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?