MICHELE BACHMANN: “We have an IAEA report that just recently came out that said literally Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that (a nuclear) weapon.”
RON PAUL: “There is no U.N. report that said that. It’s totally wrong, what you just said.”
Bachmann: “It’s the IAEA report.”
THE FACTS: As Paul said, the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency does not state that Iran is within months of having nuclear arms. The U.N. agency report does suggest that Iran conducted secret experiments whose sole purpose is the development of nuclear weapons but did not put a time frame on when Iran might succeed in building a bomb, and it made no final conclusion on Tehran’s intent.
Bachmann also erred by arguing that Iran has “stated they will use it (a nuclear weapon) against the United States.”
Iran vehemently rejects that it is developing a nuclear bomb, let alone that it plans to drop one on the U.S.

Yes, unsurprisingly it was Michelle Bachmann who lied or I guess if you are a supporter of hers, “stretched the truth”. Bachmann also appears to have lied about what is in the Iranian Constitution, claiming it “states unequivocally” to stretch “jihad across the world”. Well, unless the Wikipedia interpretation of the Iranian Constitution is wrong I see no mention of “jihad” or “caliphate”. In fact, it directly mentions foreign policy in section X, saying in part:

Article 152 The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based upon the rejection of all forms of domination, both the exertion of it and submission to it, the preservation of the independence of the country in all respects and its territorial integrity, the defence of the rights of all Muslims, non-alignment with respect to the hegemonic superpowers, and the maintenance of mutually peaceful relations with all non-belligerent States.

There is certainly no “unequivocal” mention of jihad against the world. Hopefully voters will see through Bachmann’s and Santorum’s melodramatic horse-hockey.

Here are all of Ron Paul’s moments in the debate, totaling over 18 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbGL3F8r4c

DONATE TODAY! It’s Tea Party ’11 Money Bomb Time.

In it we learn that neo-conservatives philosophy is based on Machiavellianism. It’s the elitist mentality that neo-cons know what is good for all citizens and can morally (in their eyes) use all means necessary to reach that perceived good. We also learn that the roots of neo-conservatism come from the left.

Now that Usama bin Laden nightmare is dead the neo-conservatives need a new nightmare to justify the continued global war on terror. At first they tried to spread general fear about a retaliatory strike. This is a real and genuine fear; however, it isn’t quite enough for them. They need a face of terror–a single person. Initial indications are this new face of terror will be Usama’s 20 year old son Hamza. He already has a nickname, “The Crown Prince of Terror” as evidenced in this recent article from The Telegraph:

Hamza, thought to be the youngest of the Saudi-born warlord’s sons, has been described as the “crown prince of terror”. He featured on an extremist website to mark the third anniversary of the July 7 London bombings in which 52 people died. He read a poem called for “destruction” of America, Britain, France and Denmark.

Intelligence agencies believe he was being groomed as a possible future leader of al-Qaeda.

He was implicated in the assassination of moderate Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto in 2007.

Well, it didn’t take them very long did it? Hopefully it won’t take 10 years, billions of dollars, and countless lives, to find bin Laden 2.0. No doubt we will begin hearing about how the son is even more evil than the parent was.

In any case, I long for the day when our troops can come home from all over the world and we can expend our resources on true defense and better intelligence-gathering rather than the expensive nation-sitting we do now.

America is NOT the politicians, their aides, or their cadre of ‘experts’. It’s the people who dutifully show up every election to put their two cents in at the ballot box. THAT is America.

America is NOT the laws that are passed day after day after day. It’s the people who live their lives the best way they can, who don’t kill, cheat, rob and who go through life cheerfully following the two words that keep this country together: honesty and fairness. THAT is America.

America is NOT the news media. It’s the people who go out of their way to inform themselves on issues of the day and simply won’t accept whatever is printed or televised before them. They refuse to let people they don’t know make up their minds for them and more and more inconveniently question what our politicians and courts are doing to this country. THAT is America.

America is an idea, a concept, a conclusion held together by the sheer will of its people. THAT is America.

Long may her flag fly.

However, it is generally thought by most in society that corruption need not be a direct function of power, but rather an unfortunate coincidence of these systems of power over a period of time. As part of his best-selling Road to Serfdom (which has gained renewed interest in light of its recent feature on television pundit Glenn Beck’s show), Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek sought to discredit this notion of coincidence in a chapter he entitled “Why the Worst Get on Top.” In his own words, Hayek initiates the discussion in this way:

“It is the belief that the most repellant features of the totalitarian regimes are due to the historical accident that they were established by groups of blackguards and thugs … Why should it not be possible that the same sort of system, if it be necessary to achieve important ends, be run by decent people for the good of the community as a whole? … [Yet] There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental by-products but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce.”

Those “strong reasons” were the substance of a chapter whose message can give pause to even the most well-intentioned of progressives in today’s political climate: perhaps the expansion and concentration of power attracts those who would plunder the population and take advantage of the weak in society, rather than those who would use such power for any perceived benefit. Specifically, Hayek noted three crucial points that lead socialist regimes into the hands of ruthless totalitarian dictators as a predictable consequence.

1. The person/party perceived as “strong” will be desired by the greatest number in society. By “strong,” Hayek means “able to make action quickly”; most opportunities for expansions of government power or regime changes happen due to a discontented, impatient populace. Typically, the largest group in society is the one which is in such a position to affect change in their direction; but (a) the largest group is the one that is least original and independent due to their lack of education and/or intelligence; (b) a potential dictator can most easily convert those who are docile and gullible from outside this group, further weakening the constituents who bring a leader to power; and (c) it is easier to unify people in a negative program (hatred of an enemy or envy of the rich) than any positive course.

2. All collectivist programs serve a limited group by nature. Collectivism (the opposite of individualism) groups people and treats those groups as one coherent entity. Since socialists regard capital as belonging to the nation, rather than belonging to humanity, the totalitarian program will serve the ruling elite as its advantaged “collective.” From the opposite perspective, the individuals in such a collectivist society – which, Hayek is clear, all centrally planned economies are indeed collectivist – feel inferior to those in the groups that are advantaged by the state, and will join the group if they feel that membership will confer superiority over outsiders. Consequently, these individuals are free of the many moral restraints that they feel when acting on their own behalf, because they need only act on behalf of the group (the party in power). These are the people who are naturally in position to receive leadership assignments in the party.

The most important corollary to the distinction between collectivist and individualist society is that in order to achieve the “ends” in central planning, the would-be leaders must create centralized power, which infinitely heightens that power. Hayek explicitly states that the competitive (i.e. free market) system is the only system designed to minimize, by decentralization, the power exercised by man over man.

3. Collectivist morals contrast with individualist morals. Collectivist “morals” view the ends as the only noble goals, whereas individual ethics teaches us that ‘the end justifying the means’ is the denial of all morals. Anyone in a position within the elite/ruling class must be willing to do things which are “bad” on an individual level, but good for the nation as a whole. As such, these positions attract people who are largely immoral in the individual sense to begin with.

Hayek’s three-pronged approach demonstrates why “the worst getting on top” is systematic and inevitable, rather than subject to random chance – in a socialist or communist system. However, Hayek’s analysis ends there: an effective argument against the specific form of government which he was combating in Serfdom (published in 1944 at the height of WWII), but an argument that stayed within that realm. Applying the argument against centralized power in the form of idealistic socialist/communist states ignores the bigger picture, which can be traced throughout the history of government and politics: Centralized power is, in and of itself, an attraction to the worst elements of society, regardless of the political system in which it is contained.

In his influential work Common Sense, Thomas Paine echoes Hayek’s unspoken theme, applying the corrupting influence of concentrated state power to the monarchy of England while appealing for independence:

“Sir William Meredith calls [England] a republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the crown, by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue of the house of commons … Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.”

Here, again, Paine conflates the power with the specific political system and ruling class with which he is familiar. A monarchy, being a system with a highly visible leader entrusted with the power of the state, is similarly affected by the influence of power as Hayek’s examples of Germany and Italy so many years later.

Today in America, we face a government that utilizes collectivism perhaps to a greater extent than did Hayek’s totalitarian Germany. We face a government which taxes us to a far greater extent than did Paine’s English crown. We face a government which has sold our rights to the highest bidding lobbyist, a government which creates laws and agencies at the whim of its bureaucratic agents regardless of its Constitutional authority to do so. And despite the best efforts of the Founders to diffuse and limit the powers of the state in America, we find ourselves facing a state with one of the most concentrated centers of power in the world: Washington, DC, the Mecca of corporatists, statists, and fascists alike. This, despite the American form of government being a republic.

Perhaps, as Paine once remarked about England, “it is unworthy of the name.” Or perhaps no entity should be trusted with the myriad duties which our government now claims as its responsibility.

Apparently the warning label is causing quite a stir. Just check all the scathing reviews over at Amazon.com.  This is a great opportunity to allow the free market to work: all those who are offended by this idiocy will boycott and/or speak out about the publishing company, and their sales will take a hit.

UPDATE: CATO discussed this craziness in a recent post on their blog as well.

As we said yesterday, millions of Americans believe . . .

We need the government to regulate business people, otherwise they will run wild, laying waste to the environment, and selling us bad food, bad drugs, and harmful products.

One big reason people believe this is because they attended government schools and were taught about a famous book, “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair. Mr. Sinclair’s book supposedly demonstrated that . . .

* Once upon a time, before government regulation, meat packing plants were endangering Americans with poison food
* The motivation for this poisoning was profits.

But here’s what most people don’t know . . .

* “The Jungle” was a novel, not a factual report
* Most of what Sinclair wrote was pure fiction, un-connected to reality

This is your chance to learn the truth.

“The Jungle” was intended to dramatize working conditions, NOT food safety. In fact, Sinclair’s fictional claims about food safety were limited to a mere 12 pages, but these pages got all the attention, leading Sinclair to later write, “I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.” (Source: Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1967, p. 103.)

Sinclair’s novel caused a sensation, and led to Congressional investigations, even though many politicians were skeptical of Sinclair. For instance, here’s what President Theodore Roosevelt wrote about him in July 1906 (even though he shared Sinclair’s distrust of big business):

“I have an utter contempt for him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there was only a basis of truth.” (Source: letter to William Allen White, July 31, 1906, from “The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt,” 8 vols, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951-54, vol. 5, p. 340.)

Sinclair’s fictional characters talk of workers falling into vats and being turned into “Durham’s Pure Leaf Lard,” which was then sold to the public. This was supposedly made possible by the alleged “corruption of government inspectors.” (Source: “The Age of the Moguls” by Stewert H. Holbrook, Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1953, pp. 110-111)

Yes, you see, there were government inspectors, even back in 1905, so does it really make sense that the solution to this supposed food safety problem was . . . government inspectors?

In fact, there were hundreds of inspectors. They came from all levels of government, federal, state, and local, and had been at work for more than a decade. As for their supposed corruption, and Sinclair’s other claims, a Congressional investigation found little evidence. Instead . . .

The 1906 report of the Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Animal Husbandry refuted the worst of Sinclair’s charges point-by-point. The report labeled his claims . . .

* “willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact”
* “atrocious exaggeration”
* And “not at all characteristic (of the meat packing industry)”

(Source: U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Agriculture, Hearings on the So-called “Beveridge Amendment” to the Agriculture Appropriation Bill, 59th Congress, 1st Session, 1906, pp. 346-350.)

Meanwhile, as Congress went through the time-consuming process of investigating Sinclair’s fictions, the free market was regulating the meat packing industry in its own harsh way. Meat sales plummeted.

This led the meat packing industry to lobby Congress for increased regulation!

The industry actually wanted the government to protect them from the consumer backlash by imposing regulations that would restore consumer confidence, even though new regulations were totally unneeded! The result was the passage of the Meat Inspection Act of 1906.

But this was not a triumph for the idea of government regulation. Instead, it was a victory for corporate welfare . . .

* Taxpayers picked up the $3 million price tag for the new regulations
* Big meat packers benefited because small packers had a more difficult time complying with the new regulations

Upton Sinclair himself actually recognized this, and opposed the law! (Source: Upton Sinclair, “The Condemned-Meat Industry: A Reply to Mr. J. Ogden Armour,” “Everybody’s Magazine,” XIV, 1906, pp. 612-613.)

The myth of “The Jungle” has had a terrible impact on the American mind. It has led millions of people to believe that regulation by politicians and bureaucrats is superior to regulation by the free market forces of consumers, investors, lenders, insurance companies, and legal liability.

* If the meat packing industry wanted government regulation, then it should have paid for it, not the taxpayers
* And all packing companies should have been free to reject government regulation, especially small producers
* This would have allowed consumers to decide what they preferred, and what they were willing to pay for — meat inspected by the government, or meat regulated by the self-interest of the meat packers.

In other words, government coercion was completely unjustified, even if Sinclair had been writing fact, instead of fiction.

We would like to thank Lawrence W. Reed, President of the Foundation for Economic Education. The facts used in this Dispatch were drawn from an article he wrote for the The Freeman: “Ideas and Consequences: Of Meat and Myth.”

—–

This message is an educational service of the Downsize DC Foundation. Please share it with others. Please tell your friends that they can receive similar material in the future by subscribing to our free email newsletter, The Downsizer-Dispatch.

If you’ve found real value in these essays, please make a tax-deductible contribution to the Downsize DC Foundation.

Remember . . .

* The Downsize DC Foundation educates
* DownsizeDC.org both educates, and acts, applying constant pressure on Congress.

Perry Willis
Vice President
The Downsize DC Foundation

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

I am unlike many folks who run for office. I am an idealist. When I read history I side with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglas who fought for 30 years to end slavery and to integrate public transportation in the free North in the 1840s. I see our failure to end slavery for decade after decade as a failure of weak-kneed politicians.

I cheer the abolitionist Lysander Spooner, who argued that slavery was unconstitutional 20 years before the Civil War. I cheer Lerone Bennet when he argues that the right of habeas corpus guaranteed in the Constitution should have derailed slavery long before the Civil War.

Only when the brave idealists, the abolitionists, finally provoked the weak-kneed politicians into action, did the emancipation proclamation come about. Our body politic has enough pragmatists, we need a few idealists.

Segregation ended only after a great and momentous uprising by idealists like Martin Luther King Jr., who provoked weak-kneed politicians to action.

In 2010, there are battles that need to be fought, and they have nothing to do with race or discrimination, but rather the rights of people to be free from a nanny state.

Read the entire piece here.

————–

Maddow and the Obamas: Killers of hope, spurs of rebellion

The attacks by MSNBC’s extremist Rachel Maddow on Rand Paul clarify a good deal for me. Ms. Maddow’s position is based on a sort of warmed over version of the 1920s’ Bloomsbury ideology: effete, secular, socialist, pacifistic, elitist, and libertine. The ideology is shared by her fellow MSNBC extremists Olberman and Matthews and by Mr. Obama and his acolytes. Anyone disagreeing with her and them is not just wrong but perverse, racist, badly educated, antiquarian, and could only come from the scum of the earth. What passes for political thought and philosophy among MSNBC’s neo-Bloomsbury extremists and team Obama reminds one of cheeses and flowers — those that stink the most, last the longest.

But, to be honest, MSNBC’s extremists and the Obamaites are not much different from Republicans in being arrogant elitists who regard Americans as ignorant rubes who are unaware of what is best for themselves and their country. What do we hear from the Republicans: they talk anti-abortion, do-nothing; talk controlling borders, do nothing; talk debt reduction, spend more; talk energy self-sufficiency, kiss the Saudis’ butt; talk support for the troops, get more killed in useless wars; talk about America’s independence, and lap up humiliation from Israel and Mexico.

Ms. Maddow-of-Bloomsbury, then, represents both parties in the sense that they both are telling Americans: “Trust us. We know what is best for you. Vote for us, shut up, and go home and watch television.”

Please read the rest…

Paul suggested Judge Andrew Napolitano as a potential replacement for Justice Stevens. He then uses his ample time to discuss the future direction of America should be toward libertarianism. He argues that libertarian ideas can bring together the Progressives and the Constitutional Conservatives. It was quite an interesting discussion. Check it out below. The video is in 5 parts.

httpvp://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=20F79F4A3CE456BC

Flash forward several decades from these grand government schemes and these proclamations seem dubious at best. The average cost of attendance at a public university has increased from $950 per year in 1965 to $2,165 in 1980 to $11,034 in 2007 – to say that the federal loan program has failed to make college a more attainable goal for lower-class families would be an understatement. This rising cost spiral has been discussed at length elsewhere, however; the other issues inherent in the federal micromanagement of education are less often mentioned and are perhaps of more importance in our society.

For starters, the massive “free” public education system, combined with the plethora of after-school programs provided by the government, remove parental responsibility and the familial structure of our society. Rather than encouraging parents to be actively involved in the education of their children – probably the most important aspect of raising a child – subsidized government schooling encourages parents to send their kids to a building where they will be taken care of (and, naturally, shielded from “offensive” viewpoints or material). For families who lack the funds or resources to generate active involvement with their children in other ways, such as athletics or the arts, the destruction of this intimacy in education is ultimately damaging to the very families that public schooling claims to help. Combine this with the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies, which has substantially increased the number of dual-income families in America, and the traditional American family is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

Additionally, mandated national standards such as the unconstitutional No Child Left Behind program started under George W. Bush have transformed America’s education system from one that focuses on the student to one that focuses on the school districts, teachers, and principals. While each student’s needs are different, the Department of Education’s one-size-fits-all testing forces teachers to “teach to the test,” discouraging creativity and intellectual genius in young people who might have prospered by receiving the information differently. Yet even if one were to consider the education of a state or region as a whole, standardized education simply makes no sense. A student in West Virginia, for example, might need to learn about the mining industry to open up employment opportunities above basic labor; however, in a state like Delaware, which has no mining industry, this would be nonsensical. Similarly, a student in Delaware might need to learn about the food processing industry, while this would prove relatively useless for the West Virginian. A student in a major metropolitan area may not need any such information, but could benefit from a more thorough curriculum in economics or business.

Finally, there is the obvious moral hazard of allowing an authoritatve government the power of educating its own citizens. Rather than presenting the objective truth, many textbooks used in public schools today blatantly mislead its impressionable students with propaganda or half-truths that support the government’s case (and, thus, its own security). For example, did you know that the Federal Reserve has essential purposes and functions that “provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system?” Perhaps you’d be absolutely stunned to learn that such a textbook was “revised by staff members of the Federal Reserve Board.” The conflict of interest is obvious.

Another common fallacy peddled by the historical revisionists is that the free-market capitalists of the early 20th century laid the groundwork for, and caused, the Great Depression. In Lawrence W. Reed’s essay, Great Myths of the Great Depression, he characterizes it this way:

“Old myths never die; they just keep showing up in economics and political science textbooks. With only an occasional exception, it is there you will find what may be the 20th century’s greatest myth: Capitalism and the free-market economy were responsible for the Great Depression, and only government intervention brought about America’s economic recovery…

…But those who propagate this version of history might just as well top off their remarks by saying, “And Goldilocks found her way out of the forest, Dorothy made it from Oz back to Kansas, and Little Red Riding Hood won the New York State Lottery.” The popular account of the Depression as outlined above belongs in a book of fairy tales and not in a serious discussion of economic history.”

It only makes sense that the government would want to protect its own interests in the areas of political science or economics: the justifications for the overreaching programs of the state are always along the lines of “helping the poor” or “keeping inflation low” or “caring for the sick.” How would the state ever expand its power if its citizens were to learn that the market can take care of its sick, provide sound money, and advance the prosperity of the entire society?

Of course, we can only hope that the fate of our federal education program does not follow the lead of one of the clearest historic examples of this conflict of interest: Nazi Germany.

Paul shines when he has more than a couple minutes to represent his position, especially on foreign policy. He makes a point to emphasize his philosophy is not one of isolation from the world, but one where we don’t stick our nose where it doesn’t belong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW25hR6M8J0

The idea would be to trade in America’s my-gun-is-bigger-than-yours foreign policy for a more constitution-oriented, defense-focused effort. Sure, it would permit the terrorists to openly claim victory. So what? This is the kind of victory that, in the end, helps reduce terrorism. Once victorious, what is their recruiting incentive?

I know what you’re thinking: “But they hate us because we are free! They’ll just continue what they are doing!”

“They hate us because we are free” is the neo-conservative equivalent of the “truther” claim that “9/11 was an inside job”. Just because it becomes a convenient narrative for pundits on either side doesn’t necessarily make it true.

Read Robert Pape, Michael Scheuer (former head of CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit), or Osama bin Laden himself to find out that the real motivation for Al-Qaeda is our persistent interventions in the Middle East.

Even if the “freedom hate” argument were true, is that hate deep enough to turn non-extremist Muslims into suicide bombers? Successful suicide bombers do not live very long. New recruits are always needed. It’s an infinitely easier path toward graduating from the University of Al-Qaeda with a degree in suicide bombing if the instructors can point to America as an occupier, torturer, and murderer. Without America’s presence Al-Qaeda leaders would have zero credibility if they attempted to paint America with such a brush. Continuing our interventions gives their leaders perfect suicide bomber recruit-fodder.

I find it sadly humorous that Obama gets criticized from the Right on foreign policy. They label him weak, yet he’s merely continuing the same policies that made Bush a hero to those very same people. Hypocrisy abounds. The original Tea Party was made up of patriots who protested an overseas intervention. Today the Tea Parties are over-run with a faction, commonly called “tea-ocons”, that supports America behaving like Britain did back in the 1770′s. These are flawed principles unworthy of the Tea Party moniker.

Many people who oppose government-run health care love to point out how government is inept at everything it does. You’ll get no argument from me on that, but if that is true then why do many of these people also believe that the government can be successful in bullying the world toward freedom? It’s an absurd notion. To win the “War on Terror” we must withdraw and call it a tactic for victory rather than a strategy for admitting defeat.

Once the bully’s gun rises, liberty becomes impossible.