It's time for Revolution 2.0

233 years ago representatives of our thirteen original colonies declared independence from Great Britain. They did this reluctantly, as many of them had strong allegiance to the British crown, but a person can endure only so much unfairness and restrictions on his liberty. On this day, I encourage all of you to carefully read that Declaration of Independence, as it is perhaps even more prescient in current times. Consider the opening sentence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

To paraphrase (much less eloquently): When people find their government violating their basic rights, it is their duty to separate from that government.

Continuing:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Simpler: It is natural to expect that all people deserve the right to live freely and happily. To protect these goals, people form goverments to protect their ability to pursue them. If that government ever fails to protect our rights or even takes them away, it is the people's right to end the government and to start a new one. Abolishing the government should not be done lightly and yet if there is a pattern of repeated abuses by government, it is the people's right and duty to do so.

Since our form of government was officially formed in 1787, our rights have been eroded, at first gradually, and more recently, very quickly and egregiously. It can be successfully argued that we are less free today than were the signers of the Declaration.

How can we be part of a new revolution? For one, we can stop voting for the same ineffective and corrupt leaders. We need representatives that truly understand their oaths to protect the Constitution rather than ones who bow to their own greed and quest for power.

We can stand up for our rights. Don't consent to illegal searches. Don't pay illegal taxes. Don't obey unconstitutional laws (there are many).

Join the Free State Project, a group of liberty-minded people who have agreed to move to a single state (New Hampshire) in hopes of making it a place that preserves personal liberties.

Remember it is our right, no our duty, to reform or abolish our government when it has become counterproductive to protecting our basic liberties.

Minding our own business: the merits of non-interventionist foreign policy

A user comment on my introductory article on libertarian principles asked about libertarian military beliefs, so in this article I am covering the principle of non-interventionism.

At the core of libertarianism is the belief that force should only be used in defense--that aggression is wrong. A lot of the problems libertarians have with our government today are because the government is using force without cause. An obvious example is the use of eminent domain to take property.

Most libertarians believe that one of the valid purposes of government is to provide protection to its citizens. However, the power of the military should be limited to defense only. The Founding Fathers were in almost universal agreement that the U.S. government should avoid getting overly involved in foreign affairs.

George Washington, in his farewell address, stated:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address listed as one of government's objectives "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

The provisions in the Constitution for an army assumed federal forces would be temporary--only active during a war--and that most military operations would be provided by state militias. The founders knew a strong centralized military is actually a threat to liberty.

The dangerous side effect of meddling in international affairs is that you're always going to piss someone off. Most times when you support a foreign nation, you're probably gaining a few enemies. Related to this is the concept of "blowback", the idea that when you perform covert operations against a country or faction, there will be unintended consequences years later that are unexpected by the public. This is exactly what occurred with the 9/11 attacks--our covert (and not so covert) actions in the Middle East decades earlier was largely responsible for breeding radical Islamic terrorism. [For an excellent discussion on blowback, read Chalmers Johnson's excellent book, Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire.]

Neocons don't like to admit blowback is real. Instead they shout the message that we were attacked because the terrorists are envious of our way of life and wanted to destroy American culture, ignoring the fact that there's no evidence to support that. The terrorists we captured (and some we haven't, including Osama bin Laden) have said on multiple occasions that they attack us because we have invaded their holy lands and so they must now exterminate us to win back favor in the eyes of Allah. It has nothing to do with the things we have in this country.

So should we just have ignored the 9/11 attacks? Of course not. But rather than starting an illegal and ineffective series of wars, it should have been handled as a police action. Alongside the power to declare war in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given authority to "grant letters of marque and reprisal". That's a fancy way of saying they can put a price on someone's head. In the aftermath of 9/11, neither was war declared or a marque granted, therefore all the military actions have been illegal under the Constitution. Of course this has become standard practice in modern times--war hasn't officially been declared since World War II. All the foreign military actions since then have been unconstitutional.

Consider how much more effective and efficient it would have been to capture Osama bin Laden and other related terrorists using Special Forces teams (or even private posses) rather than involving the full force of our military. The largest mistake the U.S. government has made in recent times, and possibly in its entire history, is how it handled the 9/11 attacks. At a time when we suddenly had the world's empathy and support, instead of doing the rationally expected action of quickly and quietly hunting down the rest of al-Qaeda, we showed the world the might of our great empire building machine. Within the course of just a few years, we went from having almost universal support around the world to being the world's bully, severely damaging our global reputation and destroying any remaining doubts that we are aiming for a U.S. global empire (while claiming we aren't).

With each continuing military operation, blowback is creating more enemies than we are destroying. The propaganda of the military-industrial machine has made this a counterintuitive notion, but one of the primary reasons we have had such an unexpected struggle in recent conflicts (Viet Nam and Iraq in particular) is that the intended effects of our operations barely overpower the unintended side-effect of breeding more enemies.

President Eisenhower may turn out to be the most prophetic public figure of modern times. In his final address as president, he warned of the dangerous implications of our rapidly growing military-industrial complex. It has only increased since his departure from office and today that military-industrial menace of which he spoke has become exactly what he warned about--a political machine that ensures the continuing initiation and execution of wars.

Today, we have somewhere between 700 and 800 military bases in 63 countries around the world. For what purpose? Consider the effect our occupations have on the residents and governments of those countries. Imagine how we would feel if, for example, China had several active military bases within our borders. Our founding fathers are surely rolling in their graves.

Beyond the geopolitical factors, consider the financial implications of our foreign entanglements. Total U.S. defense-related costs today exceed $1 trillion per year. Remember, there has not been a declared war since World War II. The Cold War has been over for almost fifteen years. There is very little reason for our military to even exist today, let alone demand such a huge portion of our GDP. Greatly reducing the size of our defense operations would liquidate a very substantial and much needed chunk of our budget that could be used to solve the looming financial crises of our entitlement programs (and could even be a possible way to end them while still meeting obligations to all current participants).

During debates of our proper role around the globe--these days common during discussions of the Iraq war--someone will take the humanitarian position, saying, "But don't we have a responsibility to help people who are living under oppressive regimes? Isn't it our moral imperative that we should help out people in those countries?" This argument also applies to all the various foreign aid we send around the world. The problem with this argument is that governments don't have moral obligations; only individuals do. Morals are a definition of right and wrong. A government made up of a vast collection of individuals will not have agreement on what is right and wrong and therefore cannot have morals. People may have so-called moral obligations. Therefore, people who are compelled to assist those around the world in need should form and support voluntary organizations to do exactly that. This way those who do not share their morals are not forced to participate. When our government initiates these actions, everyone, regardless of their own beliefs, is forced to participate based on their citizenship (and obligation to pay taxes). This is, in effect, immoral on the government's part.

Our military should be solely located within our own borders except during times of war, and wars should be officially declared by Congress as dictated by the Constitution. Other than embassies, we should not have a permanent presence in foreign countries. We should avoid meddling in the affairs of other countries.

This is not to suggest pure isolationism. We should be free to engage in free trade with other nations. But free trade must be true free trade, not the protectionist arrangements our government passes off as free trade in such abominations as NAFTA and CAFTA.

Logic and evidence shows that libertarians (and the Founding Fathers) have this one right. Unfortunately, our leaders have done ourselves and the world a great disservice by continuing our domineering military presence around the world.

How I became a libertarian

Over the next few weeks I plan to post a series of articles describing some of my political beliefs in hopes of spreading the message that there are others out there (many more than you probably imagine) whose beliefs don't fall neatly under the categories of Democrat and Republican (or even liberal or conservative). I figured I should start the series by describing how my thinking evolved.

The truth is, I've always been a libertarian. It just took me some time to realize it.

When I first registered to vote when I was 18, I didn't know much about politics. We didn't talk much about politics at home. I thought my parents were probably Democrats but didn't really know. When I first registed, Republican was the popular party in power, so I just went with that.

I didn't think much about politics for a while after that. But one incident sticks out in my memory--I was an intern at the Rochester City Schools and one of the other interns, obviously politically wise and ambitious, asked me, "So, what are your political leanings?" After a few seconds of my deer-in-the-headlights nonresponse, she continued, "You know, are you liberal or conserative?" I don't recall exactly how I answered, but somehow I came up with a response that satisfied her for the moment.

But that exchange motivated me to do some research. What does it mean to be liberal or conservative? How do those terms relate to the Democrat and Republican parties?

What I found confused me right from the start. Liberalism and conservatism can mean so many different things. Liberalism as originally defined seemed to match a lot of my beliefs: individual rights, freedom of speech, small government. But it doesn't seem to mean that anymore. Now, it seems to be more about ensuring opportunities for everyone: minimum wages, welfare, affirmative action. Conservatism seems to mean the things that liberalism used to mean with an emphasis on slow change in contrast to liberalism. But what is this about social conservatism vs. economic conservatism?

There were so many conflicts when trying to fit my beliefs into those two buckets. I believe that people should keep what they earn rather than paying it to the government. I guess that makes me a Republican. But I believe in a woman's right to choose abortion. That seems to be a Democratic thing. I think welfare and social security are generally bad ideas. Doesn't that make me a Republican? But I believe same-sex unions should be allowed. Doesn't that make me a Democrat? Where is the logic in all this? The consistency? So I remained confused for a while, feeling like I either didn't understand or just didn't have a real political party to call home.

I don't recall exactly how I stumbled onto the Libertarian party and libertarianism in general. But from the moment I did, everything seemed to fit my beliefs. It made sense and was logical and consistent.

There are a lot of misconceptions about what it means to be libertarian. "Aren't they just all about legalizing drugs?", "Don't they want to abolish the government?", "Are those the people that think 9/11 was orchestrated by the U.S. government?" or "Yeah, right, like they ever have a chance of being taken seriously."

Libertarianism is rooted in the idea of individual liberty. That means that people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't harm someone else. The purpose of government is to protect that liberty. Note that the U.S. Constitution was built on this principle (ignoring, for now, that it failed to prohibit slavery). So, it is generally fair to say libertarians believe in a government like the one described in our Constitution as designed by our founders.

We believe a big centralized government like the one we have today is actually contrary to the idea that government is for protecting liberties because it takes away more liberties than it protects. It is hugely ineffecient and can't help but be greatly influenced by special interests. It treats us like children rather than responsible individuals and that becomes a growing self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'll talk more about libertarian principles in the weeks ahead. Do you know where you fit into the political spectrum? If not, try the World's Smallest Political Quiz. Post your questions, comments, or perspectives below.

Feeling hopeful

On this inauguration day of Barack Obama, I am hopeful. I think a lot of people around the world feel the same way.

I didn't vote for Mr. Obama, but if I had to choose between the two major candidates, he is easily the one I would have chosen. Sure, I am concerned and somewhat fearful that Obama is often compared with Lincoln and FDR, perhaps the two presidents in our history who did the most to restrict our liberties and cause damage to the Constitution. I am concerned that further expansion of the federal government will further bankrupt our country rather than save it. But I am still hopeful.

I am hopeful because, at this point, what we need more than anything is to repair our image throughout the world. Over the past six years or so, we have greatly accelerated our image as the world's bully, the great empire building machine ready to take over the Earth. I think Obama can turn that around and help unify the world, possibly even bringing peace where it has not existed for quite some time. Even if that does not occur, it will be so refreshing to have a president--the first in my lifetime--that the vast majority of the country feels proud to have serve.

That's 34 electoral votes for Barr

While the Democratic convention takes place this week and the Republicans prepare for theirs next week, both parties seem to be unconcerned that they've missed the ballot registration deadline in Texas. Texas requires political parties submit the certifications for their candidates 70 days before the general election--that was August 26. So, the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, is the only official candidate on the ballot.

It should be interesting to see how this plays out. Let's see what slimy tactics the major parties attempt on this one.

Hypocrisy on parade at the DNC

I couldn't stand to waste my evenings sitting in front of the TV watching the Democratic National Convention. But I have been streaming it on my second monitor while I catch up on a few things with the computer. What a display of hypocrisy and nothingness! Person after person gets up and spews nonsense. How many of them actually believe what they say?

The theme that's bothered me the most is the push for universal healthcare. They start by bashing the Bush administration about fiscal irresponsibility. OK, sure, I certainly can't argue with that. But then the Democratic speakers go on to talk about how they will control spending and then they go on in the next sentences to tout their plans for universal healthcare and free education for everyone.

How the hell do they expect to pay for that?

Why do so few people seem to understand why national healthcare is such a bad idea? Don't they see it will mean more taxes? Don't they realize it will mean waiting longer to get care? Don't they know it will lower the quality of care available to us (getting the government involved always decreases quality and efficiency)? Don't they know it will consolidate federal power even more? Insanity!

I know it's tempting to think how great it would be if we all have free healthcare. But it's never free! You have to steal from everyone (taxation) to get it! And the system ends up being worse when you take out the free market influences and the incentives for people to act responsibility. They expect me to pay for people who refuse to take care of themselves? What gives them the right to expect the government (me) will save them no matter what?

Get over it. We certainly need reforms, but the answer is less government involvement, not more.

The real choice in November: Obama or Barr

It's pretty much a forgone conclusion, barring some major gaffe in the next few months, that Barack Obama will be our next President. McCain's pro-war stance puts him out of contention; besides, he'll never survive the debates--Obama's eloquent charisma will blow McCain off the stage.

Unless you are in favor of the USA continuing to build its empire by beating other countries into submission, you can't seriously consider voting for McCain. If you vote for him simply because you're Republican, stop and think for a few minutes about why you're a Republican. And "because I'm certainly not going to be a Democrat" is not a valid reason--there are other choices, you know. If you think you have a good reason for voting for McCain other than to promote war, please leave your comments below.

So, really, the serious choice for the election is Barack Obama or Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate.

Why would Bob Barr be worth voting for? After all, he's only slightly more likely to win than I am. Well, for one thing, consider this chart of how the candidates' fiscal policies would play out:

• McCain: bankrupt the country by military spending
• Obama: bankrupt the country by domestic spending
• Barr: save the country by reducing the size of government

Voting is not about picking who will win. It's about picking someone who represents your values.

And that's my real dilemma. Bob Barr represents my values really well: greatly reducing the size of federal government, restoring personal liberties, establishing a non-interventionist foreign policy, health care reform based on improving the industry rather than by implementing socialized medicine, and much more.

Barack Obama doesn't represent my values very well, but I do like him a lot. It's true--he's "presidential". There's a decent chance he will be really good for improving America's image throughout the world. He'll be fun to watch. We'll probably be proud to have him be our President (we're long overdue for that). But underneath, he'll likely be playing many of the same political games. He'll make most of the same mistakes big government politicians make. We'll probably end up with socialized medicine, even higher taxes, and a collapsed financial system. But if Obama is as cool as he seems, we won't blame him.

Barr is not as presidential, but his ideas are the ones that our country needs. In fact, I've become convinced that adopting libertarian principles is really our country's only hope for survival (and sadly, I don't think it will happen in time).

I'm looking forward to the debates. I am hoping by some miracle that Bob Barr is given the opportunity to participate.

Whom are you currently planning to vote for?

Why impeachment is imperative

On the evening of June 9, Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced a resolution in the House to impeach President Bush. The resolution cites 35 counts of high crimes and misdemeanors committed by President Bush stemming from his use of warrantless wiretaps and other violations of FISA, the illegal invasion of Iraq and the use of propaganda to promote the war, violations of the Constitution and Geneva Conventions in regards to detainment of his self-created category of "enemy combatants", involvement in the Plame Affair and subsequent commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence, and many others. The list is long.

In short, during his administration, President Bush has done egregious damage to our system of law. He has been arrogant in his flouting of the Constitution and other high laws. In fact, Bush himself has even admitted his unlawfulness on several occasions.

---

And we should all be ashamed. Congress has done little to stop his abuses. We, the American citizenry, have largely gone on with our lives like this is just to be expected and there's nothing to worry about.

In reality, the system of government formed by our founders is in its death throes. The Constitution, already battered and bloody, is now struggling for its last breath. History will judge us all harshly for allowing it to happen. We are quick to blame the branches of our government, but ultimately, we, the members of this representative republic, hold the responsibility for holding our leaders to task. When we continue to vote the same types of leaders into office, term after term, we are giving our implicit approval of their actions.

The default response to Kucinich's call for impeachment is that it's a waste of time given the limited time remaining in Bush's presidency. But I strongly suggest that's irrelevant. Failing to hold Bush accountable is an implicit approval of what he's done. The reason our Constitution is in such bad shape today is because we've failed to stop those who've abused it. And this led to Bush and his cohorts to believe they also had excellent chances to extend the power of the Executive branch without getting caught. Well, now they've been caught. Will we let them get away with it?

Now that the abuses have become so egregious, a failure to impeach would mean we can expect much more of the same from the next administration. On the other hand, an impeachment would be a strong signal that we're done accepting this kind of abuse from our government. Representative Tammy Baldwin stated this excellently in her testimony to the House Judiciary Committee:

Representative Robert Wexler also had great testimony on the importance of impeachment:

Always remember: if we fail to hold Bush accountable for his abuses, we have failed our responsibility as citizens.

Click here to promote this story at BreakTheMatrix:

Mourning for our country

I've been feeling a bit depressed since the start of the new year and it was particularly troubling because I couldn't figure out why. Things were generally going OK in my life. Perhaps it was just the post-holiday blues.

But a few days ago the cause clicked in my head. I'm mourning the death of our once fine country, the U.S.A.

I realized my malaise had set in around the time the results came in for the Iowa presidential caucuses and Ron Paul's fifth place showing made it clear there wasn't going to be a sudden, surprising show of support for Dr. Paul in the elections that count. The primaries that have followed have been about the same--Paul has done remarkably well but not well enough to be in serious contention for the nomination.

And I honestly believe Ron Paul as President could be the last hope for saving our country. Paul is the only candidate who is willing to speak the truth about the condition we're in and who discusses the reality-based plans we need to implement to save our country as envisioned by the founders (and perhaps to save it at all).

My main concern at the time was how all the other candidates would continue our empire building and progression toward fascism and tyranny. We would continue to lose our personal liberties and become more and more hated around the world.

Since then I've become even more aware of our very precarious financial situation. I've known for quite some time how damaging our social programs and then the Iraq war have been to our economy. But through some reading I stumbled on to more recently, I now see that we're on the verge of bankruptcy as a country. In fact, there's a very real chance that it's too late to avoid a serious recession. We have built up too much debt and our dollar is about to collapse, and this will undoubtedly cause a drastic drop in our standard of living in this country. There really isn't much left that the Federal Reserve can do to delay the collapse, and there is really no way remaining to avoid it altogether.

If you're interested about this, here is some recommended reading/viewing:
America: Freedom to Fascism (DVD)
Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse (Book)
The Energy Non-Crisis (free video)

It is a sad time for our country. And just as sad is that most people don't even realize it yet.

The fifteen minute guide to Ron Paul

When people find out about my support for presidential candidate Ron Paul, it usually results in a short debate in which it quickly becomes obvious they don't really know much about Ron Paul or his ideas. Most people just believe what the old media has been telling them, which unfortunately, typically paints Ron Paul as a kooky longshot. So, to help people get up to speed on Dr. Paul, I've gathered a few resources (shown below) that should allow people to quickly decide whether they should give this candidate further consideration.

The Fifteen Minute Guide to Ron Paul

1) The Man:

• Republican candidate for President
• Current U.S. Representative in his 10th term
• Former doctor
• Age: 72

2) Primary Issues:

• End the Iraq war
• Non-interventionist foreign policy
• Reduce (or eliminate) taxes
• Reduce the size of the federal government
• Return to basic Constitutional principles

3) Watch this introductory video.

4) Read Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Bears Empty Pot for Americans and Supporters/Media Await Congressman Ron Paul's Status With Bated Breath.

That's the fifteen minute intro. If you're still intrigued, consider the following additional resources:

1) Read the user comments posted at the articles in item #4 above.
2) Visit the campaign website.
3) View this segment of early debate video in which Ron Paul made us extremely proud by standing firm with the truth.
4) View this segment of Ron Paul on Mad Money with Jim Cramer.
5) Watch these ads: Something Big, JB1, NH #2, NH #3,
6) Watch this video: Ron Paul Exposed

Why the mainstream media should cover Ron Paul

Watching the campaign of Ron Paul has been very interesting so far. The most frustrating part is seeing, despite his incredible success on the campaign trail and on the Internet, the mainstream media continue to downplay his importance. It leaves most of us wondering if there really is some sort of conspiracy between the major political parties and the media.

I'd prefer the explanation to be plain old capitalism: that the media simply wants to cover the candidates they think people want to hear about. And most of the mainstream polls show Dr. Paul as a long-shot to win the nomination (Yes, I think, as many people do, that those polls are flawed, but that's a story for another day).

But I'd like to suggest that the media could benefit from covering Ron Paul more enthusiastically because he's where the really interesting stories are. The other candidates are more of the same stuff we've been hearing for the last few decades. Politics as usual. How can that be what we really want to read & watch?

I think people would tune in again and again to see the classic underdog story: Ron Paul as someone who no one thought had much of a chance who now is climbing in polls and contributions while the other candidates slip. His ideas are interesting, much more than anything proposed by the others. I'll even give you a few story ideas:

"Can an Honest Man Succeed in Washington?" about how Ron Paul might manage to work within our current corrupt politics.

"America without an Income Tax" about how Paul's plan to eliminate the income tax would affect the typical family. Could also be titled, "50% Raise for all Americans?"

"Can a Man be both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice?" about how Paul is personally pro-life (based on his experiences as a doctor) but that he also believes the Federal government has no business in this area and that we should return this subject to the individual states to decide, actually increasing our available choices in this matter.

"The Ron Paul Military" about what our military would look like once it's not spread around the world.

"World Opinion on Staying Away" about world opinion on Ron Paul's noninterventionist philosophy.

"Homeless Government Workers?" about how current government workers would adjust to being unemployed under a Paul administration (presumably it would be a boost to the economy once they find jobs in the private sector).

"Does an End to Play Money Make Sense?" about returning to a gold standard for currency, why it should be considered, whether that's practical today, and what effect it would have on the typical person.

Mainstream media, instead of just marginalizing Ron Paul's campaign, why not use it to your benefit and turn his compelling ideas into truly interesting stories?

Why Ron Paul could actually win

In a previous post, I remarked that although I was very excited by Ron Paul's presidential candidacy, he had a slim chance of winning the Republican nomination.

I'm ready to change my tune.

Call me delusional, but I think he could win not only the nomination but the presidency.

Here's how. His campaign has developed some serious legs. He's stirred up the somewhat dormant masses of libertarians lurking throughout college campuses and on the Internet. The media is starting to notice him. That in itself is huge! Ron Paul's supporters are much more passionate than those for other candidates. And it's now to the point where there are enough people behind him that he has real campaign money.

One of the first primary elections will be held in New Hampshire, which happens to be the most libertarian state in the nation. Ron Paul will most likely garner a surprisingly high number of votes--I think his supporters will be the most active and organized and their support will show at the polls--to the point where it's quite possible he wins in the state.

His message rings so true. People who hear it and allow it to sink in are drawn to it. I think support for Ron Paul will continue to grow. And eventually, a tipping point will be reached where his popularity becomes a media event. Then, the media bias may actually turn in his direction instead of (as now) tending to portray him as a long-shot crackpot. People who never cared about politics before will start rooting for him.

So, why on earth would the Republican Party, which so far has derided him, choose instead to nominate him as their candidate?

Because he's their only chance of winning the next election.

All the other Republican candidates support continuing the Iraq war. That has become such an unpopular stance that no one advocating it has any chance of winning. Rest assured, an anti-war candidate will win the next presidency.

If Ron Paul were nominated as the national Republican candidate, it would be a media sensation. Voters would be forced to take notice of the message this man brings. Everyone loves an underdog who becomes a hero.

And for the first time in a very long time, there will be two distinctly different candidates running for office: one for continuing our trip down socialist lane, continuing our war-mongering, redistribution-of-wealth, no-more-liberties chariot ride, and the other for shrinking government and returning to the principles on which this country was founded. It will be the most interesting and exciting race so far in my lifetime.

And at that point, there will be enough people in the media spotlight able to expose the consequences of electing the tenets of the Democratic platform: bankrupting our country, creating more enemies around the world, growing our police state, and further trouncing the Constitution until it is beyond recognition. Voters will be forced to wake up and vote for Dr. Paul.

I wonder if Ron Paul knew what was he was getting into when he announced his candidacy.

Is Ron Paul's candidacy a turning point in American politics?

I was very excited when I discovered congressman Ron Paul was running for President. As the most consistently libertarian congressperson (even though he's registered Republican), he has provided the only remaining shreds of hope our government may someday stop this ever increasing journey toward fascism.


Although I'm not sure we need presidential debates a full 19 months prior to the election, I am very pleased for a chance to see all the candidates get a chance on stage. It remains to be seen whether any third party candidates will have a chance to debate. But in the meantime, we have the next best thing: Ron Paul.

As has been well covered by now, there was a tense moment at the Republican debate earlier this week. In an answer about foreign policy, Paul responded that our interventionist policies have actually been a contributing factor to the terrorism we've experienced. Rudy Giuliani countered out of turn about how absurd and offensive Paul's remark was. The audience applauded wildly as Giuliani called for Paul's retraction and apology. My heart sank as I waited for Paul to cower and waver on his statement.

But he didn't! Instead he further explained what he said without backing down. It was the proudest moment I've had as an American for a long time. Finally, someone standing up to the truth. In post debate interviews, Paul continued to stick to his convictions and in some cases, even commented that Giuliani should apologize to him.

But here's why I think this could be a turning point: there's a lot of positive chatter on the Internet about Ron Paul, especially since the debate. I think the Internet may finally be ubiquitous enough to serve as a tool to unite voters who would have previously been squelched by the media and major parties. The press is much more influenced by the Internet than previously and all the interest around Paul will most likely spill over into major media. There is already plenty of evidence of that; it's just a question of whether it will have staying power.

Admittedly, Paul has a slim chance of actually becoming the Republican nominee, but if he can remain a force through the entire election cycle, it will be a huge breath of fresh air and could have major implications in determining the policies for the next decade. And we will have learned that there is still some hope for truth and common sense.

No More Smoking, No More Trans-Fats, No More Liberty

It’s so disheartening how people today have forgotten the fundamentals of liberty and our responsibilities in preserving it.

I was reminded of this once again this week with the news story about New York City considering banning the use of trans-fats. Of course I saw this coming once the smoking ban movement started taking hold. That’s what people keep forgetting—once you start by taking away one freedom, it will eventually spread to many other areas. Smoking one month, trans-fats another, and eventually anything slightly harmful will be prohibited.

At this rate, it won’t be long before alcohol is prohibited in bars and restaurants. Or for that matter, televisions! Imagine when the government realizes that there’s no productive value in watching sports and decides to ban watching sports in bars! It’s not so far-fetched.

Government making such bans is unconstitutional because it potentially devalues the business owner’s property without compensating him. If you tell me I can’t have smoking in my restaurant, I may lose customers, and could even lose my business if enough customers stay away. Business owners should have the right to decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments. Then, customers themselves can decide whether to patronize smoking or non-smoking bars & restaurants. Having a choice is always better.

In my view, smoking bans are legitimate only under one set of conditions: bans that are imposed by state or local governments for public property. By public property, I mean public-owned property, in order words, government buildings and areas. The federal government has no constitutional authority to establish such bans at all. State and local governments may, but only in cases where it won’t devalue private property (including businesses).

But even under these guidelines, such bans should be made very carefully. What you support banning today may tomorrow lead to a ban on something you cherish doing. And beware of propaganda from proponents attempting to make you feel guilty if you don’t support a ban because of all the harmful effects of the activity being banned. The campaign against second-hand smoke has been very effective at this, using flawed research time and again, never providing any clear-cut evidence that second-hand smoke is truly a public health risk.

And for the record, no, I’m not a smoker, but I do value the freedom to become one someday.

More reading on the Katrina entitlement issue

It seems I'm not alone in my thoughts about how Katrina has exposed the horrible effects of our entitlement society in America (see previous post). Here is a list of some additional articles and blogs on the subject:

Robert Tracinski: "An Unnatural Disaster"
Lex E. Libertas: "Poverty Kills"
Fred Butler: "The Horde of Lies"
Jonathan Leffingwell (quoting Rush Limbaugh): "The Failure of the Government Entitlement Mentality"
JMS: "New Orleans a Model of Liberal Ideas Among Minorities"

The FairTax Book

I just finished reading The FairTax Book by Neil Bortz and John Linder. It gives a pretty good overview of the FairTax plan (see previous blog entry) and is a fun and quick read. I've been excited about how well the book has been selling (was #1 on both the New York Times and Amazon.com bestseller lists). I'm hoping that means there's a lot of grassroots support for a national sales tax just waiting to explode into action.

I encourage you to pick up a copy of the book, read it, and then carry it around visibly as a conversation starter. The more people we can make aware of this plan, the better its chances of succeeding. There is really not much bad to be said about the plan once you understand it.

Katrina exposes the ugly side of America

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in the Southern U.S. is exposing the effects of today's prevalent entitlement mentality. Do you remember accounts of disasters from decades ago, hearing how everyone was pulling together to get through the crisis by supporting each other? Not anymore. This week, while watching news of people crowding in the Superdome and New Orleans Convention Center, everyone seemed to be upset because they haven't been helped by the government. What happened to picking yourself up and finding a solution? What happened to counting on your neighbors, friends, and family for help?

Someone pointed me to an article that describes other countries' reactions to scenes of how the hurricane victims are dealing with their situation. Once again, fuel for the further decline of our reputation in the world.

Welfare and the other socialism of today's America has changed the public's mentality to expect the government to provide medical care, food, shelter, and all other needs. I dream back to the days in the U.S. when people hit by a catastrophe would be gracious to receive my aid or donation rather than simply expecting that half of my paycheck should be stolen by the government to fix their situation.

I understand how difficult it can be to recover from a horrible event like this. But you are arrogant and rude (and a thief) if you demand I (and all American taxpayers) pay to help you put your life back together. Perhaps you shouldn't have built your city on a lake, or at least you should have evacuated when the storm was on its way. Now don't sit helpless down there; get up and figure out a plan. There are plenty of compassionate people out here willing to help if you just ask rather than assuming you're entitled.

Bush's Brain

Last night I watched the documentary "Bush's Brain," based on the book by James Moore and Wayne Slater. It's a fascinating look at the "man behind the strings" of George W. Bush, that being his Senior Advisor Karl Rove. I imagine the book is even better than the movie, but the film was very helpful in putting faces to the many names I've heard in relation to some of the Iraq War controversies and scandals (especially the Plame Affair).

Not only does the movie show Karl Rove as a very intelligent, skilled, and ruthless political strategist (and some say lacking any sense of ethics), but it futher solidifies the image of George W. Bush as borderline incompetent and owing his presidency primarily to Rove's thirty years of working to get him there.

I have been so frustrated during the past few elections at what poor selections we've had for candidates. What will it take to get some real fresh air in the White House?

Have you heard about the FairTax?

One of my biggest frustrations is seeing so much of my paycheck disappear in the form of income tax and then finding out all the wasteful ways the government spends my income. The government has become so bloated and wasteful and it's nothing short of a travesty that my hard work is going to pay for it.

Why aren't more people making a big deal about this? A big part of the reason is due to the way our tax system is now structured--since income taxes are withheld, it's easy for people to forget just how much is being taken away. They just think about it in terms of the refund they get each April.

Besides the general issue of government waste, my big problem with our income tax system is that it's become so complicated and unfair due to the influence of special interests over the years. There are so many loopholes and exceptions for various causes, and I resent that some people (and most corporations) get to pay less tax because of special rules in the tax codes.

For a while, I was a supporter of the flat tax--use a tax system where everyone pays a fixed percentage of income, no loopholes allowed. Its fairness and simplicity really appealed to me. But about a year ago, I found out about the FairTax plan that's currently (finally) receiving some attention in the media and elsewhere. The FairTax would eliminate the federal income and payroll taxes and replace them with a national sales tax. It would be very simple since most states already collect sales taxes. Each household would receive a "prebate" check each month to cover the cost of the sales tax on basic necessities. Extremely fair. Extremely simple. I really like that we would get to keep our entire income and have better control of how and when we spend it.

I'll have more to say about the FairTax in the days to come. I encourage you to read more about it: Americans for Fair Taxation, Wikipedia, Sponsor Representative John Linder.