‘Fair and Balanced’ (Fascist) Financial Media Attacks Heroic Jim Rogers

Truth is treason in the Empire of Lies:

Too Smart to Thug for the State

From Official State Media:

A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.

In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.

Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor’s degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ”I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,” he said. ”It’s the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.”

Jeffersonian Democrats: Let’s bring them back!

Paulie Cannoli and I are trying to organize a Jeffersonian “Caucus” within the Democratic Party. The purposes of the group will be to educate people on the principles of Jeffersonianism and encourage people who embrace those principles to run for office as Democrats.

The principles in question are:

1. Radical Decentralism
2. Anti-militarism
3. Opposition to Central Banking

These are the things that Jefferson stood for. Around the country, Democratic Party groups have “Jefferson-Jackson” dinners, while the GOP has “Lincoln Day” celebrations. Lincoln, of course, was a radical centralist, militarist, and fiat-currency lover — the exact opposite of Jefferson.

Indeed, the history of the Republican Party is one of nearly pure evil. So while some Ron Paul supporters say they’re trying to “restore the GOP to its roots,” they don’t realize that George W. Bush is almost perfectly in sync with Lincolnianism. There were/are some good Republicans — Howard H. Buffett and Ron Paul standing out above the rest — but they are the exception to the rule. The Democratic Party, by contrast, has a strong history of classical liberalism, and boasts not only the greatest political philosopher among the presidents (Jefferson), but also the greatest president of all time, and last of the classical liberals, Grover Cleveland.

Yes, this is ancient history. But at least the history legitimately exists. We can point out this history and force statist Democrats to reject or embrace their own party’s legacy. And we can, hopefully, attract people to ideas that are now radical but were once mainstream.

Right now, our group’s agenda is as follows:

1. Draft statements explaining the basic implications of the three principles with plenty of quotes from Jefferson supporting those principles and their implications
2. Establish a high-quality Web site with public-domain writings from Jefferson and other classical liberals along with original articles applying Austro-Jeffersonian principles to current issues; as well as a blog highlighting news stories of interest to modern Jeffersonians
3. Create a Facebook group to spread awareness of our existence and get people to sign on saying they will support Democratic candidates who abide by these principles — if we’re able to attract tens of thousands of members, I’m sure candidates will step up to the plate

We are looking for help with all of the above. If you’re interested, leave a reply.

When the Progressives achieved their “success” in the dreadful teens and twenties, they did so by having a presence in both major parties as well as third parties. There are already “libertarian” Democratic groups, but they don’t exactly embrace the full implications of Jeffersonianism, and thus, they haven’t caught on.

When the Democrats lose this election, improbably (again), perhaps there will be a realization that they’ve been out-big governmented by the GOP. Perhaps new Democrats who take up the ideas of the old Democrats will be allowed to move to the forefront.

A huge majority of Ron Paul’s support came from Democrats, independents, and “others,” and in some states, he got more votes from Democrats than from Republicans. The GOP and conservatism are inextricably linked with anti-Jeffersonian principles and thus, we believe, making the principled populist case for liberty to the working-class electorate of the Democratic Party has more promise than any other option currently available. If you agree — or even if you don’t, but think it’s worth a try — please join us.

U.S. going the way of Soviet Union (in more ways than one)

An article I wrote for Amateur Economists:

First, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were seized—Communist style—by the federal government. Then Lehman Brothers—which was worth $45 billion as recently as November—announced plans to file for bankruptcy. And now AIG, formerly one of the largest companies in the world, has been taken over by the Federal Reserve.

In 2000, American International Group, an insurance giant, was worth $250 billion. As late as August of 2008, the market set the battered company’s value at $80.4 billion. But following heavy losses on “Black Monday” (September 15, 2008) and the following day, AIG’s market cap now stands at just $10 billion—down over 94% for the year.

What Austrian Economists Knew All Along

These losses may be unprecedented, but they’re not unpredicted. Theorists from the Austrian school of economics have been prognosticating the implosion of the fiat-money-fueled financial system for decades. And according to Cato Adjunct Scholar Dr. Robert Higgs, we haven’t seen anything yet.

Higgs, who’s also a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and an Adjunct Scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, predicts that many more financial dominoes will fall, with the end game being the collapse of Social Security and Medicare. “The question is not whether they will fail, but when,” Higgs says, “and then how the government that can no longer sustain them in their previous Ponzi-scheme form will alter them to salvage what little can be salvaged with minimal damage to the government itself.”

Higgs compares what he sees as the impending collapse of the U.S. financial system to what happened to the Soviet Union. And he points out that Keynesian economists—such as textbook king Paul Samuelson—didn’t see the Russian collapse coming, just like they didn’t see the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Austrian theorists, however, did.

Read the rest.

Record vote total for LP in 2008: Here’s how!

Bob Barr and the coterie of conspirators who helped him hijack the LP in May are either intent on destroying the Libertarian Party, or the most incompetent imbeciles in the history of world civilization. Either way, these odious self-important cretins — Bill Redpath, Aaron Starr, Shane Cory, Andrew Davis, Richard Viguerie, Robert Kraus, Russ Verney, etc. — cannot be shamed. Furthermore, they are emboldened by the feeble will of the “outsiders” on the LNC (a few heroic members notwithstanding) who are like infants afraid to do anything or say anything that might contradict Mommy and Daddy. Indeed, these “responsible” libertarians still do not admit that there was a plot to make Barr the nominee dating back at least two years, even with all of the evidence staring at them in the face.

Now Barr — a neocon who is already counting the days until his jump back into the evil Party of Lincoln — has destroyed any claim that the LP had as the rightful political vehicle of the Ron Paul R3VOLution. Well, almost destroyed. There is one way that the LP’s reputation could be restored, and that’s a complete disavowel of the heinous Barr candidacy. Anything less is a slap in the face to Ron Paul and his supporters, and as time continues to tick off the clock, even this radical action is losing its would-be potency.

No one seems to know how “removing” Barr would affect various state ballots. It could be that not having a candidate would ruin the LP’s already crumbling ballot access — crumbling under eunuch gun-grabber Bill Redpath’s purposefully destructive “leadership” — which is quite possibly the agenda behind the Barr/Root neoconspiracy. So I have a better idea.

The LNC should immediately disavow Bob Barr. “He is not a libertarian but a neocon, and anyone associated with him in any way is not a libertarian,” would be my preferred language. “Forty-nine-point-seven percent of our credentialed delegates — many of them never-before ‘libertarians’ there solely to nominate Barr — were duped by this repugnant man, and we now see this. Our apologies to Ron Paul, to America, and the world.”

That’s part 1. Now here’s part 2.

“As the LNC, we are instructing the various Libertarian electors to vote for Ron Paul if the Libertarian ticket carries their state. A vote for ‘Bob Barr’ is a vote for Ron Paul.”

We get rid of Bob Barr, we heal the LP’s relationship with the Campaign for Liberty, and we get a record vote total.

What’s not to like?

Best libertarian speech ever

Heroic speech about the Federal Reserve by Tom Woods. Less than excellent quality, but definitely worth watching.

Still think people ‘don’t care’ about the Federal Reserve?

Then I guess you aren’t watching the Rally for the Republic today, where mentioning its abolition has provoked unmatched levels of enthusiasm several times.

The first time the Fed was mentioned, there was a long standing ovation and chants of “end the Fed!” The same thing has happened virtually every other time the subject has come up, and guess what: The Rally for the Republic has drawn a crowd around twenty times the size of the pitiful “Libertarian” National Convention, whose delegates were so stupid and unprincipled as to nominate a CIA operative drug warrior. The Rally for the Republic libertarians are about 1000 times smarter and more dedicated than the 49% in Denver who sold out to Barr.

For the Libertarians who, for whatever reason, want to believe the Fed issue is not a popular one; you’re wrong. For those who don’t think it’s important, watch Thomas Woods’s speech. I’ll post it here as soon as it’s up on YouTube.

New anti-Fed novel equally entertaining, educational, and heroic!

The Flight of the Barbarous Relic puts, in novel form, virtually everything every American needs to know about the Federal Reserve, fiat-money central banking, and monetary history, and it does so following an unadulterated Austrian line, without any conspiracy mongering or Antisemitism — two curses that plague the Honest Money movement. Author George Ford Smith is unique among popular Fed critics in his understanding that the Fed is not bad because it’s a “private bank” that generates “windfall profits” for its “shareholders” — the Fed is bad, truly evil, because it is a government institution designed to provide a blank check for the unbridled growth of the federal government at the expense of liberty.

Oh yes, there has been a conspiracy — but it’s not a “theory,” it’s historical fact. George F. Smith reveals this indisputable truth throughout the course of this 274-page, impossible-to-put-down thriller, and also clearly demonstrates how the Federal Reserve redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich, all within the context of a gripping plot.

The story focuses on a gold-loving, free-market economist who seemingly “sells out” and joins the mainstream, eventually rising to the position of Fed chairman. But his “sell out” was false — he only put on Keynesian/Monetarist (as if there’s a difference) garb in order to infiltrate the Fed so that he could expose and destroy it! I’m not giving anything away here since this happens very early in the book. The heart of the book is how the government reacts to having its deception exposed.

George Ford Smith’s knowledge of monetary history, the nature of government, and the unfortunate ignorance and apathy of the American populace is truly peerless. This book should be heralded by the Mises Institute, LewRockwell.com, and the Ron Paul R3VOLution as the first of hopefully many great works of fiction exposing the truth about the Federal Reserve and the government it sponsors by secretly stealing from the productive class. Five stars are not enough for this heroic effort!

New anti-Fed rap song

Unsigned rap artist Tahir Jahi recently added an anti-Fed song, “Man Make Da Money,” to his MySpace page.

Verse 1
If you don’t know where this nation is headed
our nation is controlled by a system of credit
Woodrow Wilson is the one you can thank
birthed the federal reserve a privately owned bank
took cash and signed that like he never knew
gave control of the states to a chosen few
each dollar bill includes interest from lender
got rid of gold, paper is legal tender

Verse 3
The Fed produces currency for the nation
they control the money, interest rates, and inflation
What I can give in this song is just a fraction
banks owed the gov since the days of Andrew Jackson
make it rain on that stage, claiming you are paid
but you owe interest on those dollars that was made
no Constution, will use our little clause
control the nation’s money who cares about its laws

Tahir Jahi is the fiance of Donyell Jones, a 2006 finalist on So You Think You Can Dance, the most pro-individualist show on network TV.

Although Tahir is clearly more influenced by the Aaron Russo “conspiracy” wing of the anti-Fed movement, his stance reveals the under-the-surface anti-statism, pro-individualism, and pro-capitalist entrepreneurialism of hip hop that is often obfuscated as far Left figures co-opt the “movement” and libertarians do nothing to reach out.

Below is interview footage of Prodigy of the legendary Mobb Deep, in which the interviewer tries to steer him into saying something positive about Obama, but Prodigy insists that Ron Paul is his candidate.

One of Mobb Deep’s album covers prominently featured the dollar bill’s “Illuminati pyramid.”

Also: Prodigy is currently confined in a government animal cage for the “crime” of “unlawful gun possession.” Since it was his “third strike,” he faced 15 years, but plea-bargained to serve 3.5. Conveniently, this has silenced him and his questions about 9/11.

LP criticizes Biden for being ‘too libertarian’

In a recent e-mail sent out by the LP, Barack Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his VP runningmate is criticized… NOT for Biden’s votes for the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and DOMA (all of which LP presidential usurper, Bob Barr, voted for as well), and NOT for advocating a “surge” in Afghanistan (like LP VP wannabe W.A.R. told a self-described Zionist newspaper he supported), but for:

• Opposing English being made the nationalist language
• Opposing energy socialism/fascism in ANWR
• Opposing special rights being given to gun manufacturers
• Supporting McCain-Feingold, which the thuggish Barr junta tried to use to muscle its way on to private property just a week or so ago

Worst of all, the LP criticizes Biden for being a lifelong government employee — just like Bob Barr, who went from the CIA (where he’s still an asset) to federal prosecutor (where he jailed who knows how many innocents) to Congress (where he did more to destroy liberty than most) to being a lobbyist (hardly a “private sector” job). And besides, is being a scamdicapper and Boiler Room-style fraudster/bilker of investors (W.A.R.) any better?

The LP truly shouldn’t cast stones.

Read more about it.

Obama selects Biden as VP

Eschewing more “libertarian” choices Bill Richardson and Jim Webb, Barack Obama has selected Joe Biden to be his presidential running mate.

LewRockwell.com has at least had a little faint praise for Biden here and here.

Give credit where credit is due: Bob Barr right on Georgian War

Press release from Bob Barr:

Atlanta, GA – “The Bush administration is talking about pumping aid into the damaged Georgian economy, after that nation’s short war with Russia,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. “The conflict between Georgia and Russia was tragic, but it’s time officials in Washington stopped treating the Treasury Department like an ATM for the world. The deficit rose last month after Uncle Sam had to bail out several failed banks and the total federal deficit this year is going to run about $400 billion. It’s time to say enough!”

“The U.S. spent $21 billion on foreign aid last year, not counting money for Iraq,” explains Barr. “Over the years Washington has shipped hundreds of billions of dollars overseas, with much of it wasted. The Third World remains poor, only with a larger debt. Indeed, U.S. aid programs often subsidized socialist and undemocratic regimes.”

“The Saakashvili government in Georgia made a foolish mistake by initiating hostilities in its breakaway province of South Ossetia,” notes Barr. “American taxpayers should not have to pay for that mistake. After all, they already are paying $10 billion a month for the administration’s mistaken invasion and occupation of Iraq. They cannot afford to pay the price for other people’s wars as well,” says Barr.

“Instead of increasing foreign aid, the U.S. government needs to cut the amount of taxpayer money that it sends overseas,” insists Barr. “Most important, it is time to start saying no more. No more international welfare clients. No more foreign governments treating America as a cash cow. We need to put our own fiscal house in order rather than constantly bail out irresponsible governments around the world.”

Comments: A thoroughly libertarian press release and one libertarians can rightfully be proud of. The problem — they should all be this way and should pass without comment.

College presidents: ‘Lower drinking age to 18!’

CNN.com reports:

College presidents from about 100 of the nation’s best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.

Of course, the socialist/fascist MADD wants to make the drinking age your life +1.

The “national drinking age” of 18 is a great example of the tyranny imposed on the states by the federal leviathan. For there is no “national” drinking age — it’s just that the feds withhold highway-funding money from any state that deviates from its rule of 21.

Libertarian solution: Privatize the roads, eliminate drinking ages at all levels, and let freedom reign.

Bob Barr’s attempted thuggery thwarted by judge

Posted by Fred Church Ortiz at Independent Political Report

According to the LA Times‘ Top of the Ticket blog, the judge deciding on the Barr campaign’s last-minute lawsuit against Saddleback Church’s two-party forum was deliberating until at least 8 PM Friday night. According to an update recently posted, the judge has declined the campaign’s request for an injunction, and the event will proceed as planned.

Hooray for the judge heroically striking down the odious Barr’s attempts to use state violence to muscle his way into a private event.

How sad is it that a loss for the LP’s presidential candidate can be celebrated as a win for freedom?

Denver delegates who voted for Barr on any ballot: Hang your heads low in disgrace. Denounce this usurper at once and, in time, you may reclaim your dignity.

“Libertarians” who work for this cretin: Resign if you have any integrity whatsoever.

Barr advocates a racist police state

No surprise coming from the lifelong thug for the state and parasite feeding off taxpayer blood.

I’ll let Lew Rockwell do the talking:

Barr, Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, Krazy Alan Keyes, and Totalitarian Tom Tancredo will be meeting with the Minutemen in Denver to advocate a bigger police state.

Jeez. I wonder why people think Libertarians are really just pissed-off conservatives.

Here’s the link to the story.

Oh, and P.S. Michigan Libertarians: When I agreed, under duress, to be an elector for Barr and to vote for Barr in the electoral college “if” he won the state of Michigan, I did not agree to give up my right to free speech. Any libertarian with an ounce of integrity would be outraged by Barr’s repeated betrayals of libertarian philosophy.

2081: Egalitarian Dystopia

Check out this trailer for the new movie, 2081, based on the Kurt Vonnegut short story, Harrison Bergeron.

Says Lew Rockwell:

Murray Rothbard loved Kurt Vonnegut’s libertarian short story Harrison Bergeron, a dystopian vision of the year 2081 in which everyone is equal. The beautiful must wear masks, the strong and graceful must be hobbled, the brilliant must have their thoughts electronically interrupted, all by decree of the egalitarian State. Here is the trailer of 2081. And you have to love the name of the website: finallyequal.com. Who says the cause of liberty is not making progress? (Thanks to John Hall.)

It looks pretty awesome.

Oh, and is that R. Lee Wrights in the chair? (joke)

The incredible arrogance of John Edwards

Of the Big Three Democrats who sought their party’s 2008 nomination, there is no doubt that John Edwards was the worst. But had he won the nomination and the presidency, his hard-line socialism would have gotten virtually nowhere, and we would be none the worse for it. Still, we can thank our lucky stars that Edwards, the Great White (male) Hope, did not score an upset over Obama/Hillary, as it is clear he would not have won the presidency had he been the Democratic nominee.

This extramarital affair has been a poorly kept secret for a while now. But just think of the incomprehensible arrogance Edwards must possess in order to have done what he did. And I’m not talking about the affair — it should never be a surprise when politicians, criminals by trade, commit fraud against the spouse to whom they have contractually agreed to remain faithful — but having that affair and then continuing with his longshot bid for the presidency.

How could this have played out in Edwards’s head? Did he really think it wouldn’t get revealed? Come on! If he had scored the Dem nomination, this revelation would have helped elect McInsane. Did Edwards care?

Of course, the worst part of all this is that Edwards had an easy out. When his wife — the one he cheated on — was diagnosed with cancer, I remember listening to CNBC’s coverage. Everyone was expecting his presidential campaign to come to an end. Reporters were shocked when his statements seemed to say otherwise, and had to ask him for clarification. Yes, he was still running.

Now there can be no debate; no defense of this man. He’s beyond redemption, a slime ball. He moralized, preached the socialist Christian gospel, condemned gay marriage… I revel in his fall from grace.

I will vote for Bob Barr in the electoral college if he wins the state of Michigan

Apparently, some members of the Libertarian Party of Michigan are “concerned” about my lack of support for our party’s presidential nominee.

Under duress, I agreed to serve as an elector for Bob Barr. I assured the party that I would vote for him if he indeed won the state of Michigan. I did this because no other elector from my congressional district was present, and if I did not agree to be an elector, there was a slight chance that Barr might not appear on the Michigan ballot. I did it for the party.

Later, when Barr endorsed the life and work of racial separatist Jesse Helms, I said I would not vote for him in the electoral college. I said this in a fit of disgusted rage. That’s why I post blogs under the moniker “G.E.” and not my real Christian name. Regardless, it was a stupid thing to say in light of the absolute impossibility of Barr’s victory here or anywhere else, and I apologize to the LPM for it.

I will not vote for Barr, whom I find entirely despicable as a human being and a horrendous candidate for the Libertarian Party, on November 4. I never gave any indication that I would vote for him on Election Day. But yes, “if” he wins the state of Michigan, I will vote for him, as I pledged.

I did not pledge, however, to not fly off the handle on Internet message boards and blogs, for that is a pledge that I could not possibly hope to keep.

Bob Barr disgraces the Libertarian Party yet again

Bob Barr’s true conversion: Not from hardcore statist to libertarian, but from hardcore statist to even harder-core statist… Now he buys into the global warming hysteria of Al Gore.

I tried giving Barr the benefit of the doubt when the story was first breaking:

Bob Barr praised by Al Gore for ’serious attention to global climate change’

It must be noted, of course, that Barr’s mere attendance at the event in no way indicates an endorsement of Gore’s views. However, Gore certainly seems to think — erroneously, probably — that it does.

That turned out to be a bad idea:

Al Gore praised by Bob Barr for ‘commitment to addressing climate change’

“There obviously is a role for government,” Barr said, deviating substantially from libertarian philosophy for at least the second time this week. Earlier, he said he wanted to give the Federal Reserve more oversight powers to regulate the housing market and “privatize” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by contradictorily increasing government support for and regulation of the publicly traded firms.

“There’s a role for private industry,” Barr continued. “There’s a role for nonprofits and certainly a role for the American people, individually and collectively.”

And then, Anthony Gregory confirmed it:

Bob Barr ‘flip-flopping’ on global warming confirmed

On the Glenn Beck show, in early June, Barr said, “Global warming is a myth. And yet it`s being used by the environmental folks, by the internationalists. A lot of the pressure is coming from the United Nations and other countries. Some of which, like China, of course, are pushing the Kyoto Protocol. Why? Because they`re exempt. It`s going to saddle us. And what is McCain doing? He`s out there buying into this global warming, carbon emission cap and trade.”

Now Barr says, “Former Vice President Al Gore and I have met privately to discuss the issue of global warming, and I was pleased and honored that he invited me to attend the ‘We’ Campaign event. Global warming is a reality as most every organization that has studied the matter has concluded, whether conservative-leaning, liberal oriented or independent.”

This, of course, after Barr had the audacity to say that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which trade on the New York Stock Exchange and are considered “quasi” private due to the implied backing of their debt by the government and their heavily regulation — should be “privatized” by making that implied backing a reality and increasing regulation further, saying the Federal Reserve should be given more power.

I haven’t heard from my friends who were foolish enough to vote for Barr, even in later balloting. I hope your silence is out of shame because you should be ashamed for making this cretin the LP’s standard-bearer. Not a day goes by that he doesn’t disgrace the party.

Ready to go to jail? Sign up now!

From the Green Party’s Gregg Jocoy:

Taking the idea of non-violent direct action to it’s logical conclusion, a small (so far) group of people has announced their intention to fill the jails the day George Bush (or the next president) attacks Iran.

The group, organized at FaceBook, goes by the name Iran Pledge of Resistance.
The group issued this statement:

Should the U.S. strike the nation of Iran we will engage in dramatic nonviolent direct action, risking arrest, and hopefully filling up the jails. At 5 p.m. on the same day, or at 9 a.m. the following day (whichever happens sooner) we will go to our nearest places of government (state or federal buildings), and block all entrances until removed by law enforcement. We will make our appearance and the action itself as dramatic as possible.

The founder of the group also maintains a blog which is linked right here.

I’ve joined the group and will keep my eye peeled to see if any of the Presidential candidates agrees to be tossed in jail for opposing an attack on Iran.

Energy-Communist Conservatives

CNN.com has a poll up with more than 200,000 respondents: Should landowners have to give up their property for new oil refineries?

Twenty percent of respondents said YES, landowners should sacrifice their property rights on the alter of energy autarky.

I think it’s safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of these “yes” votes came from self-identified conservatives. After all, as much as the Left loves the collective ownership of property, they hate natural-resource development (favoring poverty) more. Assuming that half of the poll’s respondents are self-identified conservatives (the true number is probably less than that but the difference would be offset by the few liberals who voted “yes”), this means that approximately 40% of conservatives see nothing wrong with Maoistically seizing private property for the nationalist cause.

And this is the type of people we want to bring into our party?

There’s no hope for Reagan idolaters. We’ve scraped the bottom of the conservative barrel and gotten all the converts we’re going to get. That’s why it would have been nice to have had a presidential candidate who would talk to the Left. Bob Barr, of course, is not that man.

Thomas Woods at the Revolution March

A very inspiring speech!

The Fed’s massive redistribution of wealth today

“Freddie Mac” — aka the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) that trades on the New York Stock Exchange — closed at $8 a share on Thursday. This morning, it opened at $4.26 a share and fell to an intra-day low of $3.89. Then Ben Bernanke made it known that the Fed would “lend” money to Freddie and its sister Fannie Mae, and the stock rebounded to close at $7.75.

Big deal, you say?

Consider this: The swing from $3.89 to $7.75 represents $2.5 billion in market capitalization (company value). All based on a few words from the Fed’s Fuhrer.

Oh, and Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage Association)? Its one day swing from $6.68 to $10.25 represented even more money, nearly $3.5 billion.

Today, billions of dollars were lost by investors who finally gave in and sold these junk stocks. But they were suckers. They should have known the fascist Fed would offer to bail them out. The “smart guys” did, and they bought up the stocks and turned billions in profits.

Hmm… Do you think it’s impossible that some people knew in advance what Bernanke would say? No, the government would never do something like that for the benefit of private individuals, would it?

The system is crashing. Both Freddie and Fannie are down by more than 80% for the year.

Lew Rockwell on Jimmy Carter

“Jimmy deregulated trucking and air travel, ended temperature fascism, abolished two federal agencies, and was opposed by the evil Teddy Kennedy for renomination for not being socialist enough. Carter still teaches Sunday school every week, and is an actual peacemaker. The election of Reagan was a huge step down.“

But Lew, don’t you know that Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms defeated Communism? That’s what “Libertarian” Bob Barr says. How dare you sow seeds of disunity within the libertarian movement, Lew!

The Austrian/Monetarist split as a proxy for the rift within the LP

From Amateur Economists:

“Libertarians are Republicans who smoke pot.” So goes the saying. And most Americans know little else about the Libertarian Party, America’s third largest, or the libertarian political philosophy. So when former Republican congressman Bob Barr announced his candidacy for the LP’s presidential nomination on May 12, the mainstream media assumed he was a shoo-in. After all, he was a Republican and now lobbies for the Marijuana Policy Project—how could someone better fit the popular definition?

But what the media failed to recognize is that many party members don’t consider libertarianism to be a branch of conservatism but, instead, its diametric opposite. These libertarians refused to embrace Barr and, instead, rallied behind the candidacy of party stalwart Mary Ruwart during the Libertarian National Convention on May 25. It took six ballots before Barr was finally able to win the party’s nomination with just over 51% of the vote, and the rift now between the “reformers” who backed Barr and the “radicals” who supported Ruwart is bitter—and largely economics related.

Read the whole article.

Foreclosures of the Rich and Famous

From Amateur Economists:

The bursting of the housing bubble has not only hurt middle-class and semi-affluent Americans (who thought they were more affluent than they were!), but also the rich and famous. Everyone has heard about Ed McMahon’s troubles – his wife sharing how she’s been so degraded that she now shops at (gasp!) Target of all places – but he’s not the only one.

The article highlights the troubles of Latrell Sprewell, Evander Holyfield, Jose Canseco, Michael Jackson, and Aretha Franklin, before concluding with:

The housing bubble and its subsequent burst were caused by the Federal Reserve’s fiat-money central banking. On the one hand, people such as McMahon, Sprewell, and Franklin should be held responsible for the bad financial decisions they’ve made — just as the heads of all of the middle- and lower-income families have been. But on the other hand, whether it’s Michael Jackson or my parents (who lost their home of nearly 30 years), it must be recognized that the Federal Reserve System obfuscates and sends false signals to market participants. When politicians talk about “helping” the people under the distress of a housing market turned upside down, they cannot be taken seriously unless they first recognize the entity that causes booms and busts: The Federal Reserve.

Read the full article here.

Bob Barr and the Big Fascist Lie

The more I’ve thought about Barr’s recent statement imploring Americans to “give thanks to God” for the “life and work” of racist U.S. Senator Jesse Helms, the angrier I’ve become. And it’s really not so much about Helms’s racism as it is about the fascist lie of the “New Right” — i.e. the militarist, anti-Taftian Right — that Reagan and Fed-financed fascism helped “bring down Communism.”

This, even more than rank racism, is a complete rejection of libertarian principles. As our standard-bearer, we have a guy who believes that if not for the fascist central planning and militarization of FDR/Truman/LBJ/Reagan, etc. — and the fiat-money central bank that financed it — Communism would have prevailed.

It took fascism, in Barr’s view, to defeat Communism.

This is a complete rejection of lessons taught by Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard — you know, libertarians – as well as the Old Right views of Robert Taft and Howard H. Buffett. Namely, that Communism is doomed to fail.

Freedom did not win out and Communism wouldn’t have fallen of its own accord — at least not according to the “libertarian” candidate for president.

That the Libertarian Party would have a nominee who spreads this offensive statist propaganda — that which the “New Right” has been spreading for decades in defense of the welfare/warfare state — is absolutely disgusting and should be the final straw for any right-thinking Libertarian.

Barr is not a libertarian, but a conservative of the worst sort. And he’s not a capitalist, but an out-and-out fascist. Just as CIA operative W.F. Buckley infiltrated the anti-war conservative movement of the post WWII era, so has another CIA operative infiltrated libertarianism. Now that his true colors have been revealed to all, without doubt, he should be firmly rejected in the most vociferous manner possible.

Should libertarians support Chuck Baldwin? Part II

Back on May 27, I wrote a piece for Independent Political Report entitled, “Should libertarians consider Chuck Baldwin?” Unfortunately, it made a couple of incorrect assumptions.

For one, Chuck Baldwin does in fact support the Defense of Marriage Act. Secondly, he also supports an extra-constitutional federal abortion ban.

I recently interviewed Baldwin over the phone, and when asked to make his pitch to libertarians, here is what he said:

I understand that some libertarians do not share my conviction that life begins at conception and that we need to protect it. I understand that some don’t share our concerns on the moral issues, but I’ll say this to all the Libertarians and independents: If you believe that a secure border is critical to our nation’s survival, then I’m the only candidate for president in 2008 you can vote for… I’m also the guy that has historically stood against the Patriot Act, from the beginning. I will never allow eavesdropping on private citizens without a court order. I’m going to stop the New World Order, the NAFTA Superhighway. I really believe that NAFTA and GATT and WTO and all those so-called free trade deals have torn our country apart.

Baldwin was confused by the notion that “all” peaceable immigrants who wanted to work in America be allowed to, and said that the current immigration process is very “generous” and very “fair.”

He also said that he was on the same page with unilateral free trader Ron Paul, and that “maybe some libertarians don’t understand” Ron Paul’s position. Baldwin says he supports a 10% universal tariff to replace the income tax.

You can read the full report on the interview here. I will try to post the audio later today.

Bob Barr: Statist, abortionist, homophobe, and now racist

I have given Bob Barr every last possible chance to win my support. I have overlooked his part in the plot of smear Mary Ruwart. I’ve given him a semi-pass on his continued drug warriorism and love of big-government intervention. And I’m ashamed to say I even looked beyond his blatant homophobia.

But his July 4 press release in support of racist Senator Jesse Helms has pushed me over the line.

I will not vote for Bob Barr for president and, if by some miracle he wins the state of Michigan, I will not cast my electoral vote for him either.

It’s not just that Barr “sent condolences” to the family of racist dictator-lover Jess Helms. That would have been fine. No, Barr went so far as to call on ME to “give thanks to God” for the “life and work” — racist life and work — of Jesse Helms. That, I find completely outrageous and absolutely unforgivable.

Barr is a collectivist, anti-intellectual moron who does not understand that Communism was brought down under its own inefficiency — not the deficit spending and Fed-financed fascism of the disastrous Reagan administration. Barr is a pitiful disgrace to the Libertarian Party and libertarianism and I have diminished respect for anyone who continues to support him and call themselves a libertarian. Sorry.

Let’s take a look at Helm’s history:

Helms’s racist political activities began no later than 1950, when while working on a Democratic primary campaign, Helms helped create an ad that read, “White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races.”

Thirteen years later, Helms had this to say of civil-rights protesters: “The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that’s thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men’s rights.”

That same year, Helms also wrote, “Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced.”

In 1960, Helms worked on the unsuccessful Democratic primary gubernatorial campaign of I. Beverly Lake, Sr., who ran as a supporter of racial segregation.

Helms became a Republican and in 1972 was elected to the U.S. Senate. He gave support to Ronald Reagan — Barr’s political idol — in 1976 during his insurgent run against incumbent Gerald Ford.

In 1983, Helms opposed making Martin Luther King a national holiday not on constitutional grounds — but on the spurious grounds that King has “communist ties.”

Helms once purposely sought to offend Carol Mosely Braun, an African-American senator, by whistling “Dixie” and singing a song about the “good life” during slavery. “Watch me make her cry,” he said to a colleague once Braun was trapped in an elevator with him.

Helms was also a hardcore interventionist. He had ties to Salvadorian death squads and was an outspoken supporter of fascist dictator Pinochet of Chile.

This is a man Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr considers to be “one of the finest, most courageous and deeply principled men to ever serve in the United States Congress.”

It is clear that Bob Barr does not want my vote or my support and he shall have neither. It is also clear that Bob Barr does want my antipathy — and the antipathy of others like me — and that he shall have. Although I will continue to run Independent Political Report in as objective of a manner as I can, I will no longer hold back in any other forum or setting in exposing Barr for the racist, homophobic, baby-murdering thug that he is.

Baldwin/Jay/Nader/McKinney ‘08.

My idea for a libertarian TV ad: Your thoughts requested

[Picture: A guy with a "Will Work For Food" sign]
“The Economy…”

[Same guy in suit throwing money into the air]
“Fixed!”

[A kid reading a book upside down]
“Education…”

[Now the same kid at a chalkboard doing a complex equation]
“Better than ever!”

[A not-too-offensive war pic]
“World peace…”

[happy people]
“Achieved!”

[Open casket]
“Mortality…”

[Man sits up in casket]
“Abolished!”

[Scotty Boman]
“Are you tired of politicians making promises they can’t keep? Republicans and Democrats are living in a fantasy world if they think we can keep printing and borrowing money to fund big government. It has to end. A vote for Libertarian Scotty Boman is a vote to end the war, end the Federal Reserve, and end the income tax and replace it with nothing but more freedom. A vote for the opposition is a vote for more of the same. It’s time to get serious, Michigan.”

Starchild, Gatties, Newton laud Scotty Boman’s U.S. Senate candidacy

Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan, Scotty Boman, is attempting to mount one of the more active statewide campaigns of 2008, and prominent libertarians — both in and outside of Michigan — are taking notice.

Here is what nationally known libertarian activist Starchild said in endorsing Scotty Boman:

As a fellow libertarian activist and Ron Paul supporter I’m proud to endorse Scotty for U.S. Senate. The people of Michigan are lucky to have the opportunity to vote for a candidate this committed to restoring the Bill of Rights and helping keep the country from moving further down the road toward a police state. Like Ron Paul, he is clearly someone who is in this for the long haul and will not sell out your freedom for money and power.

Jason Gatties, a fellow Michigander, said this:

It gives me great pleasure to offer my endorsement of Scotty Boman for U.S. Senate. Carl Levin is an enemy of Liberty. Scotty Boman will help return real freedom to this country.

Steve Newton went beyond an endorsement and wrote a full-length article at his blog, Delaware Libertarian:

I keep trying to make the point here that there are credible Libertarian candidates out there doing the heavy lifting of trying to turn this into a real political party.

Another one is Scotty Boman, running for US Senate against Carl Levin in Michigan.

Boman is a long-time Libertarian activist, seeking to build on Ron Paul’s momentum, and his positions are strongly in favor of human liberty: get out of Iraq, non-interventionist foreign policy, end the war on drugs, end domestic surveillance, and get the government out of the marriage business.

Read the rest.

Other Boman endorsers LFV readers may be familiar with include Jake Porter and Darcy G. Richardson.

Boman has also won the endorsements of several Michigan county coordinators for the Ron Paul for President campaign, as well as the Ron Paul’s statewide coordinator for Michigan, Leslie Roszman.

Disclosure: I am working with and supporting Scotty Boman for U.S. Senate.

Theory: Carlin’s heart couldn’t take the Russert hoopla

Can you imagine how, if he had lived, George Carlin would have responded to the TEN DAYS worth of 24/7 coverage of “the death that enveloped the nation in grief”???

I’m sure that this was the cause of Carlin’s heart failure.

America had finally reached its zenith of Roman decadence when a neocon statist shill for the Regime was mourned for TEN DAYS PLUS and treated like a widely beloved figure… The shame of the statist media.

I don’t think George Carlin’s heart could take it.

New Ron Paul conspiracy theory

Apparently, some incredibly insane Ron Paul fans believe that he hasn’t really bowed out of the presidential race, that his Web site has been hacked, and that everyone has fallen for a big hoax.

Says Lew Rockwell:

A few people are refusing to accept the fact that Ron has dropped out of the presidential race, and are writing me about it. They claim I’ve fallen for an MSM lie, that the ex-campaign website — with its beautiful thank-you message and photo of Ron — has been been hacked, that Ron’s new Campaign for Liberty is not the successor and replacement for his presidential effort. Folks, the presidential campaign office has been closed, the staff let go, the phones, etc. transferred, and the FEC forms filed. The presidential effort is over, through, done, kaput. There is, of course, much exciting work to do for peace, civil liberties, free markets, and sound money, now and in the future. But no more electoral politics!

When the MSM implied that some Ron Paul fans were loony, I thought I knew what they meant.

This “theory” takes the cake as the most ludicrous in the history of human thought.

Bob Barr on the Fed: Not encouraging

Here’s what Bob Barr said on the Glenn Beck radio show in response to a question about the Fed:

If I could wave a magic wand and the Federal Reserve Bank would disappear tomorrow, I would do so. It’s a group of unelected governors that are not answerable to or accountable to the people of this country and yet they wield considerable influence over the economy by basically setting rates at which banks and other financial institutions can loan money. And they have built up, you know, huge reserves themselves that they can then dole out as they’re doing — as they did recently with Bear Stearns to prop up as failing, what they see as failing investment houses, for example.

What we’re on the verge of right now, Glenn, through this federal government monkeying around with the mortgage business, both directly and indirectly, is to have the federal government now set a “One size fits all” mortgage criteria for the country. That would be disastrous. It would stifle risk-taking, it would stifle the independence of small mortgage houses and mortgage banks and would simply create further problems down the road. What we need to be doing is tackling government spending. That is the root of all evil, so to speak. We need to get a handle on federal spending, we need to start reducing the economic footprint and, you know, all the other footprints of the federal government if we want to talk about them, and get the federal government out of running our economy. It was never intended to be the job of the federal government to run the economy.

Let’s take a look at the statement:

“If I could wave a magic wand and the Federal Reserve Bank would disappear tomorrow, I would do so.”

You don’t need a “magic wand.” You just need Congress to pass a law repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and then you, as president, need to sign it. What’s with the “magic wand” talk? You’re much more likely to need a “magic wand” to repeal the 16th amendment, which would not take away Congress’s ability to assess an income tax, contrary to Barr’s understanding. In fact, only a “magic wand” could do that.

This one sentence basically tells me all I need to know about Barr, RE: the Fed, but I’ll continue.

“It’s a group of unelected governors that are not answerable to or accountable to the people of this country and yet they wield considerable influence over the economy by basically setting rates at which banks and other financial institutions can loan money.”

This “unelected governors” talk — as if it would be okay to have a fiat-money issuing central bank cartel if only its governors were elected by the people — is B.S. In fact, the central bank’s “independence” is actually better than the alternative. What is Barr saying here, that he thinks the government, instead of its proxies at the Fed, should have even more control over the money supply?

And what does he mean that they “basically” set the rates at which banks and other financial institutions can loan money? The Fed sets the discount rate and if they really want to set the federal funds rate, they can do that too. There’s really no “basically” about it.

“And they have built up, you know, huge reserves themselves that they can then dole out as they’re doing — as they did recently with Bear Stearns to prop up as failing, what they see as failing investment houses, for example.”

The Fed doesn’t need to have “reserves” — it has the legal authority to create money out of thin air! To the extent that they have “build up reserves,” I guess that’s good, since at least they’re not inflating by creating more money.

“What we’re on the verge of right now, Glenn, through this federal government monkeying around with the mortgage business, both directly and indirectly, is to have the federal government now set a ‘One size fits all’ mortgage criteria for the country. It would stifle risk-taking, it would stifle the independence of small mortgage houses and mortgage banks and would simply create further problems down the road.“

This reminds me of the embarrassing LP press release saying that “for the first time” the government was enacting price controls on food. The government has been “monkeying around” with the mortgage business towards “one size fits all” since the creation of the FHA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. This is nothing new.

“What we need to be doing is tackling government spending…”

Yes, change the subject. Mr. Beck’s question was about the one institution that makes all of that government spending possible. If you want to curb government spending, then look to the Fed! Don’t divert the question about monetary policy to an answer involving fiscal policy — that’s like saying “we need to do something about this heat!” when asked about fixing the air conditioner.

Bernanke admits, celebrates connection between fiat money and war-making

While dedicating the new Kansas City Fed building, Bernanke said:

“Considering the Federal Reserve’s history, this location is a most appropriate site for a Federal Reserve Bank, with its new neighbor being the National World War I Museum at Liberty Memorial. Those who have an appreciation of U.S. history know that the Federal Reserve played an important role in support of the funding of the First World War and that the war forced the early Federal Reserve to contend with an uncertain global environment with wide-ranging monetary and economic ramifications.”

For once, a truth teller at the Fed.

Six plank suggestions for the Boston Tea Party

The Boston Tea Party seems to have found its ticket — Charles Jay and Tom Knapp — and it is working on a platform. I recently joined the BTP and offered six suggestions on constitutional and monetary issues. Your feedback is appreciated.

1. The Boston Tea Party acknowledges that the 14th amendment was never properly ratified, is illegitimate, and all ensuing legislation based upon the 14th amendment, including the Supreme Court’s “incorporation doctrine,” is null and void.
2. The Boston Tea Party calls for the repeal of the 16th amendment, and a new amendment to the Constitution limiting the scope of Congress’s powers of taxation to proportioned taxes assessed to the states.
3. The Boston Tea Party calls for the repeal of the 17th amendment, which gave us the direct election of senators. U.S. Senators should be elected by their state legislatures in order to best represent the interests of the individual states versus the federal government, as the framers intended.
4. The Boston Tea Party calls for a Free Trade Amendment to the Constitution, revoking Congress’s powers to assess tariffs, duties, or other taxes on imports, and barring embargoes, sanctions, quotas, and other restrictions on free trade absent a formal declaration of war against the named country. This amendment would render all current trade agreements null and void and prohibit the negotiation of new ones, henceforth.
5. The Boston Tea Party calls for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, and the liquidation of the Federal Reserve System and all federal-government assets, excluding those few necessary for legitimate constitutional functions, for the purpose of paying off the national debt and redeeming all outstanding Federal Reserve Notes, pro-rata.
6. The Boston Tea Party calls for the full legalization of competing currencies and the abolition of unconstitutional legal-tender laws. Under the Constitution, only the states may declare legal tender, and they are limited to choices of gold and silver.

Note: Membership in the Boston Tea Party in no way excludes someone from membership in the LP, nor does it preclude support of the LP presidential ticket. I do like having the BTP as a back-up option for a write-in vote that will be counted, though. And I think it will be fun to help fashion a truly libertarian platform, without the statist “reformers” raining on our parade.

The government is bankrupt: Repudiation or liquidation?

I’ve been having an ongoing debate with another libertarian about the subject of debt repudiation. I think it’s a bad, impractical, and ultimately elitist/statist idea. My opponent thinks it’s a populist issue that could be used to garner support for libertarians from untouched segments of the electorate.

The idea behind repudiation is fairly simple: The federal government simply says, “We’re not paying” to its nearly $9 trillion worth of creditors. Of course, this would render the U.S. dollar (properly known as the Federal Reserve Note, or FRN) effectively worthless. It would also enrage foreign governments, perhaps to the point of provoking military hostilities, and most certainly cause international trade to grind to a halt.

The “populist” idea behind repudiation is that future taxpayers should not be made to pay for the government’s past excesses. But of course, by crushing the U.S. economy, likely provoking war, and redistributing wealth from those who held it in dollars (i.e. the middle class) to those who held it in hard assets and foreign currencies (i.e. the rich), I’m not sure the sons and daughters of working Americans would be all that thankful.

My alternative: The debt is owed in terms of Federal Reserve Notes, which the government may create at will. Current Federal Reserve Notes are backed by nothing but “faith” in the government, which could be seen as a residual claim on the government’s assets in the event of default. This puts FRNs on par with government bonds. Those who purchase government bonds do so with the expectation of receiving future revenues diminished by inflation, and with the full knowledge that government policies will impact the value of their returns. So here is what should be done…

1. FRNs should be printed to pay off the debt, after which time, the Federal Reserve would be abolished (along with most of the rest of government)
2. Federal government assets, excluding gold, should be auctioned off in terms of FRNs
3. Remaining FRNs would be convertible for gold at a rate based on the remaining money supply and the government’s gold stock
4. The federal government goes out of business

This would be bankruptcy and liquidation as opposed to debt repudiation. The main difference is that those with paper assets would have some relief, and, at the end of the liquidation, the government would be out of business. Under repudiation, only those who held wealth in hard assets and foreign currencies (the rich) would benefit, and the government would still own everything it owns today. Debt repudiation, in my mind, cannot stand up to intellectual or moral scrutiny, and libertarians should avoid making it part of their program.

The Barr dilemma: What’s a radical to do?

Going into the convention, CIA asset and FairTaxer Bob Barr was unquestionably my last choice for president. I thought there was no way I could support his candidacy, and then the possibility of a Barr/Kubby ticket caused me to reconsider. Alas, it was not to be, and I left Denver with no intention of even voting for (much less supporting) the LP this presidential election.

I floated the idea of Libertarians for Baldwin at Independent Political Report. It was a non-starter. A few of my Rockwellian allies were/are amenable to the idea — with the same reservations I have — but most folks see the anti-gay, protectionist, anti-immigration Baldwin as at least slightly worse than Barr. To his credit, Baldwin is not a “former” CIA operative and he does take a strong stand against the Fed.

I’ve listened to and read the arguments posed by Less Antman, and I’m inclined to agree. I’m personally going to take a wait-and-see approach, and I suspect many of my fellow radicals (especially Rockwellians) are going to do the same. Word is that two very prominent Austrians may endorse Chuck Baldwin — which I can’t believe could happen without him restating his opposition to the free market — and that could change things for me.

I do not feel I’m under a moral obligation to support the Libertarian Party ticket, as some “reformers” — who I know would have stormed off it a real libertarian had won in Denver — want to claim. Although I don’t think the Barr campaign engaged in any type of shenanigans at the convention, I do believe they participated in a terribly unethical plot to smear Mary Ruwart prior to it — a plot involving abuse of power at LPHQ and the semi-covert conversion of a third-party news site into a propaganda mill for Barr. A fair and square loss would have been hard enough to swallow. But when Republican hate tactics are used to advance a Republican candidate within the LP, the pill’s a little bitterer. And so am I.

At LFV, I’ve read comments from a number of disgruntled radicals who feel the same way I do. The healing process is going to take some time. Maybe in a few days, a few weeks, or a few months, we’ll be ready to get behind Barr. Maybe not. Many of us and most of our candidates have taken bruises for the libertarian movement. Barr and Root are both unscathed. Let them leave some blood on the battle field, and I think plenty of on-the-fence radicals will come rushing to their aid. But if they play it safe and market themselves as “conservatives for medical marijuana,” don’t expect much from us.

Humble request of Barr/Root backers

I’ve been hired to write an article about the convention, but I don’t have any pictures of Barr or Root. If you snapped some pics of decent quality (i.e. not from your cell phone) and wouldn’t mind them being used, please let me know.

Secondly, the article I’m writing is about the monetary policy of the candidates. I’ve heard nothing about monetary policy from Barr or Root — have they made any statements? I don’t want to mischaracterize their positions as “pro-Fed” if they are in fact not.

Thank you

Root/Kubby could have been ‘unity ticket’

Yes, a lot of Mary Ruwart backers are quite bitter. Do you imagine it would be any different from the other side, had she won? I was reviewing the round-by-round results earlier today, and the thought struck me: Some pragmatist (not me, I would take a bullet for Mary) should have organized the vast center and engineered a compromise. If Root could have pulled off enough votes to leap over Mary and into second place, then the Mary backers could have been made the kingmakers one insider predicted they would be. We would have chosen Root, of course, but we could have gotten his support for a Kubby VP nomination. Thus, both Barr and Ruwart would be off the ticket, and neither side would have “won.” There would still be hard feelings, but Barr and Mary backers could each take solace in the fact that the other lost, and both would find the Root/Kubby ticket equally agreeable.

G.E. (no longer) live in Denver: Posthumous report

First, I want to offer my apologies to Elfninosmom for not being able to provide more coverage while in Denver.

I left off Thursday night after the Libertarians for Justice event. The next morning, a strange thing happened: I got put to work.

Friday

I manned the Mary Ruwart booth for much of the day. This is when I first got to really meet Mary, and she shocked me by asking me to giver her a nominating speech. I was afraid to say yes, but I couldn’t say no. I would be horribly nervous and dreading the idea of it for the next 48 hours.

I had lunch with Tom Knapp. He bought. He told me about an apparent attack on George Phillies the night before — I mean a real attack — by an armed gunman. I never found out anything more about this, and inexplicably, I forgot to ask George when I saw him.

A little later, Andy and I ran into the WWE wrestler, Kane. Andy talked him up. He was very knowledgeable about wrestling, and Kane was impressed. Andy asked Kane which candidate he supported, and Kane pointed his thumb at the Ruwart booth. “You support Mary Ruwart?” Andy asked for clarification. Kane shook his head affirmatively. I later told this to Lee Wrights and we made several efforts to build a bridge with Kane without being too pushy. The day of the voting, Kane gave me a big thumbs up after my speech and I noticed he was wearing a Mary Ruwart button.

But back to Friday: This was the night of the big “unofficial, all-inclusive” debate. I have to say I would have much preferred a “mostly inclusive” format, rather than all-inclusive. Candidates without even two supporters don’t need to be heard. This includes both the crazy (Imperato and Alden Link), as well as the sane and principled candidates with no support whatsoever (Jim Burns).

If there were any doubts (and I don’t think there were), Imperato firmly established himself as batshit crazy during the debate. Wow. Paulie was sitting next to me and cracking jokes all night long. The whole audience snickered and outright laughed every time Imperato would go into long multi-lingual rants — “Must be he bought Dondero’s book,” Paulie said — or bragged of his connections (knows George W. Bush very well, partner with bin-Laden, has adopted nephews and nieces in Abu Dabai who call him “Uncle Dammy”). Imperato would also redirect every financial, fiscal, or monetary issue to his theory of Jacob and Esau, whereby Arabs were now jealous of the Jewish money mastery.

Alden Link: What a waste of time. Totally not libertarian in the least. Energy socialist. Monetary moron. Literally supported the “military industrial complex” in both name and spirit. Bigoted against Muslims. For the war on terror. Paulie said, “New rumor: Alden Link is Eric Dondero’s grandfather.”

Jon Finan was the only candidate (other than Barr) not in attendance. I did see him on Sunday on the convention floor. I don’t know why he didn’t show at this debate, but I’m glad he didn’t.

G.E. in Denver III: Gravel vs. Starchild (and Andy)

Next was Q&A. One of the first questions was asked by Starchild. I don’t know the proper pronoun to use here, and I don’t want to be offensive, so I’ll say SC. SC asked the candidates, [note: please assume all quotes are paraphrased], “Do you believe the core of libertarianism is that you should be able to do what you want with your own body, life, and property, so long as you infringe on no one else?” They (Link, Mary Ruwart, Kubby, Gravel and Jingo all raised their hands). “Okay, then how can some of you support coercive taxation to fund education.” It was targeted to Gravel, of course.

I’ll skip the blow by blow and tell you that Gravel and Starchild had a rather length exchange. Stardchild kept SC’s cool, but dismissively (and deservedly) shook SC’s head and smiled at some of Gravel’s outlandishly statist propositions, but Gravel got fuming mad, shouting down SC. Gravel said you can’t have liberty without education and that without government schools, everyone would be dumb. And of course, we are too dumb now precisely because government schools are too decentralized. SC pointed out Gravel’s many contradictions which made the old man rage. “What do you want?” he asked, “voluntary education?” YES!, the crowd roared. “Show me where that has worked,” Gravel demanded.

At this point, Andy got into the act. “Right here in this country,” he said. Gravel disagreed. Andy set him straight. “FINE!” Gravel barked. “You want to go back to the 18th century, go right ahead.” Andy rejoined: “It’s not going back to the 18th century, it’s going back to freedom.” (That was a direct quote). The crowd erupted in cheers while the Maoist Gravel cohort sat on their hands.

Finally, Jim Duesning made Gravel shut up and let Steve Kubby speak. “There’s never a justification for using force to achieve goals,” he said. Short and sweet. Jingo said the same thing (he may have said it before Kubby, actually), and I waned to ask him how he saw protectionism as non-coercive.

There were a lot of questions on which Gravel’s anti-libertarian colors were exposed. At one point, he literally ridiculed libertarians for never getting anything done. Mary Ruwart pointed out that libertarians have changed people’s attitudes. This did not register with Gravel, who thinks change can only come through coercion.

A gentleman asked a question about the Fed and central banking. Link had disappeared by now and no one noticed. Jingo recalled a conversation with the Liberty Dollar founder (Bernand something) and agreed with him that a competing currency would destroy the Fed in a less tumultuous manner than an outright abolition. Jingo pointed out that saying “let’s allow competing currencies” seems completely logical to average voters.

Kubby and Ruwart gave predictably sound answers. Kubby pointed out that the dollar’s value, when compared to the loony, has halved. Ruwart blamed regulations for gold-standard-era depressions.

Gravel’s answer was thoroughly statist. He said gold and silver were dumb because Russia and South Africa had all the gold and silver (as if that matters). He then lionized that great libertarian, Abe Lincoln, as the pioneer of fiat money, with his government-issued greenbacks. Gravel thought it was great that these helped fund the War Against Southern Independence. He wants more authority for the government over money.

Oh, and I should mention that Jim Duesning said, “I wish George Phillies were here to answer this question.” Phillies, of course, supports the Fed’s monetary fascism. It was the second potshot at Phillies. Earlier, someone asked, “Where’s Bob Barr?” Duesning said all candidates had been invited and that anyone who did not think 9/11 needed an investigation, who trusted the government, was not a libertarian. He specifically mentioned the names Phillies, Root, and Barr (although allowed for as how they may have had legitimate commitments to other events).

Andy asked the next question: What do you think of the Fair Tax and the NAU. No one really talked about NAU, but a FairTax debate erupted, with Gravel supporting it strongly. Kubby made a whole new set of arguments against the FairTax that I had not even considered — as if that even needed to be done! Mary Ruwart said, “the only FairTax is NO TAX.” The crowd liked that. Gravel rambled on about how the LP was a “half-percent party” because of things like this. He is Dear Leader, and if we only follow him, we will win. What a hollow victory that would be.

There was some other mild drama, although I don’t remember when. A weird guy tried to take the stage, and Jim Duesning had to have him thrown out. “Don’t make me come off this stage!” he yelled at the dude. I felt bad for Duesning. He put on a good event.

G.E. live from Denver: Part 2 – Libertarians for Justice

I left off last time just as I was about go to to sleep, having had only four total hours the past two days. I did, and woke up four hours later, just in time for the Libertarians for Justice event. I chatted with some nice “Truthers” (I hate that word but don’t know a better one). There is no doubt that there are unanswered questions that need answering.

Anyway, I lost track of time, and when I went into the actual event, Mary Ruwart was speaking. I had missed Jim Burns. Ruwart gave a nice Ron Paulian speech, but the crowd had not warmed up yet.

Next up was Imperato. He was wearing some kind of papal knight accessory. He said he had an office next door to the Twin Towers and that he had friends who jumped out of windows. He said his employees heard bombs go off in the basement, but that he thinks they were planted by the terrorists. The cover up, he says, is to protect the bureaucrats who failed. Plausible enough. Then he goes into how the reason Muslims hate America has to do with Jacob and Esau, and that Christopher Columbe, a Jew, consecrated America as a Judeo-Christian land (no mention of the fact that “Columbe” never set foot on North America). George Washington also took his oath of office on the exact spot of the Twin Towers, according to Imperato, and Muslims attacked out jealousy . . . Jealousy over the Jewish people’s “shrewdness” at “controlling Wall Street.”

I can’t remember who came next, but I’m pretty sure it was Jingzian. Mike Jingozian is a really good speaker, and he did a great job. Seems like a nice guy. Not 100% libertarian, though. Also puts on airs. Presents self as expert on foreign policy and finance and is mildly condescending.

When Gravel came to the stage, there were cheers all over the place. I thought maybe the general audience “Truthers” were fans of his, but in reality, he had packed the crowd. He went on about his Maoist “Direct Democracy” and offered a free signed copy of his book, Citizen Power, to any delegate who agreed to read two chapters. Gravel’s big message was that the Libertarian Party is full of overly principled morons who’ve never accomplished anything, and that he can win if we give him the nomination. We have our heads in the clouds, he argues. Gravel is big on “power” (his word). He says Nixon should have been put in jail, and wants to use subpoena power (presumably on citizens as well as government officials) to get to the bottom of 9/11. When he was done speaking, there was huge applause and then, when he left, so did about 1/3 of the crowd.

This was unfair to Steve Kubby who went on next. Wow, Steve looks a lot better (not to sound Donderian) in real life than in his pictures. He looks very healthy and he is an excellent public speaker. He got the crowd riled up unlike any of the others before him, despite its smaller size. He dealt with the matter at hand, and limited his comments to the demand for an investigation. The crowd liked that.

Then came Alden Link. Yeah. He talked about socialist energy policy — he approves. Bragged about the solar panels he’s having installed on his house. Said the military-industrial complex was a good thing, for it kept us safe. But then talked very libertarianly and knowledgeably about ending the Drug War.

DRAMA ALERT!!!

That was supposed to be it, but then John Finan arrived. He seemed normal enough. He’s a handsome guy (I swear this is not Dondero posting under my name) who would be a believable as a business titan in a movie. His speech was fairly straight forward — although he did say he would get on Oprah, Letterman, and Conan O’Brien if made the nominee. He didn’t really address the issue at hand. Then, when he was finished, Jim Duesning (leader of Libertarians for Justice) stood next to him on the podium and, completely innocently, said (I’m paraphrasing) “I’ve just been informed that John Finan has not signed our pledge calling for an investigation. I have this glossy page right here, and this fancy marker, would you like to sign right now?”

It seemed to be that Duesning was giving Finan a nice little publicity opportunity here, but Finan did NOT take it that way. He took the mic from Duesning, he gladly gave it to him, and said (again, paraphrasing), “What do you think of me being put on the spot to sign this? Should I sign it?” The crowd was, surprisingly mixed. “I WILL NOT BE AMBUSHED! I WILL NOT BE PRESSURED!”

I should also mention that, while Finan’s speech seemed normal enough, after the following events, some of his gestures and facial expressions took on a Mussolinian context.

Duesning snatched the mic back from him and was like, “I’m giving you a chance to sign this or not.” Finan tried to grab the mic, but Duesning wouldn’t let him have it. Finan screamed in a booming voice, “I DON’T NEED A MICROPHONE! I WILL NOT BE PRESSURED!” And then made was looked like a Nazi salute and walked off stage, still carrying the apparently precious silver marker. “Give back the marker,” Duesning demanded. “I’m keeping the marker!” Finan declared.

Wow.

Eventually, a little lady in a red shirt stormed across the room saying she had paid for this event and the marker and demanded it! Finan passed it to a guy sitting down, who gave it to the lady. He was then escorted out of the conference hall.

And that wasn’t the end of the drama… (to be continued)

G.E. live from Denver: Part 1

Arrived in Denver 9:00 a.m. local time. Found a dude waving a “Libertarian Party” sign and figured he was a fellow LPer. Instead, he was trying to round up Libertarians for the 45-minute shuttle trek from the airport to downtown Denver. I saw one guy walking around that I was sure was a libertarian, but the sign-waver was covering another area. Sure enough, he joined in a few minutes to wait for the shuttle. Come to find out, he was (is) a friend of Austin Cassidy and hopes to run with him on the multi-seat Soil and Water board.

Anyway, joining us in the shuttle six other Libertarian — three of them women. Taking shotgun was none other than Susan Hogarth. Susan heartily endorsed Ruth Bennett for chair. One of our shuttlemates, a guy named Scott who does ballot-access work for the LP, says a change would be disastrous to the LP’s ballot-access program. Maybe he has a point. But my vote goes against the current regime.

When I got to the hotel, the first thing I saw gave me chills: Allan Hacker and Daniel Imperato walking hand in hand. Is there a new conspiracy in the works? How do thetans relate to the Knights of Malta? Regardless, Austin’s friend and I got turned around in the hotel, and Allan Hacker lent us a helping hand. A little later, Daniel Imperato approached me — seeming totally normal and nice — trying to get my debate token. When I told him “I have to think about it,” he was totally cool with it.

No hardcore bad blood so far. But rumor has it that the former owner of TPW (and not the one now affiliated with IPR) wants to initiate force against my face. I guess I have become a scapegoat for everyone who sees this certain someone as part of a plot — call it a neocon plot. To the best of my knowledge, I have never called him a neocon, and if I have, I shouldn’t have.

Had lunch with Paulie, Angela Keaton, and Michelle Shinghall (sp). All of these people are way cooler in real life than they seem online, and they seem pretty cool online. Angela in particular has been very helpful to me and to the bloggers who were stripped of press creds following the Viguerie coup. I was invited by Angela to blog the LNC meeting, but my laptop was in my room which is like a mile away. I got here and decided to write this blog instead, and then I’m going to sleep. (I’ve had a combined total of four hours in the past 48).

Anonymous source: The radicals have, at best, 15 percent strength and either Barr or Root is going to be the nominee. This multi-person source supports Kubby/Ruwart. He/she/they all agree that the role for radicals will be to be kingmaker — who will do less damage to the LP: Barr or Root?

Not-so-anonymous source (Susan Hogarth): “I think Ruwart will take it.”

More to come.

The LPHQ NeoConspiracy

1. 2003: Bob Barr, disgraced by an electoral loss engineered by the Libertarian Party, becomes hellbent on revenge.
2. He joins the LP and the LNC, and cozies up with the Beltwayite Statotarians who parasitically live off our membership dues.
3. Among them, Stephen Gordon and Shane Cory.
4. Gordon and Barr bond while suggestively slobbing the nobs of expensive cigars, and the Beltwayite Gordon — awestruck that a real, live Congresscritter is paying attention to him — falls for Barr’s plot hook, line and stinker.
5. Gordon leaves the LPHQ and purchases the heretofore “fair and balanced” Third Party Watch. He skillfully gets the site indexed on Google News. Now the stage is set to use TPW as a bully pulpit for Barr, for whom Gordon has secretly been working behind the scenes.
6. Barr and Viguerie hook up. (This may have come much earlier).
7. Viguerie is made keynote speaker by the LPHQ neocons.
8. Mary Ruwart emerges as the presumptive nominee.
9. “Uh-oh.”
10. The Beltwayite cabal engages in the lowest of lows, “anonymously” pegging Dr. Ruwart as a child pornographer — a story which “just happens” to break on Gordon’s TPW.
11. Shane Cory, traitorous executive director of the Libertarian Party, unilaterally issues a press release to smear Dr. Ruwart. He knows this will result in his termination at LPHQ, but just like Gordon, he doesn’t care. He has “other opportunities.”
12. Gordon sells TPW to the deep-pocketed Viguerie, who immediately censors all anti-Barr speech and revokes the press credentials of libertarian bloggers.
13. The odious Shane Cory is made editor of TPW — the site that brought him down in the first place. Irony is a word often misused, but I think it’s apropos here.

The purpose of this plot: To use the LP like a 99-cent blowup doll and discard it in the trash afterwards, thus making the electoral world safe for warmongering statists on the Right forevermore.

Candidate Endorsement: Mary Ruwart will continue the Ron Paul rEVOLution

As a congressional-district coordinator and office manager for the Ron Paul for President campaign, I came into contact with hundreds of spirited rEVOLutionaries. These people from diverse ideological backgrounds had come together for the common cause of liberty. They were conservatives, liberals, moderates — but very few self-identified libertarians. Ron Paul had given them their first exposure to the Austro-Jeffersonian gospel, and while their hearts and minds had embarked on the road to libertarianism, they had not yet reached the Promised Land. Mary Ruwart can take them there.

Dr. Mary Ruwart is the logical heir to the Ron Paul rEVOLution. Her book, Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression, won the hearty endorsement of Dr. Paul, and he also wrote a letter on her behalf urging President Bush to appoint her to the FDA (which, like Dr. Paul, she would like to see abolished). Dr. Ruwart has a unique talent for articulating libertarian solutions to the problems facing everyday people. She embodies the Principled Populism of Murray Rothbard without rancor or divisiveness. Mary Ruwart will not only unite the Libertarian Party, but she will bring in throngs of new members by proudly carrying the banner of the rEVOLution.

Libertarians have the woefully undeserved reputation of being a party full of angry white men with no concern for others. Through her Principled Populism and velvet touch, Dr. Mary Ruwart can heal our world and grow our party — if only we give her the chance.

Jason D. Seagraves
Saginaw/Bay City/Midland Ron Paul Meetup Organizer
Saginaw County Coordinator, Ron Paul for President
Michigan’s 5th Congressional District Coordinator / Flint Office Manager, Ron Paul for President
Former Green Party candidate for Congress (converted to libertarianism by Dr. Mary Ruwart)

Does ‘Joe Six-Pack’ care about the Federal Reserve System?

Over the course of the past two days, I have been in online discussions with our fearless leader, ElfNinosMom, and LFV newcomer, Jeff Wartman, about whether “Joe Six-Pack” — alias John Q. Taxpayer, etc. — cares about the Federal Reserve. Well, as luck would have it, CNN.com took a break from its riveting coverage of female bathroom habits and ran a story about a recent survey concerning the Fed.

Americans skeptical of Fed

Poll shows that majority of respondents are unsure about the central bank’s ability to improve the economy.

The findings:

• 17% of Americans are “not confident at all” that the Fed can stimulate the nation’s “shaky economy”
• 34% “not very confident”
• only 8% were “very confident” in the Fed’s abilities

Of course, it is the 8% that are most likely correct — the Fed almost certainly can “stimulate” the economy, just as a shot of heroin can stimulate a junkie. But, to me, these numbers show the nation does not have confidence in the cabal of central economic planners running the money system, and they’re starting to catch on to the scam.

Thanks to government intervention, Joe Six-Pack’s six packs now cost what a case did a few years ago, and he’s mad as hell about it. Now is the time for Libertarians to champion honest money and economic liberty — not to cower from these “complicated” issues that “don’t matter to regular people.” People are being robbed on a daily basis, and they care plenty.

What counts as a legitimate ‘news’ story in the MSM

I guess I probably shouldn’t be surprised at the anti-intellectualism, unseriousness, and crassness of the mainstream media. But I really thought this article, highlighted on the front page of CNN.com, took the cake:

Beware of ‘The Tinkler’

I mosey into the ladies’ room, glance at the mirror, remind myself that fluorescent lights make everyone look as if they’re in the final stages of tuberculosis, and head for a stall. And then I see it: The seat, even the floor, is covered in little yellow droplets. The Tinkler strikes again.

Even worse are the Story “highlights”:

Women’s bathroom is defiled by The Tinkler

Columnist tries to figure out who’s guilty of peeing on seat

Decides she is “aggressively mean-spirited, mole-like cavewoman”

Writer yearns for modicum of civility, a touch of class, or supply of Lysol

As if this is an actual, legitimate news story! For example, the Story Highlights for a Myanmar cyclone piece were as follows:

U.N. has started getting food aid but so far it is only the first step of huge job

NEW: Survivor tells how wall of water left bodies in trees, bushes and streams

More than 22,000 killed and 41,000 missing, Myanmar radio reports

U.S. President Bush says Navy is ready to help if asked

There you go: The state of an individual women’s bathroom and a barely literate “journalist’s” opinion thereof is the given the same treatment as a humanitarian disaster in which more than 22,000 people have died. I should interject here that this wonderful story was brought to us by that benevolent Obama sponsor / former crack smoker, Oprah Winfrey, and her hubristically eponymous magazine.

We have an illegal, unjustified, and undeclared war that’s been raging for longer than WWII, in which innocents are being murdered on a daily basis, hundreds of billions of dollars are being destroyed, and wealth is being redistributed from American taxpayers to military-industrial complex barons, international bankers, and foreign governments — but we give a higher priority to office “tinklers” than any of that. I really do understand why Reverend Jeremiah Wright said “God Damn America!” Has there ever been an Empire quite so decadent?

I tried reading Susan Jacoby’s The Age of American Unreason and found it to be unpalatable liberal-statist garbage. But the general thesis that Americans are dumbed down by the government and its propagandists in the media and public school system (though Jacoby would balk at the latter of these being characterized as such) is right on the money. I find it harder to live among my peers with each day that goes by.

A review of Ron Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto

Dr. Ron Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto is a concise (167 pages) and convincing argument for a return to America’s libertarian principles. During his campaign for president, Dr. Paul established a very diverse following: Republicans, Democrats, Greens, and “even some anarchists,” he would joke. In truth, many people were drawn to him due his obvious sincerity — a breath of fresh air! — even if they did not fully agree with or understand his ideology. Now they will understand and become Austro-Jeffersonians, one and all!

The first chapter, “The False Choices of American Politics,” demonstrates why those Ron Paul supporters who do understand his message cannot bring themselves to vote for either McCain or Hillary/Obama, or even to really care who among them wins: There is very little (if any) substantive difference between them. They may disagree about when and where to use foreign intervention, but never over whether it should be used at all. They may disagree over how fast interest rates should be cut by the Fed, but never over whether the Fed should exist. You get the idea.

Chapters 2 and 3 are titled “The Foreign Policy of the Founding Fathers” and “The Constitution,” respectively. Here Dr. Paul challenges his neocon and liberal opponents to openly condemn the wisdom of the founding fathers, which they do with their actions, or else follow it. The framers of the Constitution were far from unanimous — there were bitter disputes among so-called “Federalists” (Hamiltonian nationalists) and “republicans” (Jeffersonian decentralists) — but today’s neocon/liberals reject the wisdom of both parties, taking an expansive view of their powers that even Hamilton himself would have seen as excessive.

Chapter 4, “Economic Freedom,” may be an eye-opening one for many readers. First, there are the liberals who were attracted to Dr. Paul’s campaign, who may for the first time be presented with a contrast between the true Austro-Jeffersonian libertarian brand of capitalism and the inflationist, Kudlow & Company / Forbes magazine variety. Secondly there are many “paleoconservatives” I met who supported Dr. Paul but were under the mistaken impression that he was against free trade — nothing could be further from the truth! In fact, as Dr. Paul points out here, he is 100% in favor of unilateral, unconditional free trade and 100% against quotas, sanctions, embargoes, duties, and protective tariffs. He does oppose phony “free-trade” deals like NAFTA and the WTO (joining many liberal Democrats in doing so, but for different reasons) not because they “steal American jobs” (they don’t), but because they limit trade too greatly. Furthermore, they erode constitutional sovereignty and work for the benefit of politically connected elites, something with which libertarians, paleocons, and liberals can all agree.

All three constituencies will also cheer Chapter 5, “Civil Liberties and Personal Freedom.” Here the contrast between Jeffersonian libertarianism (once considered “liberalism” before that philosophy was given a bad name in the early twentieth century) and the so-called “conservatism” of the neocons and post-WWII New Rightists is perhaps at its greatest. Ron Paul supports the Constitution and the limits it places on government — which makes him a “blame America” leftist among the neocon punditry, all apologists for the liberal Wilson/FDR/Truman/LBJ foreign policy, by the way.

But the best and most important chapter, without a doubt, is Chapter 6, “Money: The Forbidden Issue in American Politics.” Here Dr. Paul expertly details the operations of the Federal Reserve System in stunning clarity — no conspiracy theories or half-truths that often further obfuscate discussion of the secretive monetary authority. The Austrian (and true) perspective on the Fed is not to be horrified that the Fed isn’t a government agency (it is, even if indirectly), but to be outraged that all banks are essentially arms of the government. We don’t need the government to have even more control over the money supply, we need it to have no control whatsoever (the exact opposite of what sources like Freedom 2 Fascism seem to suggest). What’s more, Dr. Paul doesn’t spread the myth that the Fed somehow profits as an entity when it creates money (its profits go to the Treasury), but instead, politically connected individuals and businesses profit at the expense of working-class and poor families. You see, the effects of inflation are not uniform — the Fed System works as a wealth redistribution system from poor and middle-class to the rich and politically connected. How so? Buy this book and find out!

Finally, the book ends with the self-titled seventh chapter in which Dr. Paul lays out a moderate and realistic course that could be accomplished over one or two presidential terms. I’m tempted to share this blueprint for you here but I don’t want to discourage anyone from buying the book. Instead, I’ll use the last few words of this review to lament the fact that this blueprint will certainly not be implemented by the next president. Perhaps a young man or woman who volunteered for Ron Paul’s campaign in 2008 will work his or her way up through the political establishment and be swept into office, with a like-minded Paulian Congress, sixteen years from now (just as Reagan followed sixteen years after Goldwater — not that either of these two are to be looked at as heroes. . .). We can only hope that the Republic can endure that long!

P.S. If you like my review, please go to Amazon and give it a “helpful” ranking. It is currently one of the featured reviews.

The shamelessness of the neocon business press

Investor’s Business Daily is a great paper for monitoring the financial markets. It’s also great for monitoring the deranged hysteria of the right-most Fascist fringe of the neoconservative movement.

Wednesday’s editorial page featured an absolutely shameless hit-piece against the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Although I do not agree with Rev. Wright’s racially collectivist views, his foreign-policy outlook seems right on the money, at least from what I’ve read and heard. But IBD characterizes Wright’s politically incorrect truth telling as “lying.” Apparently, anything said against the Regime qualifies as a “lie” — regardless of whether it is factually accurate or not. Ignorance really is strength!

From the article:

It’s a lie that the U.S. government pumps drugs into the black community to entice black men into prison. . .

Really? So agents of the U.S. government, i.e. the FBI, don’t sell drugs as part of undercover operations? Is that what IBD is alleging here? With a straight face? Come on! But of course, the federal government’s “pumping” operations go much deeper than that. Even if widely documented accounts of the CIA drug trafficking can be denied, it cannot be disputed that the U.S. government’s unconstitutional prohibition of illicit drugs results in reduced supply, higher prices, greater profits, and stimulated demand.

I guess one could quibble over what the definition of “pumping” is. But can you believe that IBD actually had the audacity to go here?

Wright added another lie — that if we wanted to know if Saddam Hussein was using chemical and biological weapons, all we had to do is check our sales records: “We sold him those biological weapons that he was using against his own people.”

I know plenty of neocons who don’t even deny this fact — even neighborhood fascists who still claim Saddam had WMDs buried in the desert! One has to truly be oblivious to reality to characterize the above as a “lie.”

Now how about this one:

“We have troops all over the world, just like Rome had troops stationed all over the world. That notion of imperialism is not the message of the gospel of the prince of peace, nor of God, who loves the world.”

What is IBD saying when they say the above is a lie?

• We don’t have troops stationed all over the world?
• Rome didn’t have troops stationed all over the world?
• Imperialism is the message of the gospel of the prince of peace and of God?
• God does not love the world, but in fact hates it?

I know; it’s all of the above.

But if you think it couldn’t get worse, just read how IBD actually portrays U.S. military presence in the Middle East. This is no joke, they really wrote this:

We prefer to think of Marines engaged in Operation Iraqi Freedom and its aftermath not as imperialist murderers but as heroes laying down their lives for their friends. Greater love has no man.

I’m sorry. I should have warned you to have a barf bag at hand before reading the above. I hope you didn’t sully anything precious.

It’s one thing to disagree with the traditional American foreign policy — the non-interventionism of Washington, Jefferson, the Old RIght, and (apparently) Jeremiah Wright. But to label politically inconvenient truths as lies just because they don’t support the neocon agenda is beyond the pale — even for the bloodthirsty chickenhawks at IBD.

It seems as though neoconservatism is legitimately a mental illness (Thomas Szaz be damned). The only question is whether or not these clearly deranged individuals even have any conception of what the truth is anymore. To neocons, the “truth” is merely the opposite of whatever the Goldstein of the day says. We were always at war with Eurasia.

Another blow to the ‘Paul Congress’ – Terbolizard arrested for DUI

Theodore Terbolizard (not his Christian name) was among the first and most vociferous of “Ron Paul Republicans” running for Congress. Well, here is what we get for taking the guy seriously:

Theodore Terbolizard, a little known GOP congressional candidate, is facing possible charges of driving under the influence after Grass Valley police pulled him over for speeding.

Terbolizard was stopped at 1:43 a.m. Sunday for what officers described as excessive speed as he was on his way home from a bar in Nevada City, according to police records.

Police Capt. Rex Marks told The Associated Press that officers arrested Terbolizard on suspicion of a DUI after administering a breathalyzer test. They are waiting for results of a blood-alcohol test, Marks said.

Terbolizard, from Cedar Ridge, is running for the seat being vacated by Republican Rep. John Doolittle, who has announced he will not seek another term.

The candidate told The Union newspaper that is arrest will not affect his campaign — other than to give him publicity.

If you want to take the Ron Paul mantle, you shouldn’t even be coming home from a bar at 1:45 A.M., let alone be drunk driving. And how did Terbolizard respond? By acting as if this would be a publicity boost to his campaign. Disgusting.

Murray Sabrin – Worthy of support?

Of the numerous individuals running for Congress as “Ron Paul Republicans,” only one has earned the Good Doctor’s official endorsement. Murray Sabrin, who as a Libertarian candidate for New Jersey governor achieved 5% of the vote (and accepted “matching funds”), is that one lucky candidate. And now Trevor Lyman, organizer of the first Ron Paul money bomb; and Larry Lepard, who paid for the full-page USA Today ad; have gotten behind Dr. Sabrin. In fact, there is an effort to have a money bomb for Sabrin’s senatorial campaign, and with the Paul campaign winding down, those inclined toward “Ron Paul Republicanism” should take a closer look at Sabrin.

A closer look, indeed. I was at first excited to hear about Sabrin running for U.S. Senate, but troubled by his lack of an “on the issues” section to his Web site. Other than being for the gold standard and Ron Paul, it was unclear what Dr. Sabrin stood for. Now the “on the issues” page is up at his site, and there are some troubling anti-libertarian and even anti-Paulian positions Sabrin champions.

First, Sabrin says he supports the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, “rolling back federal government,” and implicitly abolishing the Department of Education. But later, he advocates big-government, unconstitutional programs such as “education savings accounts” and, worse yet, vouchers. Where in the Constitution are these things authorized?

Disregard for the Constitution extends into Sabrin’s anti-abortion stances. Instead of merely stating a personal opposition to abortion and advocating decentralism, Sabrin supports the unconstitutional federal partial-birth abortion ban and chides his opponent for not cheering on this exercise in federal power-mongering. Then he goes further by advocating a federal law to “criminalize” harming an “unborn fetus during the commission of a crime.” Again, where in the Constitution are these powers delegated to Congress?

And of course, Sabrin takes the Know-Nothing approach to immigration, greatly outdoing Ron Paul here. Unlike Paul, he advocates using confiscated tax dollars and eminent domain to build a socialist wall keeping Mexicans out and Americans in. And worse yet, his cultural protectionism extends to a demand for English as a “national language.” Libertarians aren’t, or at least shouldn’t be, for national anything.

In fact, out of thirteen issues Sabrin chooses to focus on, at least nine are anti-libertarian, wishy-washy, or contradicted by his other issue stances. For example, what the heck does “paying down debt by rating programs’ effectiveness mean”? Should we only eliminate socialist schemes that are “ineffective”? And do we really need a Balanced-Budget Amendment to the Constitution? If we were to summon the political will to achieve that, wouldn’t it be better to pass an amendment abolishing the income tax and/or Federal Reserve? A little debt is not the worst thing in the world — the means by which debt is monetized and what the government does with the money it borrows are far bigger concerns.

If he were elected, I’m sure Murray Sabrin would be the most libertarian member of the Senate. But before deciding to support his candidacy, one must take his anti-libertarian positions into account. In contrast to Ron Paul’s presidential bid, the only real good of a Sabrin candidacy would come from actual electoral victory. From a “movement” perspective, nothing is to be gained by a candidate who not only fails the purity test, but seems to be ignorant of the Constitution’s limits on government and hostile to the notions of cultural freedom and free-market pluralism.

Ron Paul could use a bump in this poll

A friend sent me this presidential selector. You’ve seen things like this before. However, this is the best one I’ve ever seen, as almost all of the questions had answers with which I could disagree. In the past, I’ve seen selectors wherein the two possible choices on Iraq are

• (a) More bombs, more killing!, and
• (b) No more bombs! Spend our money on socialism at home instead!

What I’m surprised and frankly disappointed by, however, is the fact that Ron Paul is the top match of only 4% of people who’ve taken the test. Xenophobic Border Nazi, Tom Tancredo, is tied with “World’s Most Boring Man,” Chris Dodd, for #1. The Communist triumvirate of Obama, Kucinich, and Edwards are tied for third. Since this test is accurate, it’s clear that the test-takers thus far are fans of mass-scale interventionism. That’s bad. But then again, it is a poll sponsored by Amerikkan Pravda, aka NPR, so the results probably shouldn’t be too surprising.

Take the test and see if Ron Paul is your #1. If not, you probably have problems. I scored a 26.0 for Ron Paul, with a tie for second among Dennis Kucinich and Rudy Giuliani with 13.0, both of whom I detest. Let’s see if we can get Ron Paul up to double digits and ahead of his neo-fascist competitors.

The Club For Fascism releases its white paper on Ron Paul

The Club For Growth — a ravenous band of Fed-loving, big-government centralists — clearly does not know a truly pro-growth / pro-capitalist candidate when it sees one. Their white paper on Dr. Paul proves once and for all that supply-side GOP hacks like Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow are nothing but industrial socialists posing as free marketeers.

CFG on Ron Paul on trade:

Unlike protectionists who deny the economic benefits of free-trade policies, Ron Paul embraces the importance of free trade, but lives in a dream world if he thinks free trade will be realized absent agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Paul himself argues that “tariffs are simply taxes on consumers,” but by opposing these trade agreements, he is actively opposing a decrease in those taxes. While Paul’s rhetoric is soundly pro-free trade, his voting record mirrors those of Congress’s worst protectionists.

CFG on Ron Paul on entitlements:

But the recurring theme of Paul’s career is his frequent willingness to let unattainable ideals obstruct attainable progress towards those ideals. Just as in trade, this tendency leaves Paul opposing pro-growth reforms of Social Security. He opposes allowing workers to divert some Social Security payroll taxes into private retirement accounts, arguing instead for cutting payroll taxes and leaving it up to workers to do what they will with the savings. While the ideal is admirable, it is not a sufficient reason to oppose the pro-growth, expansion of freedom that personally-owned retirement accounts represent.

CFG on Ron Paul on “school choice”:

Ron Paul’s opposition to school choice (as if!) stems from his opposition to the government’s role in education, arguing that federal voucher programs are “little more than another tax-funded welfare program establishing an entitlement to a private school education.” He consistently voted against voucher programs, including a 1998 school voucher program for D.C. public school students, and a 2003 bill for a DC voucher program.

CFG on Ron Paul on tort reform:

Instead of traditional federal tort reform, he proposes “private contractual agreements between physicians and patients” that “enables patients to protect themselves with ‘negative outcomes’ insurance purchased before medical treatment.” In theory, Paul’s solution may help alleviate the situation, but it is politically untenable. While Paul’s idealism is laudable, he has not offered a viable alternative for dealing with a problem that is hurting American consumers and businesses, while diminishing our international competitiveness.

In summation, the Club For Growth wants its members to oppose Ron Paul because:

1. He believes in unilateral free trade, instead of unconstitutional and sovereignty-reducing faux-trade agreements that grant thousands of special privileges and introduce thousands of barriers to free trade. . . The CFG knows that these “free trade” agreements must be good because idiotic protectionist Democrats oppose them. Logical!
2. He thinks payroll taxes should be cut to allow individuals to invest their money as they see fit, rather than forcing people, at gunpoint, to invest in “privatized” funds that are administered by politically connected corporations who would make billions in non-market-based account fees.
3. He recognizes the fact that the federal government is not authorized to meddle in the educational affairs of its citizens, and would, instead, allow individual states to determine how to administer and fund their public schools — or privatize them altogether! The CFG members send their kids to private schools, and they want their share of welfare. Hey, central planning never hurt anyone, did it?
4. He admits that, under the Constitution, the federal government has no place dictating to “tort reform” to the states, and that individual states should be free to establish their own tort-based justice systems. Just imagine if the CFG really did their homework and found out that Ron Paul wants to deregulate everything and have more tort-based justice! That’s really “anti-growth” because the CFG members would no longer be able to bribe Congress for legal permission to violate the property rights of regular Americans.

The Club For Growth and others of their ilk give capitalism a bad name. Or perhaps the “growth” the Club is after is merely growth of government?

The real ‘green’ candidate for president: Dr. Ron Paul

What we call “environmentalists” aren’t environmentalists at all. They are communists. They hate private property and want to effectively abolish it so that all lands may be collectively governed according to “green” principles.

The real environmentalists are libertarians, and this in-depth interview on the environment with Ron Paul proves it. The interviewer, Amanda Griscom Little, did a great job in asking questions that allowed Dr. Paul to articulate free-market environmentalist principles. Here are some highlights.

On energy policy:

I would say that the reliance on the government to devise a policy is a fallacy. I would advocate that the free market take care of that. The government shouldn’t be directing research and development because they are bound and determined to always misdirect money to political cronies. The government ends up subsidizing things like the corn industry to develop ethanol and it turns out that it’s not economically feasible. So, my answer to energy is to let the market work. Let supply and demand make the decision. Let prices make the decision.

On environmental protection:

Governments don’t have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment. If you look at the common ownership of the lands in the West, they’re much more poorly treated than those that are privately owned. In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor’s private property — water, air, or land. It is very strict.

On abolishing the EPA:

Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as “prior restraint” in a newspaper. Newspapers can’t print anything that’s a lie. There has to be recourse. But you don’t invite the government in to review every single thing that the print media does with the assumption they might do something wrong. The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it’s a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections.

On the threat posed by global warming:

I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus — those are immediate threats. We’re about to lose our whole country and whole republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away without a trial, then that’s going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner than the temperature going up.

There’s much more, but I don’t want to quote the entire interview. The interviewer comes from a more typical leftist “environmentalist” perspective, and she is clearly taken aback by Ron Paul’s answers. But she can’t help but offer him at least some faint praise for his free-market ideas — which were clearly foreign to her. Read the entire interview.

Ron Paul’s most thoughtful and candid interview yet

The best thing about this interview is actually the interviewer — the first I’ve seen who actually knows what he’s talking about, and treats Ron Paul not only with the respect that he deserves, but with a mild degree of reverence. The content of this video is largely about monetary policy, banking, and the Fed, etc. It is fascinating, and the most in-depth Dr. Paul has ever gone (as far as I know).

Confessions of a former Fiat-Money/Inflation Enthusiast

Dr. Ron Paul helped me see the light.

Here is a letter I’m sending to my local newspapers:

During last night’s Republican debate on Fox News, a typically clueless media inquisitor had the audacity to ask Texas Congressman and Republican presidential hopeful, Dr. Ron Paul, how he was different from Hillary Clinton. The question stems from the fact that, unlike his “Republican” colleagues, Ron Paul holds traditional conservative Republican positions against interventionism at home and abroad. Hillary, of course, is much closer to any of the other Republicans than Dr. Paul on virtually every issue. A better question would have been, “How are any of the other Republicans different from Hillary?”

Unfortunately, Dr. Paul only had enough time to outline his foreign-policy disagreements with Mrs. Clinton. It would have been nice if he had been given a chance to point out that while she wants to raise taxes, he wants to abolish the income tax and the IRS altogether. Hillary wants to expand socialized medicine, while he wants to gradually abolish Medicare and Medicaid. Hillary would extend the federal government’s sphere of influence on issues like abortion and gay marriage, while Dr. Paul would leave these and most other issues to the states, as per the 10th amendment. But most of all, Hillary, her Democratic colleagues, and all of the other so-called “Republicans,” would leave the immoral and unsustainable fiat-money system of the Federal Reserve in place, while Dr. Ron Paul would legalize monetary competition and restore gold and silver to their rightful and constitutional status of legal tender.

Anyone who advocates for a continued fiat currency cannot rightly be called a fiscal conservative. Fiat money allows politicians to simply print more whenever there’s a shortfall, and there is no hope for restoration of small-government principles so long as Helicopter Ben’s printing presses keep churning out essentially worthless bills.

Supporters of the War in Iraq on the right, and opponents on the left, are virtually in agreement (or willful ignorance) on the issue of fiat money. But fiat money, the War in Iraq, and socialized Hillary/Romney-care all go together. One cannot support one without giving his support to all. Fiat money not only makes them possible, it makes them inevitable. If you are pro-fiat money, you are pro-war and pro-socialism. There is only one candidate from either party who is against all of the above: Dr. Ron Paul.

The government’s War on Corpses

My mom called me today with the following dilemma: A friend’s father had died. Prior to his death, he had arranged for his corpse to be donated to science. He had MS, and he felt, rationally, that his corpse would do him no good after his own earthly demise, so why not enjoy to psychic satisfaction, in the present, of potentially helping others, in the future? A rational choice.

However, where my mom’s friend’s dad went wrong was in assuming that the state wouldn’t have any obstructions against his posthumous wishes. Surely the state-funded institution of higher learning to which the cadaver was to be donated would have notified him of any potential obstacles, right? Wrong. We’re dealing with the government here. It’s always parasitic, feeding off the fruits of your labor, even in corpse form. Or, failing that, it will allow a favored group from among the populace to do the feeding, with the backing of the government’s guns.

My mom’s friend’s dad’s “crime”: He lived in Michigan. He had arranged for his body to be taken by the University of Toledo, which if you don’t know, is in Ohio. State or federal law prohibits the transfer of a dead body across state lines — unless you have a license to do so. After all, someone could get hurt! The funeral home, of course, has paid the necessary bribe to the state. Their charge for the sixty-mile round trip: Two thousand dollars, payable in Federal Reserve Notes.

So my mom wants to call her state representative and urge him to sponsor a bill barring “price gouging” by funeral homes. I tried to tell her that the price gouging wasn’t the problem, the problem was the favored status these “professionals” have been granted by the state, which distorts the free market by decreasing the supply of potential service providers. If the licensure requirements did not exist, someone would certainly be willing to perform this task, unpleasant as it may be, for 1/10 of the price.

But she didn’t get it. And it’s not because my mom is dumb. I understand her inability to grasp free-market solutions to problems when we’re all taught from an early age that government is the solution — that the government exists to regulate markets.

Breaking the statist paradigm is difficult, and that’s why I’m so excited about the Ron Paul campaign. I am much more of a libertarian now than I was when his campaign began, and I’m not the only one. That’s why I’m hopeful, and fairly confident, that his campaign will continue through Election Day, regardless of whether he wins the GOP nomination.