Friday, September 3, 2010

Ron Paul : Let Me Get This Right

Monday, August 9, 2010

Ray McGovern on Fascism

The Israeli-Palestine Crisis

Jerusalem. It is the greatest land and it is worst land. Everyone wants it, it is where some of the most "holy" things have happened, and yet it binds chaos, destruction and enslavement instead of peace, harmony and love. From the Kingdom of Israel to the Kingdom of Jerusalem to the Mamelukes, Ottomans, Britain and today Israel once again, it seems no one can just get a grip on this enigma.

Jerusalem was originally Egyptian, then later came into the hands of Israel. It was first taken from the Kingdom of Israel by the Greeks, and later by the Romans. (which is where the origin of Palestine comes from.. all roads DO lead to Rome..) After the first real decline of the Eastern Roman Empire Jerusalem would begin to fall into the hands of Turks and Egyptians. This would continue from the 6th until the 11th century when the crusaders would form the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

King Amalric, one of the last Kings of Jerusalem, was a very generous one. He gave rights to Muslims and Jews to practice their religion in peace within the walls. Many Christians disliked this policy, but it was a withstanding one and was definitely one of the most peaceful times in Jerusalem. However, Amalric was a leper, as was his son Baldwin IV. This brought Guy to the throne, a frenchmen who was friends with anti-Islamic Crusaders. His reign was disastrous and the Kingdom of Jerusalem would fall to one of the greatest sultans to ever grace the earth, Sala al-Din of Egypt.

Jerusalem would forget what peace was.. as the Ayyubid Caliphate (Egypt), The Mongol Empire and the Mamelukes (Egypt) would reign over this city throughout the Middle Ages. However, near the end of the Middle Ages the rise of the a new empire, the Ottoman empire, would take Jerusalem from the Egyptians (15th century) and would hold onto this city for the next 500 years.

In other words, it would be five hundred years without a ruler that was not of the Islam faith. Also, 900 of the past 1000 years with a ruler of Islamic faith would have ruled Judea. In whose right mind did creating a state for the Jewish population from the west did creating a state in a concentrated Muslim population, now referred to as Palestine, deem this a fruitful and splendid idea?

Absolutely insane! There was no justification! Obviously, we can not undo the past actions of United Nations and the major powers following World War I and World War II, but this needs to be understood before trying to tackle a peace settlement in a region that has been through so much death and chaos.

Jews are there to stay, but unless something is rectified, the Palestinians may face a similar fate that the Jews "earned" Israel with.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Rudy Giuliani Claims No Terror Attacks Under Bush In Criticizing Preside...

The Florentine Republic

I was playing Europa Universalis III and was playing as Tuscany at the start date of 1399. I realized I did not know much of the Republic of Tuscany and decided to go research the topic myself.

That might be because.. the Republic of Tuscany never existed! in 1197 the Republic of Florence was born and it would become one of most influential merchant republics on the Italian peninsula. Shortly after the banking crisis in the Republic of Sienna, Florence would quickly become to replace what Sienna was.

However, they went above and beyond Sienna and completely changed economics in Europe and the Near East. The Florentines came up with a gold coin known as a Florin. This was the first time a viable currency was developed and it quickly spread throughout Europe. The Florin is credited with being the single greatest invention of bringing Europe out of the Dark Ages.

There are many other fabulous achievements for Florence, but on a grander scale, the only one greater than the Florin was the Italian Renaissance which began by the government in Florence. There is plenty of information around, and definitely romanticized opinions, to tell the story of how this single event changed the face of Europe forever.

However, by 1532 the Medici family began to dominate Florentine politics and would soon get a Pope sanctioned Duke-ship to firmly end the Republic of Florence forever. The Duchy of Florence was born. Less than a century later, the Duchy of Florence would get claims on Pisa and become the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Tuscany would exist in one form or another for centuries to come until the unification of Italy in the 19th century.

In other words, the Florentine Republic is one of the least known places, most likely due to their lack of military power, but revolutionized the whole face of Europe in the four centuries it lasted.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Blessed Be The State of Missouri

From Resolutions of Kentucky and Virginia in 1798.. Nullification and Interposition became a useful tool to keep Federal power in check. They were used for all sorts of reasons and all sorts of causes to nullify or void federal laws that were disagreeable or wouldn't work in the given state.

The first example was the Alien and Sedition Acts passed during the Adams administration. Another great example was the draconian trade embargo passed by the Jeffersonian Administration, that the great Thomas Jefferson signed immediately. (One of the few poor moral judgements he made in his life..)

Nullifcation has so many more examples, but it went away. The unsuccessful Southern Secession and the Civil Rights movement clouded everyone's thinking of what it was. Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Lindon B. Johnson, Woodrow Wilson and many other presidents who are statist and centralist did not like the idea of nullification. It was disastrous to how they felt that a nation should be ran.

It hasn't been used in over fifty years, perhaps longer. Until now. The Obama Administration passed a health care package that penalized citizens for not having health insurance. Missouri had a referendum to make the State deny enforcement of such a law and it passed with 71.1% of the vote. (link)

Nullification and interposition are the two most powerful statutes against tyranny of the Federal government, and this is a huge precedent. It isn't just talk anymore, this movement has real teeth.

(For more on Nullification, a book was recently released: Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century by Thomas E. Woods Jr.)

Friday, June 11, 2010

Do We Need Term Limits?

Rand Paul was on Sean Hannity's television broadcast the other day and seemed to incite that we need term limits. Yes, we do need term limits, but only because of what happened during the early Progressive Era. Prior to that era, there was no amendment taking the ambassadors of the States away from the legislature and making it a democratic election of Senators.

Here is the 17th Amendment in it's entirety:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.


And here Article 1 Section 3 prior to the passing of the 17th amendment:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.)


In short, the legislature chose the Senators, and therefore the Senate was a check on the democratic form of the House of Representatives. When this amendment was passed, that check was gone. It was passed on the pretense that State legislatures and Senators were becoming corrupt and greedy.

However, did this fix that problem? Hell no. Senatorial election campaigns are the most expensive campaigns outside of Presidential ones. It fixed nothing, but broke yet another check and balance on our Republican government.

So, instead of invoking term limits... let's repeal the 17th amendment!

Sunday, June 6, 2010

"Mega Mosque" to build near Ground Zero

To say this whole episode of the reactions I've seen to this news is disgusting, would be an understatement. To those who have not seen the article.. here it is:

http://theweek.com/article/index/203439/a-mega-mosque-near-ground-zero

Here's a quote from that article:

Sorry, says Jeff Harrell in Staten Island Live, "there's just no room for a mosque at Ground Zero." America was founded, in part, "on the freedom to pray whenever, wherever, and whoever you want to pray to as long as nobody gets hurt in the process." But the fact remains that 3,000 Americans were murdered in the name of Allah.


Is that really where we are? 1000 years ago, this might sound reasonable, but today it shouldn't. They were muslim, sure, but look more into it. It's not like they came from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Algeria, Syria, Palestine or Egypt. Nope, most of the terrorist prior to 2003 were Saudi Arabians, where American forces were stationed.

In any case, even if it was because they were "radical" muslims, most muslims were abhored by what they did. They didn't accept it. Therefore, it might have been done in the name of Allah.. man who does that sound like? Excuse me, for this overused example, but that's what Hitler did.

Whether it was because of Hitler's much needed coalition with the Church and the Catholic party in Germany prior to him becoming fuhrer, is hard to say. Yet, it was a given excuse considering the power of the Christian faith in Germany.. which I guess isn't too surprising is the same illuminating power that is all over the Middle East.

Was Allah or Islam really the reason? Was it American Foreign Policy? Anyone who is willing to look into the subject with an open mind would find the ladder more relevant than the former. This is just another case of American prejudice coming out and the fact that we need to seek the friendship of all nations and all peoples.

I would be more than happy if this controversy opened up more debate on our involvement in the Middle East since the 1950s.. that doesn't seem likely. Especially with the Republican establishment gaining momentum.. anti-Islamic extremism seems to be on the rise.

Friday, May 28, 2010

"Winning" the War on Terror

Many political talking heads want you to think we need to win in Iraq and Afghanistan.. and anywhere else this War on Terror will take us. To honor those serving and those who served, we must be victorious and shower in the glory of democratic freedom in the Middle East.

What is victory, though? Do they want to debate what victory truly is and means? I think not. Think about where America was in 2001 and what Iraq and Afghanistan were to America in 2001. We had - and still do have - a horrible foreign policy that lead to severe aggression against America. This build up of aggression ended up leading to WTC attacks that are still really mysterious as to who did them. However, let's look at these two wars and what they mean:

Afghanistan:

On September 11, 2001, the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon were attacked. Nearly three thousand innocent were killed during this attack. The reasons not debated, the causes not consulted, instead we used the McKinney idea of assumptive warfare. In 1898 we ASSUMED Spain attacked a ship and declared war on them. This time, we ASSUMED that Osama bin Laden and his militant group Al-Qaeda were behind the attacks.

What did our noble and just foreign policy decide? To attempt to coerce the Taliban (current government in Afghanistan) to hand him over! What a great idea, however, the Taliban insisted he was innocent and that they would hand him over when proven guilty. America would have none of it and invaded the country due to their lack of cooperation.

Was any of this proven? Not then, not later and not today. Go ahead, look it up, prove me wrong, I want someone to. Yet, we waged war on no real reason and sacrificed American and Afghan lives for this.

What was Afghanistan prior to this invasion? Nothing. They were in no way a threat to America and the fact that Al-Qaeda had bases there was of no real big deal. As it is known those who attacked us trained in Germany, France and America. They mostly came from Saudi Arabia (an ally of America!).

Victory is a stable democracy in Afghanistan that is pro-U.S./Israel, as a weak ally against Iran. Is this possible? Doubtful. Is it worth the war and the deaths? Hardly. They go from an afterthought in terms of capable warfare to being a "buffer" to Iran. We did that with Iraq in the 1980s.. remember how successful that was?

Iraq:

2003... the Afghanistan war is pretty low key at this time. Also, this just in Iraq "might" and by might I mean definitely doesn't have nuclear or biological weapons. Obviously, we need to invade.

The WMDs, which was the only true selling point, were never found and it's been admitted everywhere the intelligence was faulty. It makes one wonder what the five thousand American military service are dying for. I don't really have as much to say here, because everyone knows how dishonest this war was.

Victory in Iraq? The same thing, except as of today it seeming more and more like an impossible victory. Two Shi'ite parties, who are pro-Iran, have formed a political coalition and if it is stays together a pro-U.S. Iraq is very unlikely. Even so, Iraq would be a severely weak ally, as opposed to a country so feeble and weak not even Iran was scared.

Victory is weak allies, defeat is weak enemies. What's the difference? Either way, American people are not getting benefits. Our debt rises, our economy dwindles on a doomsday clock, and more Americans die each day.

The War on Terror, like the War on Drugs/Poverty, have no diminished or defeated Terror but only increased it's activity and made it more likely. Thanks, we really appreciate your hard work.

Edit: It's worth mentioning that having a buffer on Iran is stupid. The only diplomatic exchange we need with Iran is free and open trade so the Iranian people can prosper and have the proper social reform. Sanctions and Embargoes and creating puppet buffer states are the acts of Empires not democratic republics!

Monday, March 29, 2010

Anarcho-Capitalism: Is it a worthwhile goal?

Anarcho-Capitalism is the idea of destroying Statism and boundaries and letting capitalism flow. The idea is that people will band together in communities and trade and what not through there. That currencies will be self-regulating and worker rights will happen out of capital, and would not need legislation.

Is this possible? The Commonwealth of Iceland can give us a dabble into the possibilities. While it did have a State and government, it was VERY laissez-faire, and the courts held very minimal power. There was no president, and no Congress. It had regional leaders, that you chose, and the country went nearly three centuries like this.

Was Iceland's fall poor economics, or how about capitalism greed? Not quite. Iceland's fall was it did not have enough capital in comparison to the bigger and wealthier Norway. The King of Norway wnated to vassalize Iceland so he sent a family member with more wealth than anyone in Iceland could make on their own. This family member would cause a series of civil wars and drive the country into chaos and force them to become Norway's newest vassal.

So, it comes from an impossibility, to being a quesiton. Can it work? I believe so. After learning about Hoppe's argumentation ethics, reading essays by Bastiat, Rothbard and Mises, I can see the rationality in a state-less society.

If you want to think that 19th century America is an example of why capitalism won't work, then you probably do not understand the fundementals of economics. Children worked long hours, but because the economy required it and their families did as well. If the labor laws that are in place today, were in place then, those families wouldn't have made it by. So, is that the fault of capitalism or that the economy doesn't have the wealth or technology to have a higher standard of living?

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Myth: Kucinich is the Ron Paul of the Left

Fact: Kucinich is a party politican who is willing to concede principle for party reputation.

That's right! He met with President Obama on a few occassions and the last time was a plane ride before the legislation would be voted on. Dennis Kucinich disagreed with pretty much everything in the bill. He's a supporter of single-payer universal healthcare. This wasn't even close to that.

However, in his blog Mr. Kucinich says it is a step towards single-payer (which is laughable) and that it was to save Obama and the Democratic Party's reputation. By that, it means like how the Republicans pushed through "No Child Left Behind" and the Bush healthcare legislation that were seen as huge Conservative vicotories. He was worried they would get the same sort of treatment as is what happened during the Clinton presidency.

However, you are not going to see Ron Paul do this. Ron Paul voted for neither of those conservative victories. He has never done a party vote, strictly because it's partisan, he votes because he believes it is constitutional and fits his philosophy.

I used to believe Kucinich was like that, and while he might be more honest than most, he's definitely no Ron Paul.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Texas Board of Education to Demote Thomas Jefferson

Demote, like take him OUT of Enlightenment Curriculum. In a vote of 10-5 in a new standard for Texas Textbooks on the subject he is being replaced by such thinkers as St. Thomas Aquinas. Why would that be..?

Two new members of the Board - David Barton and Peter Marshall - whom are ideological Christians. They oppose the idea of seperation of church and state and I suppose would rather see a Theocracy replace our current government!

They suppose our founders wanted a Christian nation, depsite the first amendment proposed by James Madison and upheld by nearly all of our founders. To take Thomas Jefferson out of any curriculum on political thinkers of Enlightenment is completley insane.

Texas is a major influence when it comes to textbooks in this country and this is insanely dangerous. This is not a fight to take lightly, we must FIGHT and FIGHT hard. This has the potentially of totally destroying the foundations of this country. Moreso than any other single action, because it will bring America closer and more in line with it's European ancestory of perpetual war for centuries millenia.

What other things do they want to do? As I have noted, get rid of one of the greatest political minds in World history, especially concerning limited government and personal liberty, but to sensationalise an American Christian theocracy, destroy any gay rights movements in Texas.

They would rather uphold the ideas of Christian Nations that tyrannized Europe for centuries and laid no foundations for the liberties of humanity. Thomas Jefferson was one of those thinkers who was able to break the mold, as a founder of the country that brought liberty to a world shackled in oppression. Texas Board of Education would rather the future of Texas not know that, and think that theocracy is somehow a better form of government and that equality and liberty is not as important.

Monday, March 22, 2010

How To Pay For Healthcare Bill?

Many people have rightly asked, where is the funding going to come from? Many say they will cut spending in other areas to equal out.. however, anyone who has watched government and closely listened to it.. knows otherwise. Any time they give an estimate, you know it'll be much higher, or if they say it will equal out, it most certainly will not.

However, there is a way to save a trillion dollars a year and use it on Healthcare. Bring our troops home! Shut down military bases in all foreign countries. Not only will this save us money that we continue to borrow, but it will change our perception throughout the world.

We won't be the country who bosses nations around. We will be the nation who is benevolent and shows the world an example of a humble and great nation. We ought not to be the nation who demands people be like we are, we must show them how to act and let them choose for themselves.

The healthcare bill obviously has its flaws and is definitely not constitutional. Yet, that's not the biggest problem, it's the mere cost. The costs are not actually proven where the funding will come from, most likely because there is none. At the same time these wars won't end, and I don't see how we expect all these money sinks to be sustainable.

We have so many money sinks and this is just another one. Greece is not an anomaly.. Spain, Portugal and Ireland are potentially there. America might be years from such a prospect... but years isn't really that long of a time. You can't change over night, it's a grueling process and while Americans might not want to take it, it will happen one way or another, the Greek way is definitely the harder way.

Friday, March 19, 2010

End the Constitution of 1789?

Should we destroy the Constitution? Is it worth much anymore? Should we call about a Constitutional Convention and break this document that has stood for over two centuries? I say, yes! The Constitution is a document that is not followed anymore and isn't something most of our leaders care much for:

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” - George W. Bush


CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated (sic) that individual Americans buy health insurance as (sic) not a “serious question.”

(Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971)


The Constitution that was written from 1787 to 1789 has some things not in it anymore. One of the checks upon Democratic vote was the Senate elected by the legislature rather than the people. That is gone. Another provision was no direct taxes on income.. we now have that. Gold and Silver were the only legal tender and the Congress was given the power to coin and not another. We no longer have Gold or Silver coins or backing and only worthless paper as our currency.. and not to mention a secret Central bank that is not audited and not regulated.

Our Republic was formed to unite the foreign peoples who had won their new indepdence and keep them from trade wars and European-styled deceit. It was not to make universal laws and have a powerful Central authority. This is what we have today, and it is something to fear. We ought to destroy this document and create a new. There is much to be said on this subject, but for now, I will leave you with a quote from the Market Anarachist Lysander Spooner:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

My Foreign Policy Intiative

America today holds a Foreign Policy that does not run parallel with almost all of the founding fathers from Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, from James Madison to Thomas Paine. We have fought one defensive war in the past 100 years, but have fought far more than one war during that time. It ought to be a time to re-think our foreign policy and to find how we can do this TODAY.

First thing I would do is bring troops home from ANY country that we are not at war with (any country not named Iraq or Afghanistan). Close down all military bases and hospitals in countries we are at peace with and have no inclusion in supplying those troops in current "War-Zones".

We ought to end foreign aide that destroys foreign economies and uses money that the United States cannot afford to give away. We ought to stop the practise of embargoes, and stop the "Free Trade Agreements" and just agree to free trade! How sensible of a policy would that be?

We ought to re-think the War on Terror and realise that we are no longer fighting to catch the perpetrators of September 11th, but to fight a perpetual war on Islamic extremism as the Romans fought a perpetual war against Pagan barbarianism. It is a war with no end and no victory, and "fighting to win" is essentially asking for perpetuity in the act of war.

Let's end drug laws, let's legalize drugs and stop putting innocent tax-paying citizens in jail where they don't belong. Let's stop it to save the lives of those caught in the battlefield of drug warfare that has been caused by universal prohibition of drugs. It serves no purpose other than to destroy the order that Government is meant to provide, otherwise should we embrace Anarchy since that is essentially what we are given?

If these things are brought, then are we to fear an attack? Any sensible person would have to say no, for you Reason and Think of what I propose you could not possibly come to a conclusion of a people having the ability to convince people to kill themselves for a peace-loving and peace-desiring nation. It is only when interventionism in foreign politics that will drive people to do terrorism.

What will the end result be of Iraq or Afghanistan if we "cut and run"? That they will align themselves with Iran or that they will be taken over by monarchical or despotic government? As if that is what we cared about? We are allied with Saudi Arabia who is in the same area as both countries!

Let us retreat, to not only save American lives, but also to bolster our National Defense and bolster our relationship on the international level. We will no longer be war isolationist, but trade enthusiasts! We will be non-interventions, not the example Japan showed us for centuries, but the one we executed from 1789 to 1918!

We ought to reconsider our positions on foreign policy, because it is the most important policy. Not only from a Liberty perspective but a moral perspective. It is the right thing to do for Liberty, as war is what props up despotic government be it monarchial, artistocratic or bureacratic and it will prevent the suffering of foreign peoples and our own peoples through the actions to attempt to stop that suffering. It will only make it worse, not better.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Is The CIA Needed?

The formation of the OSS during WWII to use counter-intelligence against Germany, Italy and Japan, which would later reform into the CIA. The CIA was created to protect America from deceptive and otherwise unseen threats and to gather intelligence. However, does the CIA protect America's interests, or is it a secret army of the President or a secret army of itself?

I think, it is both. It's secrecy allows it to do things that might be politically unpopular or otherwise imposslbe. Such as displacing political leaders of other nations or influencing political campaigns of other nations. There's a few examples of this, such as Operation Ajax in 1953 in Iran. Or, the CIA's funding of the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, which has ruled Japan for nearly every year since 1955. (Only years it has not are 1993, 1994, and 2009)

These are things we know the CIA has done, many of the things it does are classified, meaning 'We, the People' are not capable of knowing and it would endanger us to know. That would mean that the CIA is doing things that would endanger us, and if discovered, would definitely be harmful.

The CIA stands for Central Intelligence Agency, so why not gather intelligence and quit the secret special forces mantra? Is the CIA needed? I think not, because it has brought upon this world more things bad than good. For example:

- Islamic Republic of Iran was based on a revolution against a CIA-enabled Regime. They are not an enemy.

- CIA funded a group of freedom fighters that would later fund an attack on September 11, 2001

- CIA helped fund Iraq's war with Iran, that would later be dealt with in the Persian Gulf War and the Second Persian Gulf War. Did I mention they helped get Saddam Hussein (who ran as a 'socialist') elected?

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Top 10 National GDP Per Capita

Here is the Top 10 Nations per Capita as of 2006:

1) Luxembourg
2) Norway
3) Iceland
4) Ireland
5) Qatar
6) Switzerland
7) Denmark
8) United States of America
9) Sweden
10) The Netherlands


What is the trend here? Nine of the ten countries are all small countries, and the other one is a confederate Republic with small States that are sovereign entities. If you want to get rid of this, and continue to centralize the country, you can probably say good-bye to this list. Central economic planning does not work, and it destroys wealth, not of the wealthy but of the middle-class and the poor.

Thank you to Daniel Hannan for bringing this up in the EU Parliament.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Ron Paul takes CPAC Straw Poll with 31%



In past years Fox News would get all excited and triumphant when Mitt Romney had taken the CPAC straw poll from 2007-2009. However, they sing a different tune when Dr. Ron Paul, 11-term congressman from Texas wins it. Oh no no, can't have that, the poll means nothing now. Their argument is that Romney didn't win the nomination when he won CPAC, but they didn't say that last year when Romney won it.

I think something that should be noted is that many people are waking up to the "paleo-conservative" movement, and that the convservative movement is being changed into some far greater than what neo-conservativism was making it into. It's something called neo-liberalism or classical liberalism. Ron Paul was inspired by the people who reignited the classical liberal movement (Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, etc.).

What does this poll mean? Not a whole lot, except that the conservative base is either changing to Pro-Ron Paul (like when you see Ann Coulter say that she agrees with everything he says except on Foreign Policy) or it is simply growing with so-called "Paulites" becoming conservatives. I'd say it's both and either way it's great news. Who would have thought any of these scenarios would have been possible just three years ago?

However, I do think there is truth in what Dr. Paul says, when he says that this country isn't going to change until the debt forces us to change. That's the unfortunate part about living in a Fascist Republic rather than a Constitutional Republic, which do you want?

Friday, February 19, 2010

Chris Matthews: Debra Medina is Racist



Yeah, alright. She's racist because she thinks we should use interposition and nullification. He goes and names off a big nullification user John C. Calhoun who is a hero in American history (Yeah, he was pro-slavery, but that is a discussion for another day). He also claims that using nullification is anti-American and does not abide by the constitution.

Does he know what nullification is? Nullification is the ESSENCE of America, it is the essence of decentralization, which is what this country was born on. In 1798 James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (who both opposed the institution of slavery) invented the idea of nullification to fight against the Alien and Sedition Acts during the John Adams administration. Also, when the Fugitive Slave Acts were passed Wisconsin and Massachusetts used nullification to not abide these federal mandates. Is that racist or anti-American?

Even if we count the so-called Civil War, that is inherently racist, then maybe we are wrong there as well. Traditional and real abolitionist did not agree with a war to end slavery, and wanted the South to leave and do what they will. The CSA was not founded on slavery, but decentralization and State's Rights, slavery was a big issue of that time, however it was not the complete issue there.

Alexander Stephens, VP of the CSA, was completely critically of Jefferson Davis due to his centralization of the CSA government and States, and is what the whole independent movement was about. He wasn't angry that blacks were fighting in the military, but that we were forcing citizens to be conscripted and abusing federal power.

Chris Matthews should look into what nullification and interposition are, and look at how nullification has been used far more for anti-slavery than for slavery. Debra Medina is hardly a racist person, and this is just another political attack that is completely fantasy.

Also: I would like to note when he says it is against the Constitution to do this, nullification is the act of not doing something because it violates the Constitution. Jefferson and Madison were strict constitutionalist, and so I wonder if Matthews thinks they didn't abide by it..?

Saturday, February 13, 2010

An Audit the Fed Update

H.R. 1207 has reached 317 co-sponsors of the 435 members of the House S. 604 has reached 31 co-sponsors of the 100 members in the Senate. This legislation can obviously pass the House and is building in the Senate, I think if it were voted today it would obviously pass the House, and has a pretty solid shot at making noise in the Senate.

Why is the Senate so low? I think it might be so low because, a lot of these Senators don't face re-election soon, since they serve for six years, and aren't extremely pressured unless it's a "red state" or they might be facing election time soon, so they use it to propel their campaign. Also, they are more elite, so to speak, because of the unfathomable amount of money it takes to run a successful Senate campaign.

I think given time, this will come to pass. Bernanke is struggling to keep his position at the Federal Reserve and I think many of the new House members that will be flushed from election cycle will most likely be willing to support this bill. The Senate is the obvious obstacle, however if "We, the People" make our voices heard, it is not an unfeasible goal.

Debra Medina assaulted by Beck, Perry



That's the "9/11 Truther" question from Beck to Medina. The whole interview was an obvious attack as I've listened to him talk to minority libertarian candidates before and he doesn't treat them the way he did to Medina.

The whole idea that Glenn Beck was trying to transform the Tea Party revolution into a Neo-Conservative movement back to control. I didn't completely trust Beck, but he's now an obvious Neo-Con. He's been stated to have become "amicable" with Rick Perry since the Tea Party started and has defended him several times since.

Rick Perry within an hour of the interview began attacking Debra Medina, but to what end? Debra Medina within 24 hours made $6,000 in contributions, made gains on Perry's facebook numbers and that is likely to say she isn't going anywhere. Most likely, she will be in a run-off against Perry.

This is quite amusing, you can't level criticism of her being a political elite, nor of her having scandals or anything, so it was up to Rick Perry and his buddy Glenn Beck to funnel this interview into some mud on Medina. I don't think it's working, we shall see in the coming weeks, but it appears to have failed.

Let's get this going, vote for Debra!

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

The Three Most Important Policies

1) Foreign Policy: Our Foreign policy is atrocious and needs to be addressed immediately. Prior to the Civil War we never committed an act of aggression but since the North's invasion of the South we have decided it is OK. Here is all of our defensive wars:

- American Revolutionary War (1776)
- Barbary War I (1801)
- War of 1812 (1812)
- Barbary War II (1815)
- Mexican-American War (1846)
- American-Japanese War (1941)

Offensive Wars:

- American "Civil War" (1861)
- Spanish-American War (1898)
- World War I (1918)
- World War II (1941)
- Korean Civil War (1950)
- Vietnam War (1960)
- First Persian Gulf War (1991)
- War on Terror (2001)
- Second Persian Gulf War (2003)

This is not even counting the countless times we have sent aide and supplied nations/movements for political ambitions. There are also countless military alliances (such as NATO) that have made for really bad policies. (Such as a time we had alliances with Britian and Argentina and they went to war.. wee)

2) Monetary Policy: I don't think I can stress it enough that we need to get away from Central Banking and inflationary spending. We're on the verge of hyperinflation, major unemployment and political instability and this is a big reason. I think Foreign Policy has a slight considered 53% of government spending is "defensive spending", although it's not really in the name of defense.

The Federal Reserve is scared of an audit, but if a vote were cast today it'd pass the House and it might even pass the Senate. It's something the people want, and the Fed fears it. Fears what exactly? I don't know, but it's clearly obvious they have fear.

3) Party Restrictions: I think the fact that the Republican and Democratic Parties have had a monopoly on politics since the 1870s had a strain on forming policy. It wasn't so bad at first, as liberty still mattered until the 1980s, but I think the fact stands that they are arrogant and foolish when it comes top political policy. Let's just take a look at major political parties in American history:

Federalist Party (1792) Presidents: 1
National Republican Party (Democratic-Republican) (1792) Presidents: 4
Democratic Party (1828) Presidents: 16
Whig Party (1833) Presidents: 4
Republican Party (1854) Presidents: 18

As you can tell, there have been no major changes to the political party madness since 1854 (which the Whigs died out by the Civil War). What happened? Favorable laws for Republicans and Democrats were beginning to be passed by 1869 and would eventually make it nearly impossible for third-parties to function efficiently in the American political framework. This has ought to change.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Osama bin Laden: Is He Right?

Recently bin Laden said that he would not use planes if words worked for him.. and what exactly does he mean by that? Before I do explain, I do not mean to say that killing innocent lives for a political agenda is something I adhere to, because it is not. I am very critical of the use nuclear weapons in Japan and most certainly the use of deadly force by civilian aircraft onto other civilians.

However, is U.S. foreign policy a part of the problem here? What is it that Osama bin Laden refers to? It might just be that we stationed over 25,000 troops in Saudi Arabia, or bombed Iraq (two holy places), or the fact that we give Israel billions every year. I don't know, maybe that pisses them off. In 1991, shortly after we "left" the Middle East and decided not to invade Baghdad, the WTC was bombed. Nothing too serious, and really nothing new.

Since 1953 we have meddled in the Middle East, before this time they loved us, but since this time the relationship has become extremely unstable. Embassies have been bombed throughout the 70s and 80s, an Iranian Revolution against what was a CIA coupe (Operation Ajax). Then, of course the 1991 bombing of the WTC, however we failed to connect the dots or to care. Fast forward ten years and nearly 3,000 lay dead in part due to our failure to execute a good foreign policy.

Many will say that we must go and get them before they come and get us, if we fight them there they will won't come here. That's just foolish, we were already there, and they realized that if they only attacked government agents directly involved, or closely related to, it would not cause the clamour they needed. Killing civilians would, it would cause the American people to support a more serious involvement in the Middle East to what the terrorist believe to bankrupt the already debt-ridden empire of America.

Is being over there going to solve this problem? Can we weed out muslim extremism through force and coercion? And if so, doesn't this lay the foundation for perpetual warfare? What world do we live in exactly?