So in today’s Texas Straight Talk, Ron Paul’s weekly column, he is right on target:

The distraction on Capitol Hill this week has to do with the jackpot bonuses that executives at AIG recently received. The argument is over a relative drop in the bucket. The total amount of bonuses given out was $165 million. The government has put $170 billion into AIG so far. Many now are demanding we get this money back. We ought to be spending our time and effort doing something more worthwhile, like figuring out how the Federal Reserve is handling the trillions of dollars they are creating and pumping into the economy, and how that is affecting the purchasing power of dollars in your pocket.

The big mistake was appropriating the TARP funds in the first place. A Johnny-come-lately bill of attainder won’t stop the spending epidemic. This whole situation is a perfect demonstration of why “doing nothing” and letting failing companies fail would have been much better than sinking valuable money and resources into them. [Continue]

They dream that they can somehow keep one hand in the neo-con cookie jar while the other hand waves over the Constitution. When Dr. Ron Paul comes along and tells them its time to amputate the gangrene neo-conservatism they dart out of the office crying like babies. One would think they would get the hint with their string of losses the past few years. Their latest and ultimate loss came this week when Al “Dog-gone it! People like me!” Franken was declared the winner over Norm Coleman in the hotly contested Minnesota Senate race.

As difficult as that is to chew on for Republican leaders it still won’t be enough to get them to mend their ways. They are more worried about beating Democrats than doing what’s right for America.  Somewhere some red-blooded, meat-eating, Sarah Palin-in-drag true-believing Republican cymbal monkey is happy with this strategy. Those of us who believe in conservative roots and Old Right principles know how to restore the GOP to greatness. It starts with severing the neo-conservatism arm and embracing the liberty found in our Constitution. And by embracing I don’t mean fondling it under the table like many politicians do today. I mean embracing it with a proud momma bear hug.

Ron Paul knows this better than anyone yet he is still picked last for the team in GOP gym class. Paul is admired for his economics and ostracized for his foreign policy. Bad-mouthers always ask the question: How can Ron Paul be so right on economics yet so wrong on foreign policy?

The answer my friends (with apologies to John McCain)  is that he isn’t wrong on foreign policy. He is just as right on foreign policy as he is on economics.

All we are saying is give peace a chance. Peace through free trade and commerce that is. Stop bombing and start doing business. We aren’t asking for much, just tell the truth, uphold your oath of office, and err on the side of freedom. That should be the goal, not winning the political party potato sack race.

Obama is a slick politician, so I expect him to continue to administer the neo-mercantilist, Hamiltonian empire that has been built up by both parties over the decades, with all of its schemes for corporate welfare for defense contractors, investment bankers and myriad other politically active businesses which, in turn, provide financial support for the regime. But Obama is also a hardcore leftist who spent his earlier career working with some of the craziest socialists in America, groups like ACORN, who advocated such things as kicking doctors off the boards of hospitals and replacing them with “the poor,” and Soviet-style nationalization of the energy and health care industries.

As for McCain, DiLorenzo says, in part:

John McCain is virtually a poster boy for Hamiltonian mercantilism: He favored a dictatorial executive branch, foreign policy adventurism and he supported the Wall Street Plutocrats’ bailout bill, which of course was pure Hamiltonianism.
…
Hamilton was also obsessed with using the powers of the state to pursue “imperial glory” in war, and itched for a war with France, just as McCain itched for a war with Iran (for starters). That also makes him quite the Hamiltonian.

DiLorenzo goes on to describe how Hamilton worked feverishly after the ratification of the Constitution to “read between the lines” to attempt to create a National Bank and “expand the dictatorial powers of the executive branch…far beyond what the Constitution called for.” Ever since he Civil war, at least, the Hamiltonian school of thought has taken over, and has, in fact, served to “rewrite” American history as taught by educational systems today.  Obama is a prodigy of such a system.

I recently received an e-mail from a young conservative law student at New York University Law School who thanked me for writing critically of Hamilton. He was sick and tired of being lectured to by his law professors (such as Nadine Strossen of the ACLU) about the glories of the “Hamiltonian” interpretation of the Constitution, which essentially is a roadmap for ignoring constitutional constraints on government. Obama is a Harvard-trained lawyer who also embraces this subversive legal philosophy. Before the election, a tape emerged of a speech he made just a few years ago where he complained that the Constitution had not yet been sufficiently “reinterpreted” by leftist judicial activists to allow a really radical redistribution of income. I expect him to appoint dangerous socialists like himself to the federal judiciary.

Read Part 1 of the DiLorezo interview here.  Part 2 is here.

Quote of the Day: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” — William Shakespeare

Subject: Not your usual post-election commentary

The media describes every election as historic, the most important in a generation, etc. When the voting is done they tell us a new era has dawned, that things will change, that nothing will ever be the same, blah, blah, blah.

One aspect of these claims is true, this time. It is both historic and meaningful that the United States has elected its first African-American president. We applaud and celebrate this. We think the significance of this event transcends mere symbolism. Otherwise, the election was what all other elections have been . . .

” . . . a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Can we support this harsh assessment? Consider . . .

The election thoroughly repudiated the Republican Party. They lost the White House in a landslide, and got clobbered in Congressional races. We might assume from this, if elections really produced change, that many Republican policies of the last eight years will be reversed. We predict that almost none of them will be.

The Republicans were responsible for . . .

* Enacting the largest new entitlement in decades — the prescription drug program
* Passing social engineering schemes like “No Child Left Behind”
* Starting an un-provoked war
* Gutting constitutional liberties
* Running-up vast deficits

Will the Democrats reverse any of these actions? Sadly, we think the answer is “No.” What, then, was the point of the election?

Was it merely to punish the Republicans while leaving their sins uncorrected? Was the purpose to give the Democrats permission to pursue all of their own pet projects for social engineering, and to spend, spend, spend to their hearts content?

Undoubtedly this last item is the message Democratic politicians will claim they heard. After all, they received a mandate, and if the mandate was not to pursue their dreams then the word has no meaning.

Of course, some voters can say, “Don’t blame me, I voted Libertarian . . . or for the Constitution Party . . . or the Greens.” Didn’t these voters, at least, send a clear message about what they want?

We think not.

What does the average person assume when he or she sees third party candidates listed in his newspaper with tiny vote percentages next to their names? We think he or she assumes that . . .

“Those are fringe candidates with fringe ideas that no one supports. Therefore, I need not consider what they have to say.”

The system is rigged against third parties. This guarantees low vote totals for those parties. It also guarantees that the ideas those parties represent will always be viewed as marginal.

Third parties don’t promote ideas, they marginalize them!

Oh yes, we know all about the exceptions, like the Socialists and the Progressives, both of whom had ideas adopted by the major parties. But please notice, those ideas made the politicians, and even tax-funded intellectuals in the school system, MORE POWERFUL. That’s the real reason those ideas were adopted; it wasn’t because the Socialists and the Progressives managed to score a few points on Election Day.

So what does voting for partisan candidates actually accomplish? What does it communicate? As far as we can tell the answer is nothing, except that . . .

It gives the victims of the con game — the American people — an illusion of control. But we have no control — no say so.

Voting in the partisan electoral contest merely gives sanction to the con-artists who constantly victimize us. That’s the role of the voter, to sanction what the politicians do. That’s it. It’s like Emma Goldman said, “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

Is this the way you want things to be?

The ways of the future do not lie in the ways of the past. The ways of the past involved hoping the new boss would be different than the old boss. But many decades have come and gone, and the new boss has always been the same as the old boss. We should abandon the old ways and adopt new ways.

The way to a better future lies in withdrawing our consent and issuing direct orders to our supposed public servants. Votes send confusing signals. But plain talk is rarely misunderstood.

The new way involves building a new social force with the power to make public servants miserable. Withdraw consent. Issue orders. Make the public servant submit.

The politicians are busy right now convincing themselves that the public wants top-down, centralized, Democratic social engineering. Who can disabuse them of this notion? After all, the votes have been cast. The people have spoken.

Only YOU can disabuse the politicians of their self-serving interpretations of inarticulate votes. The Republicans were repudiated. Therefore, the things the Republicans did must also be repudiated. This should be the mandate for the new Congress. Fortunately, we have a vehicle for doing just that . . .

Ron Paul’s “American Freedom Agenda Act” would repeal a good chunk of the bad things the Republicans did. Use our Educate the Powerful system to ask your elected representatives to pass this bill.

Use your personal comments to tell your elected representatives that the Republicans were repudiated, therefore the things the Republicans did must also be repudiated.

And stay tuned for new steps in a new direction, starting next week.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

Some people seem to always vote for the candidate from their chosen party.  Others vote for whomever they believe to be the “lesser of two evils”.  I, personally, am a great advocate of voting on principle ― voting for the person who most aligns with your views, no matter their party or chance of winning.  Determining who that candidate is takes a good deal of research.  Detailed analysis of a candidate’s positions on a wide variety of issues is highly important.  But when you’re slogging through so much information, it can be hard to compare the different people running for office.  How much are these two guys alike?  Exactly how authoritarian is this person’s viewpoint?

And that’s where fun stuff like graphs and quizzes come into play.  A great way of displaying how a certain political philosophy fits into the spectrum of thought is by means of the Nolan Chart.  This is a square (or diamond-shaped) diagram, with a coordinate system charting varying amounts of economic and personal freedom.  With the four corners mapped to the extremes of libertarian (absolute freedom), conservative (economic freedom, but government regulation of personal lives), statist or authoritarian (absolute government control), and liberal (personal freedom, economic regulation) viewpoints, any person or candidate’s beliefs can be pretty well reduced to a point on the graph.

An excellent way of figuring out where you (or the candidate you’re considering) fits on the spectrum, is by means of the World’s Smallest Political Quiz.  In it, you indicate whether you agree with ten statements about economic and personal freedom, and then are shown where your views fit on the Nolan Chart.  It’s quick, it’s simple, and it’s pretty accurate.

I got the idea, a few days ago, to try to figure out what answers the six major presidential candidates would give, if they took the quiz.  So, after a lot of research and discussion, I took the quiz for each one of them, and put all their scores together on a single graph, for easy comparison, as you can see in the image above.

The findings were kind of surprising.  I would have expected Chuck Baldwin to be closer to the conservative part of the chart, and I didn’t think Bob Barr would be quite so libertarian.  Nor did I realize how nearly identical McKinney and Nader were on everything!  But McCain and Obama both are, predictably, found in the statist quadrant.  Now this isn’t a completely comprehensive score (there are, after all, only ten questions), so there’s a little room for error.  And there’s no indication of their views on foreign policy, for example.  But you can check the data for each candidate, yourself, at the bottom of this post, where I’ve got an explanation on why I gave them the answer I did on each question.

I doubt anyone will be changing their mind on who to vote for, this late in the season (today, is, after all, election day), but this info should, at least, give you something to think about.  And if, in fact, you haven’t voted yet and are still undecided, taking the quiz and comparing your score to the candidates might be helpful.

I’ll leave you with this quote from John Quincy Adams:

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone; and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

And now, get out and hit the polls!

The Data:

Bob Barr

Personal Issues
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. ― Agree
Bob agrees, even opposing laws to stop the concentration of media ownership.

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. ― Maybe
The only quote from him on it I could find is from this 2004 article, in which he sort of supports it, halfheartedly. This was written after he endorsed Badnarik for the 2004 election, and presumably had his political conversion, so it seems likely he has the same views today.

There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. ― Maybe
He’s a states’ rights man, so he’s against the federal government getting into it. Whether or not he’s against all such laws is hard to tell. He won’t take a stance on the legalization of prostitution, for example.

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. ― Agree
Barr used to be the biggest proponent of the Drug War; but not anymore.

There should be no National ID card. ― Agree
Agreement, for sure.

Economic Issues
End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business. ― Agree
He opposes corporate welfare, and opposes the bailout, too, though not quite as forcefully as others . . .

End government barriers to international free trade. ― Agree
Kind of hard to find much data on this one (a lot of Google search results talk about his votes against free trade, back when he was in Congress), but there is a statement at the bottom of the Foreign Intervention page on his website that indicates he’s for freedom in this area.

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. ― Agree
This is one issue he’s not changed his views on in the past few years. Bob is in favor of privatization, and has been for quite some time.

Replace government welfare with private charity. ― Agree
That is his exact plan, in a nutshell.

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. ― Agree
Cutting spending is job #1, to him. And then, at the same time, tax reform (he says anything, nearly, is superior to the current income tax). So I think this is an “Agree”!

Chuck Baldwin

Personal Issues
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. ― Maybe
This is the only article by him that I could find on the legislation of morality. In it, he says that that sort of thing is not Uncle Sam’s job, but it’s all right for states or cities to ban porn, etc. But then he’s in favor of repealing campaign contribution limits, to add a little freedom to his First Amendment views.

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. ― Agree
Believes the draft to be a violation of the 5th amendment.

There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. ― Disagree
Again, the only evidence I can find is the article linked above, in which he says that, while the federal government shouldn’t get into that sort of thing, it’s alright for the states to legislate it.

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. ― Agree
He’s for a rethinking of the Drug War, and his results on VoteSmart’s test indicate he’s in favor of legalizing the possession of at least small amounts of marijuana, as well as less harsh sentences for non-violent criminals. So I guess that would be an “Agree”, though not a very forceful one.

There should be no National ID card. ― Agree
A quote: “We will not advance, we will not tolerate, we will not accept any form of a National ID Identification card!”

Economic Issues
End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business. ― Agree
He agrees, and opposes the bailout as well.

End government barriers to international free trade. ― Disagree
He’s said “We have to get back to Washington, to Jefferson, to the founding fathers; free trade with all, entangling alliances with none.” But he’s in favor of a 10% tariff on all imports, and the Constitution Party’s platform opposes truly free trade, too.

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. ― Agree
In favor.

Replace government welfare with private charity. ― Maybe
He says that welfare programs need to be examined for their benefit to Americans, and then decide on whether to cut them or keep them.

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. ― Agree
Quite definitely. He wants to abolish the income tax, and then cut enough spending so that we’re making more than we’re using, including disbanding several federal Departments.

Ralph Nader

Personal Issues
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. ― Agree
Well, it’s pretty hard to find out the answer to this one. A google search on “Ralph Nader” and “censorship” mostly comes up with articles about how he considers people’s requests for him not to campaign to be censorship. But according to this site, he no longer supports hate crime legislation, and he’s in favor of dissenting websites, so it’s an “Agree”.

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. ― Agree
Very much against the draft, I believe. Though he’s warned that there’s one coming . . .

There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. ― Agree
And is in favor of gay marriage, as well.

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. ― Agree
Definitely in agreement.

There should be no National ID card. ― Agree
As he says here (wish I’d found this site earlier, it’s got everyone’s views on National ID ― everyone who answered, that is . . .).

Economic Issues
End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business. ― Agree
Yes, in fact, he coined the term.  He’s written an article called Stop Corporate Welfare (his definition of corporate welfare includes rent-free radio shows, too). That’s pretty decisive. And he’s very much against the bailout!

End government barriers to international free trade. ― Disagree
Well, he’s against the sort of “free” trade we’ve got now (which, I’m afraid, is the sort McCain and Obama like). And he doesn’t think real free trade is possible, and so is against it.

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. ― Disagree
He’s against privatization.

Replace government welfare with private charity. ― Disagree
A quote: “You burn yourselves out doing charitable work. But if you get into politics and go to the cause of these problems, you will have a just society where you don’t need so much charitable work.” That would be against.

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. ― Disagree
He’s for tax reform, but not that kind of tax reform.

Cynthia McKinney

Personal Issues
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. ― Agree
She opposed the Communications Decency Act and flag desecration laws, when in Congress.

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. ― Agree
She cosponsored H.Con.Res.368, which pretty much tried to abolish the draft.

There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. ― Agree
She very strongly supports gay marriage, so I don’t think she’s for depriving anyone of freedom in this area.

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. ― Agree
She wants to end the drug war, and legalize medical marijuana.

There should be no National ID card. ― Agree
“I am against Real IDs!”

Economic Issues
End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business. ― Agree
She thinks the bailout is a bad idea (and has an alternative plan), and wants to eliminate corporate subsidies.

End government barriers to international free trade. ― Disagree
She’s for fair trade, not free.

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. ― Disagree
Opposes privatization.

Replace government welfare with private charity. ― Disagree
Considering how she wants to reduce the concentration of wealth, I think she doesn’t want to do away with welfare.

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. ― Disagree
The only tax cut she voted in favor of was doing away with the marriage penalty. She’s thinks we need to cut military spending, but that’s about it.

John McCain

Personal Issues
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. ― Disagree
On his old campaign site from 2000, he says he supports internet censorship. Though whether that’s federal censorship or he just thinks parents need to do the right thing, is hard to tell. But then there’s his War on Blogs, too. So I think a “Disagree” is warranted.

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. ― Disagree
He’s open to the concept, which shows he doesn’t oppose the draft ideologically.

There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. ― Agree
He’s in favor of civil unions for gays (and doesn’t think homosexuality is a sin: why are conservative Christians voting for him?). And while I wasn’t able to find any views of his on prostitution, there’s rumors that back in Vietnam . . .

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. ― Disagree
He’s for the continuation of the drug war.

There should be no National ID card. ― Disagree
He’s in favor of REAL ID (and, interestingly, Palin’s against it).

Economic Issues
End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business. ― Disagree
He supports the bailout, voted for it, and even suspended his campaign to promote it.

End government barriers to international free trade. ― Agree
He says he’s a free trader.

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. ― Disagree
He used to be for it, is now against it?

Replace government welfare with private charity. ― Disagree
Nope.

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. ― Maybe
He’s for cutting taxes and government size, but not that much. He’ll only cut taxes 4.4% for the richest folks, and they’re the ones he’s cutting the most on. However, he talks a lot about cutting spending on pork, and wants to balance the budget (which’ll take a lot of cutting), so we’ll give him a maybe.

Barack Obama

Personal Issues
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. ― Maybe
Obama has said that it’s the parents’ job to make sure their children don’t see objectionable things on TV, the internet, etc.; not the government’s. But he’s tried a little too hard to squelch smears against him, so I give him a “Maybe.”

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. ― Disagree
While he doesn’t want to start drafting folks, he thinks women should also have to sign up for the selective service, which is anything but repealing it. And he’s advocated mandatory community service, too.

There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. ― Agree
He says homosexuality is not immoral, so I doubt he’d try to have laws passed against it. I can’t find any evidence of him supporting laws restricting such freedom for other types of people, so I’m giving him an “Agree.”

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. ― Disagree
Obama’s for decreasing sentences for some drugs, and giving offenders the choice of being sentenced to rehab instead of to jail, but there’s no repealing here.

There should be no National ID card. ― Maybe
This one’s a toughie. There’s nothing about it on Obama’s website, and Google searches on “Obama” and “Real ID”/”National ID” almost unanimously return repostings of this. Obama did vote for the bill which contained the REAL ID, but so did everyone else in the Senate, since it was attached to all kinds of other stuff, so it’s hard to tell. He’s criticized the REAL ID, but on a practical, not ideological basis.

Economic Issues
End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business. ― Disagree
Voted for the bailout. Has some reservations, but he did. End of story.

End government barriers to international free trade. ― Maybe
He opposes our current free trade agreements, but isn’t opposed to free trade entirely . . . I think. Sometimes it’s hard to tell.

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. ― Disagree
“Obama and Biden are strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.” Can’t get any more forceful than that.

Replace government welfare with private charity. ― Disagree
He wants to give a $500 Tax credit to persons making under $75,000 a year. And hasn’t said anything about decreasing welfare.

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. ― Disagree
Not at all likely. His plan only decreases taxes by 0.3% average. And it’s likely spending will go up, too.

I saw the following quote in a letter to the editor of a newspaper in a southwestern town:

“In time of war, patriots throw their politics aside and stand behind their leaders, because there can be only allegiance to their country….”

With this one simple statement the writer, who claims to be a patriot, gives carte blanche to whoever owns the government to act with impunity in a blatant display of nationalism. A true patriot would never make such a statement, much less write about it in her/his local newspaper. It is this very attitude that has allowed dictators to rise throughout history and massacre untold millions whether it has been in the name of the Fatherland, or the Motherland, or the Homeland. This false-patriotic philosophy dictates that in times of war it is the citizens’ duty to support their leaders regardless of how evil or pure their intentions may be. As the Little Rascals would say, “What a bunch of hooey!” I am sorry, but I just cannot accept that as a proper definition of patriotism. Blind allegiance is the mother of tyranny, not patriotism.

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.”

- Albert Einstein

Now that I think of it, this bring into question McCain’s creepy “Country First” campaign slogan, doesn’t it?  It’s eerily reminiscent of the Nazi slogan “Deutschland Uber Alles” in the 1930’s and early 40’s.

Read R. Lee Wrights’ article here.

This is a fine example of how Bob Barr can win the votes of those disgruntled lifetime GOP’ers.

I have a problem. I’m voting for a third party candidate—Bob Barr. Barr is the Libertarian presidential candidate. My parents, glaring speechlessly and wondering what happened to the young Republican who cried when Bob Dole lost in ‘96, tell me I’m throwing my vote away. I haven’t even made this confession yet to my grandfather, a lifelong “common sense” Republican, but I shudder to think what he’ll say. My other grandfather also cried when Clinton won in ‘96, so he might understand why I’m voting for the man who tried to send “42” back to Arkansas.

This election season, Obamamania is feverishly hot; news stories of women fainting at rallies, pious displays of Obama as the Messiah, and even Obama’s own claims to “stop the sea’s rise” allude to the fact that the Democratic party is obsessively consumed by the cult of personality erected around “The One.” “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” he tells crowds of supporters.

For the GOP, a party I no longer identify with, there is much less excitement. McCain’s not exactly electrifying, and the hype around Sarah Palin has fizzled out. But what’s worse is that the Republican ticket is confirming what the Bush II presidency already established: that to be a Republican these days is to be something different than a conservative.

So to other disaffected conservatives disgusted by the bailout, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, excessive spending, and the Federal Government running roughshod over the states, I offer you an impractical alternative: vote for Bob Barr.

Somewhat ironically (because it comes from a “conservative”) Lohse covers one of Barr’s painful negatives in the eyes of many libertarian voters: His votes for the Patriot Act and for the Iraq War authorization.

However, even the rare principled politician like Barr can be deceived. In the first Bush term he voted for both the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, two votes he describes as his biggest regrets. In his own words, “My vote to authorize the war was a mistake, and I realize it now. The administration gave inaccurate, unsound intelligence. I voted to depose Saddam Hussein—the Bush administration used that resolution for a multi-year occupation of Iraq. Unlike McCain, I don’t appreciate the fact that the administration did a bait and switch; but that bait and switch doesn’t seem to bother him.”

If you know someone weighing a vote for either John McCain or Bob Barr this article could sway them to the Barr side.

At the Independent Institute, Art Carden discusses this issue:

Barack Obama is campaigning for president under the slogan “Change We Need.” Unfortunately, many of his economic policy proposals would move us in exactly the wrong direction. As of this writing it appears that Senator Obama will be the next president of the United States. We can move forward by looking at the implications of some of his economic policy proposals.

Consider first the issue of trade. One of the fundamental principles of economics is that there are gains from exchange. During the third presidential debate, Senator Obama said that he believes in free trade but then proposed a slate of caveats and provisos that would undermine the principles of free trade. On the surface, environmental protection and labor standards sound noble, but they actually harm the desperately poor by artificially raising the cost of employing them and effectively legislating them out of the international marketplace. Restrictions on trade provide a short-run windfall for unionized American workers—a powerful Obama constituency—but this windfall comes at the expense of other Americans who have to pay higher prices and at the expense of poor people around the world who are then barred from the market.

Carden then goes on to discuss Obama’s ideas regarding NAFTA, the idea of “creating jobs”, unions, and the minimum wage.

Read the rest of the article here.

The word “socialism” can mean many things to many people, anything from Western European style social welfare to state ownership of the means of production to the New Deal or the Great Society or a wide range of other usages. I’ll let those who know (or at least claim to know) more about the real meaning of the word have the debate over which usage is proper (mostly because I hate debates over whether somebody is using a politically-charged word correctly). Instead, I’ll engage the McCain rhetoric on its own terms.

McCain, just like Obama, believes that taxes should be levied for the purpose of funding social programs that redistribute income downwards. (We’ll leave aside, for the moment, the fact that both of them also believe that taxes should be levied for the purpose of funding a bloated military-industrial complex and other things that redistribute at least some of the income upward.) McCain and Obama may envision different forms and scopes for those programs, and those differences may or may not have profound consequences in practice. However, the McCain rhetoric is being employed to argue that just about any downward redistribution is a type of socialism. If it is (at least in McCain’s usage of the term) then McCain is a socialist. Maybe not as much of a socialist as Obama (we’ll leave aside welfare for the rich, for the moment) but a socialist nonetheless.

Read the rest here.

He then has some strong words for Maddow’s liberal ears as he attacks Obama and McCain saying they both have the same ideas on foreign policy and monetary policy.

I say opportunity because the outlook for liberty at this point in our country’s history is quite bleak. The popular political culture pendulum is swinging far to the left with Barack Obama’s pending victory. Following 9/11 Neo-conservative Right ideals were in vogue. The question remains what happens when the rebound occurs from the current move to the left? This is where libertarians can capitalize if the cards are played properly.

How to play those cards is the bigger question. Should libertarians follow Ron Paul’s lead and join the Republican Party in an attempt to infiltrate and shift the platform toward liberty? How long would such an effort take? Is there something to be said for reaching out to Sarah Palin in an effort to bring her into the liberty fold before 2012? I suggest this due to the recent reports of her “going rogue” and off-message according to a McCain aide reported on CNN.

Palin has already been dubbed a potential Presidential candidate in 2012 by her GOP fans. The blessing and curse is that Palin is the source for the most recent conservative infighting. What if Palin resents being a puppet for the McCain campaign, and resents having to modify her own belief system even more? In short, what if Palin really is a moderate libertarian in neo-conservative lipstick? That is completely at odds with what we’ve discussed previously, but given the infighting, is it not a possibility? What if overtures are made now, Palin runs in 2012 and chooses Ron Paul as her running mate? Sure it is crazy and unlikely, but it’s only 2008. A lot can happen in the next four years.

It is difficult to believe such a thing is remotely possible for many reasons. She already has a taste of Republican “power” and may already be too far gone to the dark side to come back into the freedom fold. Would Ron Paul be interested in such a team? What about a Palin-Johnson ticket? Gary Johnson, that is — the former Governor of New Mexico. They are both young Republicans and “talk” limited government. Johnson even practices it. That would be a young vibrant team for a GOP libertarian revolution of sorts. While this is certainly more plausible it still rests on Palin doing a bit more of her own thinking, which is at this point is more than a long shot.

Any way you look at the next four years, the potential for liberty is slim. There is an entire status quo culture that embraces more government instead of less. However, there is a definite vocal minority undercurrent of libertarian opposition to giving the government more and more power over our lives. Isn’t it odd that the President and Congress are at record low approval ratings yet a candidate preaching more government is leading the polls for the White House? People seem to actually believe Obama has ideas that will fix all that ails us. This could work in libertarian favor if, over the next four years, we end up worse off than we are today.

Somehow we need to morph the status quo attitude from “the government will save us” into “the government needs to get out of the way”. It’s time for another bailout. It’s time for limited government liberty-loving libertarians and Republicans to bail out the failing GOP. The difference is that it needs to be done with the spread of grassroots ideas instead of our hard earned tax dollars. When the pendulum swings back from its current leftward trajectory, libertarians need to be ready to guide it towards the freedom guaranteed by our forgotten Constitution. That is, if it swing backs at all.

All Photos by Bill Perry. (Thanks!)

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORK – At the gates of Hofstra University, a peaceful march by 400 members of Iraq Veterans Against the War and independent citizens was met by over 100 policemen who attacked on the protestors when they refused to retreat and stop exercising their freedom of speech on October 15.  The marchers were attempting to ask a couple questions of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain as they were debating.  Nick Morgan, Iraq war veteran, was trampled by a police horse on his ribs and face, breaking his orbital in three places, as shown in the photos. See this video, which is a must-see that I chose as the best at representing the events.

Let’s take an eagle’s eye view for a moment – an image of an unconscious Iraq veteran bleeding with a crushed face on a sidewalk in Hempstead, New York while protesting the War of Terror more befits the war-torn streets of Baghdad, Sadr City, Kandahar, or the Pakistan borderlands.  These images and news were not shown to the public watching the presidential debates. There is no mention of the incident in the mainstream media with the exception of this short Associated Press snippet where they quote Nassau County Police Lt. Kevin Smith saying “one person may have received a minor injury.”  This inaction is nothing short of almost criminal negligence behavior by the American media cartel and the AP.  If you expect me to believe that MSM is able to report every single little murder within a 1000-mile radius of your home but miss the story of an Iraq vet getting his face smashed in by a police horse right outside of the presidential debate that they are covering, you will be waiting for eternity. Cheryl Biren-Wright of OpEdNews pounds into this AP article in more detail here.

Since MSM will not air them, here are the questions these veterans ask of these candidates:

“Senator McCain, on July 9th 2008 you were quoted saying “I’ve received every award from every major veterans organization in America but the reason why I have a perfect voting record from organizations like Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, and all the other Veterans Service Organizations is because of my support of them.”
However, there are non-partisan Veterans Organizations such as the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), and the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) who’ve noted that you’ve consistently voted against important issues such as increased VA funding in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. This summer, another Veterans Organization, Veterans for Common Sense filed suit against the VA and discovered that approximately 1000 Veterans under their care are attempting suicide each month, with an average of 17 succeeding every 30 days. Government surveys conclude that over 300,000 21st Century Warriors are currently suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, while only 67 thousand have been diagnosed with PTSD, and less than half of those are collecting disability benefits. Doctors and Nurses at the VA are struggling to treat the 2 million American Troops who’ve deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. What promises are you willing to make, as a Veteran, as a Senator, as a Presidential Candidate, to the Veterans of the United States to prove that you will ensure the VA is fully funded, staffed, and capable of preventing Troops from suffering as they are now, after they’ve served our great nation overseas?”

- Sergeant Kristofer Goldsmith, Operation Iraqi Freedom III Veteran

“Senator Obama, you have said that the War and Occupation of Iraq is illegal. If by your words, it is illegal, then it is not only the right of service members such as myself to refuse deployment and participation in Iraq, it is also our responsibility. Sir, as President, are you willing to go by your own words and back them up, and support service members refusing to participate in what you have, in your own words, termed an “Illegal Occupation”?”
-Sergeant Matthis Chiroux, Operation Enduring Freedom Veteran

There is nothing wrong or criminal about these questions.  [On a much happier note, at the Baldwin-Nader debate, Nick Morgan’s question on civil liberty violations was asked here.]  Sergeant Chiroux states the IVAW side of the story here:

“Our intent was made clear in a letter to Bob Schieffer, the debate moderator, one week prior. We wanted two members of our organization inside the debate where they would ask one question of Obama and one of McCain. If CBS and the candidates failed to meet our demands, we would march on Hofstra at 7 p.m. in a peaceful attempt to enter the debate to have our voices heard…

“Non-violence was stressed in every stage leading up to this action. It was stressed by Kris and I to Det. Thomas J. Calvert and Det. Robert Annese of the Nassau County Police Department the day before the action. Calvert and Annese were in charge of security for the debate, and they assured us they would instruct their officers to respect the non-violent spirit of the action by using restraint towards peaceful veterans and demonstrators.

“In every stage of planning, IVAW made every effort to keep all planned tactics and actions “above the table” so that the candidates, the media, the police and the country would know exactly what would happen if our demands were not met.  We were at Hofstra to force the issue that veterans and servicemembers are not being cared for or heard from by our government, and the candidates, CBS and the Nassau County Police Department couldn’t have proved us more correct.

“We, the veterans and our supporters, stood together in solidarity, knowing the stakes were high. But a resolve echoed deep from with us to stand our ground and be heard. Twice these candidates [at their first and second presidential debates] had brushed us off, and thrice just wasn’t going to happen.  So at seven PM when we’d heard nothing from the moderators, IVAW made good on its promise to the candidates and Det. Calvert. We marched to the front gate of Hofstra, read our questions and peacefully proceeded into police lines.  Because these candidates cared more to hear from “Joe the Plumber” than veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, ten veterans went to jail and five civilian supporters joined us.  This upsets me, but I knew the risk, and if I must fall in defense of democracy, peace and justice, I offer my sacrifice willingly.“

A total of fifteen protestors were arrested, of whom 10 are veterans.  The veterans were Matthis Chiroux (Army Sergeant, 5 years, Afghanistan), Kristofer Goldsmith (Army Sergeant, 2004-2007, Iraq), Adam Kokesh (Marine Sergeant, Iraq), Mike Spinato (Marine Corps), Geoff Millard (Army Sergeant, 9 years, Iraq), Marlisa Grogan (Marine Captain, 2002-2006, Iraq), Nathan Peld (Navy, 1998-2004), Nick Morgan (Army Sergeant, 4 years, ironically with the 1^st Calvary Division, Iraq), James Gilligan (Marine Corps, 6 years) and Jose Vasquez (Army & Army Reserves, 1992-2007).  The citizens were Ryan Olander, Paul Blasenheim, David M. Disimino, Lianne Gillooly, and Megan Day.

Sergeant Chiroux went on to charge that after the groups’ arrest the following occurred:

• The police officers withheld medical treatment after arresting a barely conscious Nick Morgan, who was later reported to have suffered a concussion. When the other veterans requested treatment, the officers responded by laughing at them and said Morgan would receive no help unless he himself asked to go to the hospital.  When the veterans pointed out that Morgan was unable to respond due to his serious head injury, the police responded with “too bad.”
• Morgan was given improper medical attention. Although diagnosed with a fractured cheekbone, he was given nothing more than Motrin for the pain and returned to the police station where he sat chained to a bench for 5 hours with no further medical attention at all until his release at some ungodly hour in the morning.
• The police tortured a war veteran suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. The police repeatedly flipped open and shut a knife close to veteran James Gilligan’s face while he was handcuffed to a bench, even after he respectfully explained his disease and asked the officer to cease brandishing the blade.  The officer continued flipping the knife open and shut near his face.
• Chiroux was threatened with prison rape. When Chiroux asked to speak to a lawyer, an officer threatened to place him in the back of the jail where “the big boys will pop your cherry.”  When Chiroux asked this officer if he had just threatened an honorably discharged veteran of Afghanistan with prison rape and requested his name and rank, he refused and told him to look it up on the police report, which was not delivered as of October 20.
• The three females arrested, including Iraq veteran Marine Reserve Captain Marlisa Grogan, were sexually harassed by the police.  The police held ID’s next to the chained women’s faces and make comments such as, “you look like you came out of a Barbie magazine.”  After their release late at night, one of the police officers asked one of the arrested citizens, Megan Day at a late night diner if he could have her phone number and could stay in touch.  Megan expressed to Chiroux her disgust immediately after the incident occurred.
• The veterans and protestors were verbally abused. They were called “cowards,” “idiots” and “whiners.”  “This non-violent protest stuff is retarded.  See how it got your friend’s face f***ed up?” “Look at your friend’s face, you’re responsible for that.”

Iraq veteran Adam Kokesh was given special treatment.  Why?  Well, Adam has been making quite a name for himself with our police state.  To the derision of a huge crowd, he managed to interrupt McCain’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention by holding a signs stating “McCain Votes Against Vets” and “You Can’t Win An Occupation.”  He is an avid Ron Paul supporter and also gave a moving speech at the Revolution March here.  Here is a video and the partial hidden microphone transcript:

Cop 1: Aww that’s really nice man. You’re under arrest man.

Adam Kokesh: You never told me I was under arrest. I just got…

Cop 1: Oh you’re in handcuffs? Good for you…

Adam Kokesh: I never got read my rights. I never was told I was under arrest for anything.

Cop 1: Oh you know what happens when you get handcuffs thrown on.

Cop 2: Yeah you watch too much TV. We don’t need rights, alright? That’s on COPS.

Adam Kokesh: I dont have any expectations.

Cop 2: You know what I am saying? This is New York baby.

Adam Kokesh: I dont have any expectations.

Cop 2: We do things different in New York I don’t know where you’re from.

I am not going to dwell too much on these pathetic excuses for  men, let alone officers of the law, as it does little good to strike at the branches of evil, you need to strike at the root, which is in Part 2.   However, I will note that the Nassau County Police Department mission statement contains the following:  “We obey the law and respect the human dignity of all people.  We are committed to honesty and ethical behavior in all our actions.  We are dedicated to protecting the rights of all people.  We are committed to fairness, strength, respect, and compassion in our interactions with the people we serve.” Yeah, right.  And pigs will fly.

This article has described and documented this event.  See source list for more details.  Part 2 will cover the McBama responses (much shorter as there have been none) and I will republish veteran Kristopher Goldsmith’s May 2008 Congressional testimony in my column for the fourth time and a message from Ron Paul.

It is my belief that this event is just as significant as the famed Kent State and Jackson State Vietnam protests, but may just as easily fade away.  Thankfully, no one was killed, although my guess is that it still would have been blacked out by the media.  Always remember here that it was the VETERANS who were attacked and tortured.  (Yes, what Chiroux alleges the police does meet the legal definition of torture.)  If you think you will not be eventually attacked because you support the war, because you are a woman, because you are a Christian, because you are not old enough to vote, guess again.  That is exactly what the Germans in Nazi Germany thought 75 years ago.  (The Coming of the Third Reich by Robert Evans, 2003.)  This link will be sent to a few newspapers editors, where I will respectfully request them to publish a feature article on this event.

If I may be so bold as to offer a few words of advice to the protesting veterans after reading your statements and blogs, it is that I do not believe you mean to fight for “democracy.”  Democracy literally means “rule by majority.”  This means that 51% wins, regardless whether it is just or desired by the remainder.  There are plenty of literary articles on this subject, but democracy can be summed up as “mob rule” and is a horrible misnomer thrown about by the Establishment to enslave, i.e. “spreading democracy in Iraq/Middle East/China/etc.”  By its true name, what you are fighting for is freedom and liberty for yourselves, for me, and for all of us. You are fighting so that the Constitution, the compact made with We the People, of our constitutional Republic does not die a final death.  Congressman Ron Paul writes about it here in “Democracy Isn’t Freedom.”

To keep it simple, just watch Star Wars again if need be.  Luke Skywalker and Yoda are the revolutionary republicans seeking freedom and liberty.  Darth Vader and Emperor Constantine are the imperious democrats seeking statism, oppression, and total control.  See how the dual party system has even managed to sow confusion even on the very meaning of these words?  Both the Republican and Democratic parties want to be Darth Vader and Emperor Constantine.

From all I have read, it is my experience that in cases like this where civil liberties are trampled on, most of the time the news media or authorities report that they were the first ones attacked, or the protestors were breaking some law.  The government then replies with overwhelming force and violence.  Normally these attacks take place outside of the United States, but are all too often inspired by American imperialistic policies.  For instance take a look at the University of Chicago’s Economic Department’s (the so-called ‘Chicago Boys’) and/or the American government’s support or influence on General Pinochet’s fascist regime, Carlos Menem’s Argentina, Paz’s Bolivia, General Branco’s Brazil, Suharto’s Indonesian police state, Yeltsin’s Russia, China’s Tiananmen, Rhee’s Korea, the last 60 years of protests and crimes in Okinawa, and many, many more. They all used or used pretty much the same tactics on civilian populations so their governments could do what they wished on the economic front.  Heck, the strategy is so simple even I could do it.

Shock.  Suppress.  Divide.  Conquer.  Propagandize.  Repeat.  The same tactics are now being launched in the USA.  And don’t try telling me it has never happened in the United States, and a police state just can’t happen. here  You are living in a box.  Try reading more of my police state articles below or investigate for yourself what really happened during Katrina or the 1999 Battle of Seattle protests against the WTO or the 2002 chemical weapon attacks on protestors in Portland, Oregon as they marched on President Bush and a Republican fundraiser.  (Sources: Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (2007) or Chalmer Johnson’s Blowback (2000))  Rodney King, Kent State, Concentration Camps for American Japanese during WWII…

Activists are encouraged to join up at the Facebook site “I Support the Hempstead 15.” Anyone is encouraged to visit the Iraq Veterans Against the War mission statement which calls for immediate withdrawal from Iraq here.  For obvious reasons, I also recommend joining up at www.CampaignForLiberty.com.  The only peaceful way to win against a police state is for everyone against it to join together and protest against its too late.  And I am talking millions, although thousands is a good start.  However, history has taught that peaceful protesting has real lousy win/loss record against a determined tyranny.  The last resort involves owning lots of ammunition and food.

Life with Liberty or Death. Why? Because the middle ground on regimes that support preemptive wars and torture and suppress free speech holds only the barrens of Slavery.

- Jake, the Champion of the Constitution     [Reach the Author Here!]

____________________________________________________________

The Hempstead 15 Source List

• Videos of Iraq Veterans Against the War protest at Hofstra University, Third McBama presidential debate, 10/15/2008 (same as used in article) (another1) (another2)
• Sergeant Matthis Chiroux, 10/20/2008 Statement “Hooves of fury stampede over veterans/U.S. Constitution Oct. 15“
• Sergeant Nick Morgan, Statement from Hospital, 10/22/2008
• Bill Perry, Photo Archive
• Cheryl Biren-Wright, 10/16/2008 OpEdNews article “Meet the Protester Who ‘May Have Received a Minor Injury’ at the Hofstra Debate“
• Nick Morgan Question asked at Baldwin-Nader debate on 10/23/2008
• Associated Press 10/15/2008 article “Police: 15 protesters arrested outside LI debate“
• Alex Kane 10/16/2008 IndyBlog “At Least Nine Demonstrators Arrested as Iraq Vets Try to Enter Final Presidential Debate”
• Air Force Times, 10/17/2008. “Veterans arrested in protest outside debate.“
• Adam Kokesh Arrest Video and Transcript, posted by WarOnYou on 10/18/2008.  Mr. E’s YouTube video.
• Adam Kokesh, Ron Paul Revolution March Speech, July 2008.
• Adam Kokesh, Protest during McCain Coronation Ceremony, September 2008.
• Adam Kokesh, IVAW member page.
• Nick Morgan, IVAW member page.
• Kristopher Goldsmith, IVAW member page.
• Matthis Chiroux, IVAW member page.
• Jose Vasquez, IVAW member page.
• Geoff Millard, IVAW member page.
• Marlisa Grogan, IVAW member page.
• Nathan Peld, IVAW member page.
• “I support the Hempstead 15” Facebook page.
• Ron Paul. “Democracy is Not Freedom.”  2005.
• Ron Paul. “Is America becoming a police state?” 2004.
• Iraq Veterans Against the War mission statement for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

____________________________________________________________

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings in part or full of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.

Veritas numquam perit. Veritas odit moras. Veritas vincit. Truth never perishes. Truth hates delay. Truth conquers.

_______________________________________________________________

The “Pssssst…. We Live in a Police State!” Collection

Spill a Soda, Go to Jail for a Year
Published: September 27, 2008
The latest strange-but-true antics of oppression from our dear Police State. Check out the story of the infamous soda-spiller at a Veteran’s Affairs Hospital in Idaho.

Police State Invades Mayor’s Home & Kills His Dogs (UPDATED)
Published: August 1, 2008
“It was inconceivable to me that my government would be coming through my door.” – the Mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland, or a recent police raid on his residence

We the People versus the Might of the US Government
Published: March 2, 2008
What do the experiences of SAS trooper Ben Griffin, Hope Steffey, and Jose Padilla all have in common? They show the Might of Government is overwhelming Right. We the People want Justice!

Tortured Twins: John McCain and the Trial of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed
Published: September 2, 2008
To very little public fanfare from my beloved American media, a Mockery of a Trial of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, alleged al-Qaeda mastermind, is getting underway in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Is John McCain losing any sleep over it? Doubt it.

US Military Draft Creeps Closer – Ron Paul and I Defy Senators “Barackcuda” Obama and “Just-Bomb-It” McCain
Published: July 21, 2008
Gaze ye at the Face of Evil and know it for what it truly is. America, Have No Fear.

First They Came for Those Who Didn’t Pay Their Taxes…
Published: April 19, 2008
Then They Came for the Ron Paul Supporters. The Fight that Defeated the late, great boxer Joe Louis Continues.

Ron Paul Reports – The “Mother of All Bailouts” Bill
Published: July 24, 2008
The “Mother of All Bailouts” Bill. And the IRS will now access all your credit card transactions. Really.

_______________________________________________________________

Other Recommended Articles by the Author

Complaint re: Veteran Suicide Cover-Up by Department of Veteran Affairs Mental Health Division
Published: October 5, 2008
Did you know that 18 American war veterans die every day? And did you know that Veteran’s Affairs has no idea why? And did you know….

US Soldier 2008 Body Count in Afghanistan Sets All-Time High
Published: October 5, 2008
Imagine you are in a room, alone with 20 American soldiers for one day. At sunset, all their bodies thud to the floor, stone dead. At dawn, 20 more enter the room and again die at sunset. It repeats every day for 7 years. It will repeat tomorrow. This is what I know of their story, their sad statistics.

Book Synopsis: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi

An Anti-Ron Paul Deflationary Economic Theory

Save Ron Paul’s Voice – A Money Matrix Addendum

The Money Matrix – Prelude (PART 1/15)

My Father’s Vietnam is My Iraq – Disturbing Parallels

Summary of Articles for Jake, the Champion of the Constitution (10/19/2008)