposes all tax-funded foreign aid, which includes foreign aid to the State of Israel.

The screeners will screen.

But Paul, at age 71, represents a fundamental break with the existing system. By surfacing on the Web, he has identified himself as a representative of people who do not trust the Federal government. There are a lot of them.

GRASS-ROOTS POLITICS

For over 40 years, I have heard conservatives talk about how important grass-roots politics is. This is rather like listening to guys at the corner bar talk about the how much they respect the work of Alcoholics Anonymous. Then it’s “Bartender, hit me again.”

Grass-roots politics is what is needed. But its focus must be on local politics.

There are 3,000 counties in the United States. They possess the property tax, which was the broadest-based tax prior to 1914.

Most counties are dominated by a single political party. So, only masochists or visionaries get involved with the minority party.

What if someone with a huge mailing list, or a series of mailing lists, were to create a below-the-radar movement for training citizens in the techniques of high-tech, low-cost political mobilization techniques? The target? Precincts.

You say, “That’s boring. Nobody cares about the local precinct.”

Exactly.

In most careers, you start at the bottom. But because money talks, and media talk, only those with connections and money get access to the voters. They do not start at the bottom. They want to start as a state representative or even higher.

They do not want to pay their dues.

So, the American political system is geared to state and national politics. Yet technology is moving toward decentralized communications: cheaper, faster, easy to master by non-techies.

Technology today is doing what the free market began doing in 1780: broadening the market through price competition.

This is the #3 threat to the screeners: low-cost, powerful computer and Web technologies. The #2 threat is the power of ideas. These ideas now can get out to the public without printing presses or ten-storey transmission towers. The screening gatekeepers stand guard at the gates, but the walls are crumbling from the acids of digital technology. The #1 threat is the nature of society. The French conservative Lamennais described it in the 1820’s:

Centralization produces apoplexy at the center and anemia at the extremities.

On all fronts except higher education, the screeners in America are in retreat.

What the silent digital minority needs in order to become a screaming electoral majority are the following:

1. A decades-long vision of victory
2. Programs of privately funded welfare
3. A readiness to de-fund the state
4. Technologies of communication
5. Technologies of local mobilization
6. Patience
7. A willingness to labor under the radar
8. A leader who believes in grass-roots politics

If you want a slogan, try this: “Replacement, not capture.”

Conservative politics made a series of mistakes, beginning no later than 1948.

1. A defensive vision of stalemate
2. No programs for private welfare
3. A goal of capturing the state
1. Education
2. Welfare
3. Bureaucracies
4. No local political mobilization
5. Replacing Communism’s empire with America’s

It had an operational slogan: “Capture, not replacement.” It got co-opted every time. Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn lured them all in with his slogan: “To get along, you’ve got to go along.” They went along.

The Federal government got larger.

CONCLUSION

Ron Paul’s campaign offers a unique opportunity, just not to win the Presidency. It will be interesting to see what his campaign organization does with all those email addresses after mid-2008.

I know what Richard Viguerie did with 12,000 names and addresses of Goldwater campaign donors. Nobody else wanted those names. Anyone could have walked onto Capitol Hill and written them down. Only Viguerie saw the opportunity.

For me, this is mostly hypothetical. I watch from a distance as an interested observer. I enjoy stories of entrepreneurship.

I also recall the words of George Washington Plunkett of Tammany Hall a century ago: “I seen my opportunities, and I took ‘em.”

That’s what opportunities are for.

July 28, 2007

Gary North [s end him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com .He is also the author of a free 19-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible .

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Gary North Archives

Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north552.html

************************************

Gunny G’s GLOBE and ANCHOR
~Sites*Forums*Blogs~
R.W. “Dick” Gaines
GnySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952–(Plt #437, PISC)–’72
“The Original Gunny G!”
***************************
Sites…
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
Old Salt Marines Tavern Weblog…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
The GyG GLOBE and ANCHOR Weblog…
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com/
The Gunny G Weblog @N54.com
http://www.network54.com/Forum/247172/
GyG’s History/Traditions, etc.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/220604/
The GyG Mailbag* Archive*Bookmarks @FURL
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg

Want On GyG’s E-Mail List?
Send/Reply: GunnyG*At*GMail.com
ADD In Subject Line…
*************************************
NOTE:
Latest Posts-/Archive GyG @ FURL…
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg
USMC, History, Unusual/Controversial,
non-PC, News-n-Views,
Eye-Opening and Thought-Provoking Articles, etc.
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
Take America Back!

Semper Fidelis
Dick Gaines
~~~~~~~~~~

Is He Good For Libertarians? Why Some Libertarians Don’t Want To Join The Ron Paul…

July 27, 2007 2 comments

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1872745/posts

Is He Good for the Libertarians? – Why some libertarians don’t want to join the Ron Paul…
Reason ^ | July 27, 2007 | Brian Doherty
Posted on 07/27/2007 8:39:58 PM EDT by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1872745/posts

Why some libertarians don’t want to join the Ron Paul revolution.

Republican congressman from Texas (and 1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate) Ron Paul seems to be doing pretty good for libertarianism these days. He’s gotten more press exposure and more Internet buzz than any libertarian movement political figure, and has done so outside the dead-end third party context. A surprising amount of the attention has even been respectful and positive—and for a candidate as ignored and excluded as Paul, any press short of a full-on hostile shredding is good news.

Sure, he still has zero traction (well, 2 percent) in conventional polling . And any respectable reporter would sooner fail to check whether his mother loves him than neglect to mention the apparently settled fact that Paul has no chance of winning the nomination.

But some Ron Paul Revolutionaries insist that the mainstream media are putrid corpses in brackish water, and conventional polls are for losers who still answer their landlines. Paul’s support—by more postmodern measures—continues to grow. He’s still the king of meetup.com, which does generate real-world crowds, and even real-world food drives . He’s also the political king of YouTube (22,157 subscribers). We won’t find out for months if these netroots measures mean anything in electoral terms. And that’s just fine for a thrifty message-oriented candidate, who psychically benefits from running (and builds up more fundraising resources for any future effort) even if he fails utterly with vote totals.

This past Sunday he hit a political respectability jackpot, with a long, thorough, serious, and critical-but-respectful profile in the New York Times Magazine. Most of the Ron Paul press tells, however questioningly, of a politician dedicated to severely limited government that doesn’t want to interfere in our personal lives, doesn’t want to investigate us and control us, wants to abolish the income tax, and wants to bring troops home and dedicate our military only to actual national defense—a politician against the federal drug war, against the Patriot Act, against regulating the Internet, and for habeas corpus.

Still, many libertarians are either ambivalent or actively unhappy with Paul’s campaign and the public attention it has gotten. They feel either that Paul is not libertarian enough in all respects, or are unhappy with linking libertarianism to certain aspects of Paul’s rhetoric, focus, or past. You’ll hear: If, after this campaign, whenever anyone thinks of libertarian, they think, oh, you are like Ron Paul?—will that be good for libertarianism in the future? And would you feel personally comfortable with it?

One prominent version of Libertarian Ron Paul Anxiety comes via noted and respected anarcho-legal theorist Randy Barnett in The Wall Street Journal. Barnett has decades of hardcore libertarian movement credentials behind him and is one of Lysander Spooner‘s biggest fans. (Spooner, the 19th century individualist anarchist, famously declared the state to be of inherently lower moral merit than a highway bandit.) But the mild obstetrician, family man, and experienced legislator Ron Paul is too radical for Barnett in one respect—the respect that is key to most of Paul’s traction to begin with: hisconsistent, no-compromise, get-out-now stance against the war in Iraq.

Barnett is eager to dissociate libertarianism writ large from Paul’s anti-Iraq War stance, claiming that many libertarians are concerned that Americans may get the misleading impression that all libertarians oppose the Iraq war—as Ron Paul does—and even that libertarianism itself dictates opposition to this war. It would be a shame, he suggests, if this misinterpretation inhibited a wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote the general welfare of the American people.

This is doubly curious. First, because opposition to non-defensive war traditionally is a core libertarian principle (to begin with, since it inherently involves mass murder and property destruction aimed at people who have not harmed the people imposing the harm) and is, in fact, the position of the vast majority of self-identified libertarians. Second, why would one worry that libertarianism can be damaged by an association with an idea that is in fact immensely popular? And, to boot, a popular position in which Paul has unique credibility for being right, and right from the beginning, unlike pretty much every other candidate.

Paul does, though, believe some things many libertarians don’t, and some libertarians think these issues are so important that his libertarian credentials should be revoked. For example, he’d like to eliminate Roe v. Wade and would be happy to allow states and localities to ban abortion—and personally considers abortion a moral crime.

But this position, however hard to explain to one’s liberal friends who ask a libertarian about this Ron Paul guy, doesn’t place him outside the libertarian pale. If you see a living human fetus as a human life the same in morally significant respects as any born human, then supporting a ban on it is as consistent with libertarianism as laws against murder.

On trade, Paul takes a position that is perfectly proper from a radical, no-compromise libertarian position. That is, he’s for free trade, but against government managed trade agreements. In practice, though, this seems to block off the only way tariff reductions and eliminations actually happen in the real world, a politically tone deaf stance that makes the perfect the enemy of the good.

When it comes to immigration, Paul believes the federal government can legitimately defend the border, and thinks that, in a world of government benefits and minimum wage laws, it is appropriate for government to do so stringently. I strongly disagree with how border defense has been done in practice, as do most libertarians. But as Paul told me, it doesn’t mark him as essentially unlibertarian, but rather falls within a potentially legitimate set of actions for non-anarchist libertarians who do believe in the nation-state.

Paul’s concern with immigration is of a piece with his right-populist strains, an obsession with “sovereignty” that feeds his fevered opposition to international trade pacts and the UN. Combined with his strong emphasis on trash-talking the Federal Reserve and advocating a return to gold, it’s the sort of thing that strikes many other libertarians as, if not inherently unlibertarian, sort of cranky and kooky, and that led me to note to TheNew Republic that many libertarians (though not me) think of Paul as a bit of a yokel .

And a yokel with some ugly things in his past that no libertarian wants to be linked with. As The New York Times Magazine, among others, reported, Paul’s newsletter during his years out of Washington contained some ugly race-baiting comments about the overwhelmingly criminal nature of black males in D.C. Paul says the comments were written by a staffer, but he’s refused to say who and hasn’t gone through any serious garment-rending and regret about it, though he did disavow them.

Some unhappy with Paul’s presence in the GOP race are just Libertarian Party partisans who think no good for political liberty in America can arise from someone flying under the GOP flag. But LP-associated blogger Thomas Knapp presented a more interesting and detailed version of why Paul and the Paul movement can’t do good for libertarianism (which he framed, unfortunately, in a jokey 9-11 Truther baiting frame, in which he seemed to be saying that because the GOP will benefit in the long run from Paul’s campaign, that Paul was recruited for the task by Karl Rove).

Knapp argues that Ron doesn’t always call himself libertarian, selling himself sometimes as a constitutionalist or small-government conservative depending on his audience; that he’s accomplished almost nothing specific that furthers libertarian goals as a congressman while sucking lots of money out of libertarian donors; and that because of Paul’s campaign, the LP won’t do very well in 2008. Of course, there is nothing about these complaints that wouldn’t apply to any almost-entirely-libertarian federal politician short of the libertarian revolution. It seems a classic best-enemy-of-the-good maneuver, or perhaps an inadvertent declaration that libertarian electoral politics, LP or major party, is inherently pretty useless for furthering libertarian policy change.

And Paul undoubtedly falls short of his reputation as a hardcore, no-compromise-ever libertarian constitutionalist. For example, he happily inserts earmarked pork spending that benefits his district in spending bills, to keep them happy—and then votes against the bills, to keep his free-market constituents nationwide happy.

Paul argues that the voting against the total bill is enough, that the rules of Congress mean the earmarks don’t actually increase total federal spending anyway, and that while he’d rather the government didn’t take the money, it’s not inherently a crime to try to get some of it back for his constituents.

Sure, he’s trying to have it both ways. Something about Paul that sometimes evades both his fans and opponents: He’s a very, very successful politician. He’s won election to Congress as a nonincumbent three times—an extraordinary record. And he’s won as an incumbent 7 times, with steadily growing percentage totals. One of his political skills is a chameleonic quality: Without changing the roots of his message, he’s able to seem a lot of things to a lot of people by intelligently strategic choices about which Ron Paul to sell. He’s a libertarian, he’s a constitutionalist, he’s a true conservative. When I saw him speak earlier this month at FreedomFest to an audience of mostly self-conscious libertarians, he never once mentioned immigration, emphasizing rather war and money.

So, yes: Ron Paul is by no means the perfect candidate for most American libertarians. Some find his stance on trade obtuse, his stance on abortion tyrannical; the race-baiting, however disavowed, stupid, wrong, off-putting to most Americans, and dangerous for libertarians to be associated with; his position on earmarks sleazy politician logic-chopping. They envision a horrific Ron Paul’s America in which abortion and immigration are banned, the federal drug war ended but a state-level one ongoing, and a financial system wrecked with reckless goldbuggery—and libertarianism tarnished forevermore.

Libertarians leery of Paul should ask themselves (while bearing in mind that of course no one, certainly no libertarian, is under any obligation to support or advocate or vote for any politician ever): Have we ever seen a national political figure better in libertarian terms—better on taxes, on drugs, on spending, on federalism, on foreign policy, on civil liberties? And for the pragmatic, cosmopolitan, mainstream libertarian: Why is Ron Paul the place where making the non-existent best the enemy of the good becomes the right thing to do?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1872745/posts


****************************** ******
Gunny G’s GLOBE and ANCHOR
~Sites*Forums*Blogs~
R.W. “Dick” Gaines
GnySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952–(Plt #437, PISC)–’72
“The Original Gunny G!”
***************************
Sites…
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
Forums…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Blogs…
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com/
The GyG Weblog @ N54.com
http://www.network54.com/Forum/247172/
GyG’s History/Traditions, etc.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/220604/
The GyG Mailbag* Archive*Bookmarks @FURL
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg
Want On GyG’s E-Mail List?
Send/Reply: GunnyG*At*GMail.com
ADD In Subject Line…
****************************** *******
NOTE:
Latest Posts-/Archive GyG @ FURL…
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg
USMC, History, Unusual/Controversial, Politically Incorrect, News-n-Views,
Eye-Opening and Thought-Provoking Articles, etc.
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
Take America Back!
Semper Fidelis
Dick Gaines
~~~~~~~~~~

Gunny G: Fair and Balanced? BS!

July 27, 2007 Leave a comment

FAIR and BALANCED? BS!

FoxNews is fond of referring to itself as “Fair and Balanced.”
Brit Hume even likes to say, “Fair, Balanced and Unafraid.”
But is it, really? I don’t think so.

So, if I thought they really were, I’d have a suggestion for them–but I don’t think they are. Maybe a couple suggestions.

For instance, I would remove O’Reilly from his prime-time nitely show–who needs his brand of “news” and “commentary.” If O’Reilly is fair and balanced, I am….(never mind).

Some of his previous supernumeraries would make excellent replacements–and I don’t mean MM, who is just as bad as he is. Having her for his stand-in is a little bit like Bush having Dick Cheney as his VP!

And, in the interest of fair and balanced, why not add Don Imus to their lineup! How’s that for fair and balanced? Not a conservative, you say, hey, they have Geraldo aboard already, don’t they? And Colmes. O’Reilly is neither a conservative, nor a liberal; although many could suggest filling in the blank with various names for this one.

In any case, O’R’s spot is a great time slot, and worthy of a much better personality. And, we, the viewing public are also worthy of something better too.

Imus is a morning person, so he could replace all those silly Fox boys and girlees always vying for attention, attempting to dominate by talking above the other. Does anyone really watch them, anyway?

Hell, they could even tie Imus in doing a simultaneous morning radio/ broadcast. And just think, Imus isn’t a conservative–actually, I don’t think he’s really a lib, either, although many think he is. If they would go w/Geraldo, they oughta go w/Imus–Fair, Balanced…(and unafraid?). Can’t have too many non-conservatives around can we?

No, no, I haven’t submitted this to Fox–you don’t think they’re really fair and balanced do you?–if you like the idea, go ahead and do so yourself. Just thinking aloud.

Dick Gaines
~~~~~~~~

************************************

Gunny G’s GLOBE and ANCHOR
~Sites*Forums*Blogs~
R.W. “Dick” Gaines
GnySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952–(Plt #437, PISC)–’72
“The Original Gunny G!”
***************************
Sites…
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
Old Salt Marines Tavern Weblog…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
The GyG GLOBE and ANCHOR Weblog…
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com/
The Gunny G Weblog @N54.com
http://www.network54.com/Forum/247172/
GyG’s History/Traditions, etc.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/220604/
The GyG Mailbag* Archive*Bookmarks @FURL
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg

Want On GyG’s E-Mail List?
Send/Reply: GunnyG*At*GMail.com
ADD In Subject Line…
*************************************
NOTE:
Latest Posts-/Archive GyG @ FURL…
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg
USMC, History, Unusual/Controversial,
non-PC, News-n-Views,
Eye-Opening and Thought-Provoking Articles, etc.
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
Take America Back!

Semper Fidelis
Dick Gaines
~~~~~~~~~~

The Bushes, Smedley Butler USMC, The BBC, etc.

July 24, 2007 Leave a comment

Prisonplanet.com – Printer Friendly Page

BBC: Bush’s Grandfather Planned Fascist Coup In America

New investigation sheds light on clique of powerbrokers, including Prescott Bush, who sought to overthrow U.S. government and implement Hitlerian policies

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, July 24, 2007

A BBC Radio 4 investigation sheds new light on a major subject that has received little historical attention, the conspiracy on behalf of a group of influential powerbrokers, led by Prescott Bush, to overthrow FDR and implement a fascist dictatorship in the U.S. based around the ideology of Mussolini and Hitler.

In 1933, Marine Corps Maj.-Gen. Smedley Butler was approached by a wealthy and secretive group of industrialists and bankers, including Prescott Bush the current President’s grandfather, who asked him to command a 500,000 strong rogue army of veterans that would help stage a coup to topple then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

According to the BBC, the plotters intended to impose a fascist takeover and “Adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.” The conspirators were operating under the umbrella of a front group called the American Liberty League, which included many families that are still household names today, including Heinz, Colgate, Birds Eye and General Motors.

Butler played along with the clique to determine who was involved but later blew the whistle and identified the ringleaders in testimony given to the House Committee on un-American Activities.

However, the Committee refused to even question any of the individuals named by Butler and his testimony was omitted from the record, leading to charges that they were involved in covering the matter up, and the majority of the media blackballed the story.

General Smedley Butler, author of the famous quote “war is a racket”, exposed the fascist plotters but was subsequently demonized and shunned by the government and the media.

In 1936, William Dodd, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, wrote a letter to President Roosevelt in which he stated,

“A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime…. A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there. Propagandists for fascist groups try to dismiss the fascist scare. We should be aware of the symptoms. When industrialists ignore laws designed for social and economic progress they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions.”

The proven record of Prescott Bush’s involvement in financing the Nazi war machine dovetails with the fact that he was part of a criminal cabal that actively sought to impose a fascist coup in America.

Prescott did not succeed but many would argue that two generations down the line the mission has all but been accomplished.

Click here to listen to the BBC Radio 4 investigation.
Copyright © Prisonplanet.com. All rights reserved.

Printed from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/240707fascistcoup.htm

************************************

Gunny G’s GLOBE and ANCHOR
~Sites*Forums*Blogs~
R.W. “Dick” Gaines
GnySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952–(Plt #437, PISC)–’72
“The Original Gunny G!”
***************************
Sites…
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
Old Salt Marines Tavern Weblog…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
The GyG GLOBE and ANCHOR Weblog…
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com/
The Gunny G Weblog @N54.com
http://www.network54.com/Forum/247172/
GyG’s History/Traditions, etc.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/220604/
The GyG Mailbag* Archive*Bookmarks @FURL
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg

Want On GyG’s E-Mail List?
Send/Reply: GunnyG*At*GMail.com
ADD In Subject Line…
*************************************
NOTE:
Latest Posts-/Archive GyG @ FURL…
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg
USMC, History, Unusual/Controversial,
non-PC, News-n-Views,
Eye-Opening and Thought-Provoking Articles, etc.
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
Take America Back!

Semper Fidelis
Dick Gaines
~~~~~~~~~~

A New “King George”

July 24, 2007 1 comment

 

A New “King George”
July 22, 2007(The Nation) This column was written by Robert Scheer.

http://tinyurl.com/3avcp9

George W. Bush is the imperial president that James Madison and other founders of this great republic warned us about. He lied the nation into precisely the “foreign entanglements” that George Washington feared would destroy the experiment in representative government, and he has championed a spurious notion of security over individual liberty, thus eschewing the alarms of Thomas Jefferson as to the deprivation of the inalienable rights of free citizens. But most important, he has used the sledgehammer of war to obliterate the separation of powers that James Madison enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

With the “war on terror,” Bush has asserted the right of the president to wage war anywhere and for any length of time, at his whim, because the “terrorists” will always provide a convenient shadowy target. Just the “continual warfare” that Madison warned of in justifying the primary role of Congress in initiating and continuing to finance a war — the very issue now at stake in Bush’s battle with Congress.

Read more…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,249 other followers