The reason Bob McDonnell beat out Creigh Deeds in Virginia was not because McDonnell represents some new style small government Republican. McDonnell won because Deeds made campaign mistakes. McDonnell made none. Deeds lost the race more than McDonnell won it.

The same is true for the New Jersey race. Corzine, a former chairman at Goldman Sachs, easily became a scapegoat for a failing economy and political corruption. So, he lost.

What Tuesday’s election results really demonstrated was a lack of conviction for either Democrats or Republicans. When the political spectrum shines red, then blue, then red, then blue, over and over again something tangible comes to light:

America is not rooting for either party to win. America is rooting for the underdog.

After 8 years of Clinton, George W. Bush was the underdog. In 2004, Bush was still the underdog largely due to his perceived strength (however false it was) in fighting “those who attacked us on 9/11″. That quickly soured so much that by 2006 the Democratic Party was the underdog so they won control of Congress. If Bush was up for re-election himself in 2006, he’d have lost.

The 2008 election cemented the underdog theory with America getting the chance to elect the first African American President. McCain, largely a Bush twin, had no chance.

Tuesday’s election results demonstrated that the Republicans are now, once again, the underdogs. This bodes well for them in the 2010 election and it could carry over to the 2012 Presidential contest. Of course, that depends on who has the perceived power at that time.

The point of this “underdog theory” is that we are not happy with the blue nor the red team. When the time comes we just want to take away power from whichever team has it.

For liberty champions this eternal game is growing extremely tiresome.

When everyone buys into the two team league yet no one wants either team to finish in first place, isn’t it time to expand the league?

It just so happens that there is a liberty-loving team already in place ready to be added to the league. Here are their names:

• Rand Paul
• David Hedrick
• Adam Kokesh
• Peter Schiff
• Ray McBerry
• Chris Simcox
• Debbie Medina
• Bill Hunt
• RJ Harris
• John Dennis
• David Ratowitz
• Jake Towne
• Randy Brogdon
• Robert Broadus
• Collins Bailey
• Jaynee Germond
• Bob Parker
• Bill Connor
• Peg Luksik

These are the candidates being celebrated today on the anniversary of Ron Paul’s 5th of November money bomb. To learn more about these candidates please check out ThisNovember5th.com. If you find a candidate you like, then please don’t hesitate to support that candidate with a generous donation.

These are the real underdogs and outcasts. Let’s help make them winners and keep them winning.

Well, that’s what they want you to think. I want to know why the debate is now all about whether or not there should be a public option and little else? This shows us how Obama and his fellow looters are now firmly in the lead on this debate. The argument is no longer about whether we should have the government more involved in health care, but whether the government should provide health care.

The question is no longer “why are we doing this?” Instead, the question is “how do we do it?”

If Pelosi has her way, this is how:

The new House proposal is similar to one drafted by Democrats months ago. It requires Americans to buy health insurance by 2013 or pay a fine, creates a government-run program similar to Medicare to compete with private insurers and lets 15 million additional people enroll in Medicaid by easing eligibility requirements.

But in an effort to make the bill more appealing to moderates in her party, Pelosi altered some of the fine print. The proposed government-run “public option,” for instance, would negotiate for how much to pay doctors and hospitals rather than relying on government-set rates, as Medicare does.

Echoing concerns raised by his Republican colleagues, Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan said the bill’s heft, at 1,990 pages, indicated how it would expand the government’s role in health care: “Families will face higher taxes,” he said.

Replacing the above word “higher” with “astronomical” would be more honest. One need not read past page 4 (3d) to find the most offensive words to free market liberty loving Americans:

“initiates shared responsibility among workers, employers, and the Government; so that all Americans have coverage of essential health benefits.”

The word “initiates” should be replaced with the more honest word, “forces”. This phrase is a pure unadulterated call for socialism. When you force someone to share, it’s no longer sharing. It is theft, well-intended theft, but theft nonetheless.

Why do we get put in jail if we steal money to give to the poor yet it is perfectly fine for the government to do it without repercussions? I suppose the answer is: they own the jails.

Why do we get put in jail if we murder someone yet it is perfectly fine for government troops to kill people?

Are government humans more special than civilian humans? They seem to be able to operate outside the scope of morality.

The bill would establish a new federal government department inappropriately called the “Health Choices Administration” with the “Health Choices Commissioner” at the head. I can’t wait for their ad slogan to come out: “The Health Choices Administration: Be Nice, we can choose whether you live or die!”

Under this bill the Health Choices Commissioner has the power to regulate a new “market” they call the “Health Services Exchange”. This is the so-called new “free market” where the government public option health care is to compete with private health insurers. Yet somehow this is supposed to allow private insurers to compete on a level playing field? Please.

This bill becoming law would signal the end of private health insurance. It is only a matter of time before the public option will be the only option.

The government owns the jails now. The government tells you what you can put in your body. With socialized medicine the government is just continuing its assault on individual liberty. There is no “I”, only “We”.

No, I’m not talking about the voting machines. What I’m talking about is this:

This is what we find at the top of Kentucky’s State Board Of Elections web site. Rand Paul’s opponent in the primary is the Chairman of the Board of Elections. I’m not familiar with Kentucky law, but I can only assume that this position is automatically filled by the Secretary of State.

Trey Grayson is Kentucky’s Secretary of State.

By pointing this out I’m not suggesting that Grayson will commit some kind of voter fraud and “adjust” the election result numbers to his own benefit. In fact, I doubt he could get away with it. What I am suggesting is that if Grayson ends up winning by a small margin things could get quite ugly. Accusations from the more “vocal” Ron Paul / Rand Paul supporters would likely follow, perhaps even a lawsuit or two.

In the era of ACORN, hanging chads, and Senator Stuart Smalley, isn’t it a good idea for Grayson to take some kind of pre-emptive action (don’t neo-cons love doing that?) to clarify his duties regarding the election?

I’m not saying he should resign or anything drastic. Publishing an open letter in a Kentucky newspaper notifying voters of the election night counting procedure is a good start. The open letter should also include a sworn and signed statement that Grayson will not interfere with the election results in any way.

Rand Paul, to his credit, has not even remotely suggested that there will be any impropriety by Grayson regarding the election results. The big government, “end justifies the means”, establishment Republicans are behind Grayson. This fact alone is enough to stir up the “vote fraud” pot.

Throw in that Grayson is the Chairman of the Kentucky Election Board and you have all the “proof” you need for many to question the validity of the election results.

This could be exacerbated if Grayson beats Paul by a small margin, a rather likely scenario with Rand Paul raising so much money and gaining support with each handshake.

What do you think Grayson should do about this conflict of interest, if anything?

It would be very difficult for me to not support Johnson if he were to run for President in 2012. As of right now, In my view he is the best positioned candidate to carry forward the message of liberty within the Republican Party. He may not be perfect on specific issues here or there, but Ron Paulians would be hard pressed to find another Republican candidate with his record and political viability. He served as a Governor for eight years. He didn’t raise taxes as Governor once. He promoted private business and free markets over government corporatism and regulation. Finally, and perhaps most pertinent, he enthusiastically endorsed Ron Paul for President.

There has been very minimal evidence for a Johnson 2012 bid until now. Jason Pye at UnitedLiberty.org reports that Johnson has formed a PAC and is set to release a book in December entitled “Seven Principles For Good Government”.

A few web sites have been set up by supporters in an effort to coax Johnson into running for President such as JohnsonForAmerica.com.

With this latest news it appears that Johnson is warming up to jump in the fray. I can see it now at the first GOP primary debate sometime in 2011:

Fox News Debate Moderator: Governor Johnson, you’ve been an outspoken critic of the drug war and support the decriminalization of marijuana. These positions don’t seem like Republican positions. This raises questions about your electability. Do you have any sir?

Gary Johnson: Who am I, Ron Paul?

Let us hope so, but this time, let us hope he wins.

WASHINGTON, DC—A new study by Representative Anthony Weiner (D – Queens & Brooklyn), member of the Health Subcommittee and Co-Chair of the Caucus on the Middle Class, revealed that 151 members of the House and Senate currently receive government-funded; government-administered single-payer health care – Medicare.

On the list of recipients are 55 Republicans who have steadfastly opposed other Americans getting the public option, like the one they have chosen.

Weiner said, “Even in a town known for hypocrisy, this list of 55 Members of Congress deserve some sort of prize. They apparently think the public option is ok for them, but not anyone else.”

And Ron Paul is on his list. Why?

It is extremely difficult for me to believe that Ron Paul’s name appears on this list legitimately. According to many sources he refused to accept Medicare while practicing medicine. He’s known as a man with integrity who practices what he preaches. I could find no other sources refuting and explaining why Paul’s name appears on the list, but admittedly, I didn’t look very hard.

I’m curious if there is a reasonable explanation from Paul such as the argument he uses for putting in earmarks for his constituents and then voting against them. Or maybe Weiner’s “study” is the equivalent of quoting people out of context and Paul doesn’t accept Medicare at all. In any case, I think an explanation is warranted.

What is hiding in plain site about Weiner’s argument though, is that he is making the assumption that the health care public option is equivalent to Medicare, which is broke. Yet they also argue that the public option will lower health care costs. Hypocrisy is an epidemic in the halls of Congress.

“The Federal Reserve Accountability Act” was introduced by Democrat Jeff Merkley and Republican Bob Corker yesterday. The bill takes the cake out of Paul’s bill and leaves nothing but the frosting.

The bill avoids review of the Fed’s regular lending programs, such as the longstanding discount window, and its interest-rate decisions.

So, it excludes the fundamentals, the very actions 75% of the American people say they want to know about. The attitude of these so-called representatives is reprehensible.

I’m willing to bet that Merkley and Corker have some large donors in the banking industry.

This may be expected, but it doesn’t mean those of us that support a full audit as outlined in Ron Paul’s bill should just lay down. If anything, the fight has just begun. Please call your representatives and make sure they understand the difference between the full audit and the waterboarded audit introduced yesterday. Tell them that you will not accept anything other than a full audit. It is time to take off the gloves and fight. It’s going to get dirty in DC. Well, more dirty than it already is.

Here is a PDF of the new bill.

Here is a Press Release from the Campaign For Liberty about the bill.

He said he was going to “grow the party” yet he finished his comments with “if you don’t like it you can leave!” Yeah, that seems like a good way to grow the party Lindsey.

Paul is going about his business defending the Constitution and bringing the GOP to young American patriots through the Campaign For Liberty. Paul educates with his books like his most recent “End the Fed” and last year’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto“. Meanwhile neo-conservatives and strangers to logic like Graham attempt to grow the party by shouting down those that would support them if they had any principles at all.

It is this lack of integrity and principle on display right now. Graham is the worst of the lot. Integrity, honesty, and principle are the ideological fuel to grow the Republican Party. That is the fuel of Ron Paul. Utilizing the Lindsey Graham infested fuel has already been attempted and failed.

Last time I checked John McCain wasn’t the President of the U.S. Although he could certainly be described as an angry white guy. Hmmm… maybe that’s who Graham was talking about after all.

In case you haven’t seen it already, here is the full video of the Graham town hall:

And here is the response from Ron Paul on CNN and MSNBC yesterday:

Ron covers many of the same points critics have made already, but he interestingly points out that the anti-war Left is AWOL now that Obama is in office. Projecting a bit into the future I’m curious what will become of these “Tea Partiers”  if another big-government neo-conservative Republican wins the White House in 2012. Will they go AWOL too? I fear they will. Can we please, for the love of liberty, break this vicious cycle?

Partisanship is an evil drug and too many Republicans and Democrats are addicted. The Constitution was not created for convenience or whim. It was once the “supreme law of the land”, but now it really has become “just a god-damned piece of paper” for far too many people.

Louis Armstrong’s famous song “What A Wonderful World” is now officially satire.

Maybe the Nobel Prize Committee was afraid of being called racist?

Or maybe it was just another giant middle finger to former President George W. Bush. Apparently, he is now being blamed for Obama winning the prize by at least one source.

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

Perhaps Obama winning this award is not surprising after all. The only other two sitting U.S. Presidents to win the award were Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. Hmmm, do I detect a pattern here? Perhaps it should be renamed, “The Nobel Progressive Prize”. It certainly has nothing to do with peace.

What if this obvious political move has the unintended consequence of spreading more resentment for America overseas than less? In effect this would be using the prize as a strategic chess piece for wishes that will never come true.

Here is a quite appropriate reaction from a student in Kabul:

“I don’t think Obama deserves this. I don’t know who’s making all these decisions. The prize should go to someone who has done something for peace and humanity,” said Ahmad Shabir, 18-year-old student in Kabul. “Since he is the president, I don’t see any change in U.S. strategy in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Exactly Ahmad, Exactly.

This culture is being thrust upon our nation’s young people at an early age. Young children are constantly being reassured that they are doing a “good job” for the most mundane accomplishments. Those who play sports are presented participation trophies. No, we wouldn’t want any of them to actually excel beyond just “showing up”, do we? While playing games it’s always important to make sure each child gets a turn at winning or at least the game ends in a tie where “everyone wins!” We are beginning to see the effects of this mentality.

At some point these children grow up and the realities of life smack them square in their glass jaws. Everyone can never be equal. Life is not fair. Hate will always exist. Yet they were always taught the opposite so they get “active” and try to fulfill the promise of their youth. Their activity naturally progresses toward the one entity they believe has de facto power to fulfill this promise: government.

Yes, everyone wants to take the government drug to be pain free, but everyone remains ignorant of that particular drug’s evil side effects and addictive nature.

Everyone has become “too big to fail”.

I was once asked in a job interview, “Do you think you learn more from your successes or your failures?” I answered “failures, of course.” Failure forces you to reexamine your premises, think outside the box, and try again. In order for failure to “work” it must not be rewarded. Yet this is precisely what our government is doing and has done for quite some time.

In our increasingly more overt politically-correct society, is it perhaps time to reexamine our premises? If someone is born without limbs it doesn’t mean we should go out and round up all of the “limb-full” and amputate their arms and legs in the interests of equality. Sure it’s an extreme metaphor but this is precisely what we are trying to do when we support plans that attempt to make life “more fair” for the underprivileged at the expense of those who worked to make their own lives better. It is class warfare and all classes lose in the end.

The opposite is true too. We should not be funneling taxpayer money to private banks and auto companies. A bad business is a bad business and we’d know it was bad if it were left alone to fail or thrive. Executives and employees will learn from the failure and move on to try again. Once the crying stops, innovation is a by-product of failure.

Rewarding failure makes it a goal rather than a consequence of poor decisions. Failure should not be shunned. It should not be embraced. It should be accepted as a lesson learned. Trying and failing is what makes trying again and succeeding so satisfying.

We need to channel the Founder’s cavalier spirit, end government mollycoddling, and realize if we fall down we can pick ourselves back up again. Sure we may make a mess of things at times but the most important thing is persistence.

FDR famously said, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself!” If he had instead said, “the only thing we have to fear is fear of failure”, we might be in a much better place today.

Because of caring people and a caring company, a terminally ill little Green Forest girl was flown home Friday by air ambulance from M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, so she can spend her last days surrounded by the people who love her most.

Jada Harper, who turned seven on Sept. 1, has an inoperable malignant tumor in her brain and is in a coma with a ventilator doing her breathing for her. She has been at the famous cancer center in Houston since July, but her situation is now at the point not much else can be done to help her.

I emphasized the first phrase above to emphasize what is absent: government. It doesn’t say because of some government program. No company was forced to help this poor child and her family. A company made up of individuals with the ability to make a decision to do what is right was responsible for this “random act of kindness”. Perhaps what makes this story more interesting is the company that helped is a direct competitor to a government entity.

Friday afternoon, Jada was flown home to the Ozarks — on a gurney, attached to the machine that breathes for her. FedEx Freight paid the $11,000 bill for the special medical flight her family was unable to afford.

FedEx who competes with the government sponsored United States Postal Service (USPS) acted when others failed. Sure, they may have been acting in their own self-interest to garner “free” advertising and customer goodwill, but how can they be criticized for performing this mutually beneficial act?

$11,000 is chump change for a company like FedEx, but apparently this isn’t an isolated occurrence.

“One thing that impresses me about this company is that the company has a heart,” Reeves said. “Our company does a lot of things like this. It’s been recognized as one of the most admired companies in the world, and this is why.”

It is this phenomenon that represents the best argument for a true free market. If companies weren’t over-regulated and over-taxed perhaps these random acts of kindness would multiply until they become the general rule rather than the exception. Imagine a world where companies all realize that helping people also helps the bottom line. Anyone can make a buck, but not everyone can make a devoted customer.

In a free market the customer acts as regulator. Companies would be trampling over themselves and each other to find the next person (potential customer) to help. When a third party, in this case the government, forces companies (and individuals) to fork over 40-50% of their profit (or income) and then uses it on projects that rarely achieve their intended purpose the result is widespread resentment. In this case companies and individuals become less charitable. The tax and regulatory burden hinders their ability to participate in benevolent actions like FedEx.

Imagine companies that have 50% more profit competing to be number one on the list of most charitable companies. There is no doubt that the result would be a monumental increase in assistance for people and organizations who need it.

We don’t need government to lead, nor follow. We just need government to get out of the way. It’s time to break the government chains of taxes and regulation. This would not only foster economic prosperity but it would also spawn a renaissance of benevolence. This benevolence would come voluntarily and resentment-free from private companies and individuals. It’s good for business, good for the poor, and good for America.

While Beck may not be there yet, there is a noticeable difference in his rhetoric when it comes to foreign policy and war. This could certainly be attributed to the fact that Obama is now in the White House instead of George W. Bush who used to get endless praise from Beck on foreign policy. Or is this evidence of a core transformation in Beck toward a more non-interventionist approach?

I shamefully admit that I once supported an interventionist foreign policy but that has changed over time as I investigated and became more informed on the issue. It took months, not days. Could Beck be going through a similar transformation? Only time, and maybe another Republican President will tell.

Does it really matter what Glenn Beck thinks? I argue that it does. He has some of the highest ratings of all the political talk shows. Like it or not many people care what he says and thinks. If Beck can make the transition to non-intervention then any formerly devout neo-conservative can too. Don’t shun them with charges of distrust. Welcome them and help them along their path.

For evidence of the Beck transformation-in-process I submit the video below.