That being said I have some questions. Most won’t be answered in the near term, but will be answered within the next 2 years.

1. Will Rand Paul win in another “Randslide”?
2. If Sharon Angle defeats Harry Reid will Chuck Schumer become the leader of the Senate?
3. Should Rand Paul win, will he lose the support of the Tea Party during his term as Senator?
4. Will Ron Paul’s supporters be happy with the way Rand Paul votes on foreign policy?
5. If the GOP takes control of the House will Ron Paul become the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee?
6. Will the Republicans be able to repeal Obamacare?
7. Are the Republicans going to to water down the Tea Party message by playing the same old political game?
8. Will Sarah Palin become the GOP nominee in 2012 due to her perceived influence on the Tea Party candidates winning in 2010?
9. When will Ron Paul announce he is running for President in 2012 (My guess is sometime in January of 2011)?
10. When Republicans gain control of the House and nothing changes will a Third Party option become truly viable in 2012?

Those are the main questions I have. Do you have any to add?

Then, again, you may have crossed over into that Zombieland of voting in which you can’t seem to get enough of the heady stuff. While the former state is normal, here’s how to tell if you’ve really had too much politics for the season and are badly in need of a vacation or at least electroshock therapy:

1) You know Sarah Palin’s dog’s favorite color.
2) You can recite the Hatch Act from memory.
3) You call polling companies and beg to be polled.
4) You can’t wait for TV shows to end so you can start enjoying the campaign commercials.
5) You’ve come to believe that Rand Paul is a type of gold coin.
6) You can spell Ben Bernanke’s name forward AND backwards.
7) Your shirt has color-coded campaign buttons with Republicans on the right side, Democrats on the left, and Libertarians down the middle.
You agree with every political view no matter who holds it yet become irritated when someone refuses to have an opinion.
9) Your Favorites menu on your computer browser is full of campaign websites.
10) You can’t be reached on the Internet because your e-mail account is glutted with campaign spam.
11) You’ve got a space reserved in front of the early voting place so that you can get there before midnight.
12) You’ve got a tattoo of your favorite candidate on your shoulder and you were the tattoo artist.
13) You’ve painted half your car red and the other half blue.
14) You invite campaign flyer distributors into your house for coffee and cookies and to have a heart-to-heart.
15) You’ve removed the heads from your bobblehead collection and replaced them with leading candidates.
16) You straighten up campaign signs at intersections.
17) Your alarm clock has campaign ads to awaken you.
18) You call radio talk shows just to hear them breathe.
19) Instead of Fantasy Football, you play Fantasy Politics.
20) Your friends avoid you because all you want to talk about is the latest polling numbers.
21) When you dream, it’s of filling out your ballot.
22) Your iPod is full of recorded campaign speeches.
23) You’re disappointed when, after the phone rings, it’s only your mother calling and not a pre-recorded message from a local candidate.
24) You burned out your TIVO recording late-night political shows.
25) Your car has so many campaign stickers on it, it makes two miles less per gallon.

Most of them are, more or less, accusing the Judge of selling out by having guests such as Sarah Palin and Dick Armey on his debut show. I thought the show was excellent and just illustrated the point I was trying to make in my recent article, “Rand Paul is the purple pill“.

The Judge used his debut show to bring together various factions to find some common ground on the issues. How fitting it was to see Rand Paul sitting between Ron Paul and Sarah Palin on the show. I’m not sure if this seating arrangement was purpose-driven, but it certainly seemed like it could have been deliberate. Rand Paul represents the “coming together” of these factions into a more effective liberty-driven whole.

No, Sarah Palin is certainly not as close to perfect on liberty as Ron Paul, and Rand Paul is somewhere in-between. That in-between is the pathway Judge Napolitano attempted to cultivate in the show. I thought he was quite successful in that endeavor.

However, I’m miffed by one aspect of the show. The Judge chose not to end the show with his usual tag line, “Stay Free… America!”

Instead, he ended with, “So long… America!”

Hmm.. do you think he’s trying to tell us something?

—–

Watch the Freedom Watch debut.

The full results are posted here: http://www.w-r-s.com/blog/.

In 1773 it was Britain’s tea tax on the colonies that moved the American revolutionaries to protest by dumping tea into the Boston harbor. In late 2007 a tribute to that protest occurred on it’s 234th anniversary when $6.04 million was raised in a single day for Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign. In 2009 the Tea Party tribute reached some kind of critical mass with various protests all over America.

Did this happen because the U.S. citizens suddenly realized that their government no longer represented them? Or did this happen because they were just pissed that Barack Obama was elected President instead of Johnny “Maverick” McCain?

It’s important to look at the origins of this “movement”. It all goes back to Ron Paul, or rather, Ron Paul’s grassroots supporters. They were the nuts that commissioned a freakin’ blimp to fly up and down the east coast “advertising” their candidate. They were the nuts that littered America with signs (homemade and otherwise) in every city, town, and suburb. They were the nuts that organized following each debate to vote for their candidate in the post-debate text polls.

They were in your face and you either hated it, tolerated it, or loved it. No matter what your reaction, you can’t deny their dedication. I’m not sure I see that kind of dedication from the Tea Party movement yet. Even though they try to portray that they are angered at the growth of government, many seem to be dedicated to their dislike of Barack Obama and not much else. Bad-mouthing Bush now, comes off as merely lip-service or useless 20/20 hindsight.

Ron Paulers have been doing it since 2007 and are still doing it. The evidence is all around us. Ron Paul’s books are consistent best sellers. His Federal Reserve audit bill has 317 sponsors, including every House Republican and over 100 Democrats. That bill, in the form of an amendment, is contained within Barney Frank’s financial regulatory bill that passed the House and is now waiting for Senate action. Paul is omnipresent on main stream media outlets like CNN, FOX, and MSNBC. He’s a political celebrity that draws huge crowds for conferences and speaking engagements. Politicians seek endorsements from him. In a word, he is “hot” right now, politically speaking.

The best thing to conservatives was for Barack Obama to be elected President. It has galvanized and united many Republicans, libertarians, free market economists, and many independents disillusioned with America’s power elite. However, below the surface runs a very deep divide when it comes to foreign policy. This divide is between those like Ron Paul who support non-intervention and those that support our current policy, the Bush doctrine of preventive war.

Interestingly, this divide cannot be found between Democrats and Republicans. Fundamentally, both parties support the Bush doctrine of preventive war. They may disagree on the specifics of tertiary issues like which country to invade, but there is no difference on policy. This “invade or die” policy is the poison pill that will ultimately bring about our demise because we simply cannot afford it any longer.  Perhaps it should be rephrased, “Invade and die… eventually.”

The jury is still out whether the Tea Party Movement will last. I suspect it may dwindle away once a Republican is in the White House, likely 2012 at the rate Obama is going right now. It’s “cool” to be anti-government these days, but a non-interventionist foreign policy is still “that which will not be discussed”.

Neo-conservative interventionists firmly believe that “they hate us because we are free”. Liberty-conservative non-interventionists firmly believe that they hate us because we meddle in their affairs. How do we reconcile this divide? Is it even possible?

I believe it is, but I don’t think the reconciliation can come from Ron Paul. He carries too much negative baggage among neo-cons from his 2008 campaign. I think it could come from a candidate like Rand Paul. He frames the argument in a palatable way for interventionists. Lib-cons need a candidate like him to help avoid turning off the other side before the debate even begins.

In practice, the best argument for a non-interventionist foreign policy is not the cost argument. Yes it costs way too much, but die-harders don’t care about that. To them any amount is worth it.  The better argument is to ask them if they would enjoy having a random muslim family set up a camp in their back yard and use up their household resources (utilities) like water and electricity for as long as they feel is necessary. If someone knew of a best argument then there’d be a lot less interventionists walking around nowadays.

I keep hearing commentators like Glenn Beck tell us that the Tea Party movement is about values and principles and goes beyond partisanship. To his credit he is critical of John McCain, calling him a progressive. Yet he seems to be enamored with Sarah Palin, who to me is nothing more than a partisan pin-up girl of the interventionist neo-conservatives.

In her recent interview with Glenn Beck they discuss the need for Federal Reserve transparency. She actually says the following:

“It’s one of the things we are thankful for Glenn, that you are bringing this to light. And um, I don’t know anybody else who is.”

No mention of Ron Paul and his 317 cosponsors for HR.1207 and 30 cosponsors in the Senate for the companion bill. No mention of Ron Paul who has been shouting for Fed transparency for over 35 years. Palin is demonstrating where the partisanship truly resides. She is the Tea Party movement’s supreme double agent.

So is the Tea Party movement going to fade away and be considered the fad of 2009? Will the movement extinguish itself  if the Republicans win a significant number of legislative seats back in 2010 or if they win the White House in 2012?

I expect it will, but then again I’m a libertarian-leaning cynic and freedom-loving Ron Paul nut. So what the heck do I know about politics in our non-imaginary dystopian world?

“I just don’t think she possesses the mental capacity to be the President of the United States. She’s a goofball!”

So everyone’s favorite host of Freedom Watch has weighed in on Sarah Palin. To me, she’s a completely divisive figure. People seem to either idolize her or loathe her. I don’t think she has much chance of being the next POTUS. In fact, I’d be surprised if she did better than Giuliani did in the GOP primaries of 2008.

For more about what lead up to the Judge’s “straight talk” listen to the audio:

(Thanks to Media Matters for the audio)

Yesterday it became quite clear that she was never in danger of becoming a foreign policy non-interventionist like Paul.

From CNN:

Palin published a note on her Facebook page Tuesday that encourages President Barack Obama to grant a request for the tens of thousands of additional troops reportedly requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in the country.

“Now is not the time for cold feet, second thoughts, or indecision,” Palin wrote on the site. “It is the time to act as commander-in-chief and approve the troops so clearly needed in Afghanistan.”

Noting the possible consequences of not helping to build up Afghanistan’s institutions, the former Alaska governor also wholeheartedly endorsed McChrystal’s counterinsurgency approach to continued U.S. military presence in the country.

“We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, and if we are not successful there, al Qaeda will once again find a safe haven, the Taliban will impose its cruelty on the Afghan people, and Pakistan will be less stable.”

She is just confirming that she never was and never will be a libertarian, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Don’t let the new designation (or Eric Dondero) fool you. The Palin-Cons are the same old Neo-Cons.

In those early years and up until the economic crisis of last year Ron Paul was brushed off as crazy whenever he brought up the unchecked powers of the Federal Reserve. Once the bailouts began and continued it became politically expedient to be more like Ron Paul. That is, as long as you are talking about economics. On foreign policy Ron Paul is still apparently crazy for firmly believing in non-intervention.

I am not alone among the Ron Paul faithful when I say that I’m very tired of reading articles with any of the following labels attributed to Ron Paul:

“Slowly, inexorably, Ron Paul’s message is beginning to take. Members of his own party and liberal media personalities, some who would have been the least expected, have begun to sense the danger. Conservatives are coming home, some ashamed, acknowledging that it was they, not Ron Paul, who had drifted away. Some Governors and senators and televisions pundits are now mimicking Ron Paul’s message, even paraphrasing his exact words. There are Ron Paul look-alikes, such as Governor Mark Sanford. “He’s just like Ron Paul,” his supporters assure us, “only better.” Who would have thunk it? It is now popular to be like Ron Paul.”

For all of Wead’s articles on Ron Paul, I think I enjoyed this one the most thus far. He outlines the history and reasons for Ron Paul’s popularity and then explains why we should look to him for solving our economic crisis.

After Wead’s series of articles on Sarah Palin being the GOP front runner and listing Ron Paul’s chances of the GOP nomination at 25-1 he goes back again to trumpeting his candidacy.

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.

I wonder if this is an orchestrated effort to damage Palin because she supposedly went “rogue” during the campaign and decided she had her own opinions after all. I think this situation is ripe for Ron Paul to reach out to her. She can be an ally in helping to change the GOP from within. It seems the current party leadership is vulnerable. A few Palin and Paul media counter attacks are in order.

If Palin truly did go rogue, then what is stopping her from doing so now as the media promises to continue blaming her for McCain’s loss? In fact, I think the time is ripe for Ron Paul to contact every endorsed candidate in his Liberty PAC and have a public forum (hopefully televised on CSPAN or another outlet) discussing the future of the GOP. They could make attempts to publicly push the Republican Party towards its Old Right roots. I would love to watch a forum including Jeff Flake, Sarah Palin, Walter Jones, Gary Johnson, Mark Sanford, and many of the other Ron Paul endorsed Republicans.

Paul did something similar with his “vote third party” press conference. He ignored some of his own principles to find a common ground. Why not do the same in a concerted effort to publicly and openly steer the GOP back towards the Constitution and limited government?

Here, FOX News throws Palin under the bus.