Rand Paul's Bilderberg “No Comment” and The Logan Act

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

Rand Paul has been under intense scrutiny, not from usual suspects, but from his father’s national base of fervent libertarians and constitutionalists.  Since his controversial endorsement of Mitt Romney last week it has been all-hands-on-deck in the liberty movement.  People are beginning to know a little bit more about Rand and they do not like what they see – the honeymoon is over.

While some speculate his endorsement was a way to neutralize opposition from establishment GOP, laying down goodwill for his anticipated presidential run in 2016, others wonder whether he may be positioning himself as Lady Liberty’s double agent.  Ruminations aside, antennas are up and ready to analyze Rand’s next utterance.

This is one of the latest:

The secretive Bilderberg meeting concluded its most recent controversial confab earlier this month in Chantilly, Virginia.  The conference welcomed its typical shadowy constellation of global elite including many from all corners of American government: NSA chief General Keith Alexander; Thomas Donilon, Obama’s National Security Adviser; former U.S. National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger; failed GOP Presidential hopeful and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman; Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.); World Bank boss Robert Zoellick; Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Co-Chair and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and reportedly, among others, one - Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

The “reporter” from WGCN Radio Chicago was unable to confront Sen. Paul about his endorsee’s participation in Bilderberg, but his “no comment” on whether Kerry (and by extension his new found political pal) was in violation of the Logan Act speaks volumes; specifically he didn’t say “no.”  This reinforces Sen. Paul’s purported political gambit – sacrificing for a moment philosophical purity for the larger more pragmatic prize of the Presidency down the line.

Sen. Paul is no doubt familiar with his father’s position on members of the U.S. government meeting behind closed doors and discussing policy.  Rep. Paul has called for investigations into public officials and their Bilderberg attendance.  On talk radio he questioned Gov. Rick Perry for his participation:

“This information about him going over there and violating the Logan Act and getting involved, I’m just impressed that that’s in the ordinary media — I think that’s encouraging, too...”

While it is clear by now the apple didn’t fall too far from the tree it is also evident that Sen. Paul is not his father and may not be as eager to work outside the system as libertarian ideologues would wish him to be.

The Senator’s political nolo contendre with regard to the Logan Act thus exposes many things: his misgivings with the secretive annual meetings, his refusal to abandon a tenuous political alliance with the political establishment, but most of all his realism.

If Sen. Paul can keep his cards close, even from a once adoring alternative media and if he can weather reactionary Paulistas his options remain aplenty moving forward.  To delve into an obscure and evidently toothless piece of legislation isn’t good politics and hurts him more than it would bring violators to justice.

To be sure, the Logan Act has barely seen the inside of a court room and the only times it has been mentioned is in the congressional record and referenced within Justice Sutherland’s 1936 Supreme Court opinion affirming the President as constitutional representative of the U.S. with regard to foreign nations.

The Logan Act reads, in part, as follows:

“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

When Sen. George McGovern was accused of its violation in 1975 the U.S. State Department issued this statement:

“The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution…”

Nowhere in the act does it say that members of our government can’t meet with other government agents “in secret” as so many activists assert.  Meeting in secret or at least without record, in and of itself, is not illegal and in fact happens regularly even outside the twenty or so elite summits that occur every year around the world.

It is interesting to note that Dr. George Logan, from whom the bill derives its name, was a pacifist who helped quell tensions when the U.S. and France fought an essentially undeclared war at sea – the Quasi War – at the end of the 1700s.  When Logan returned successful partisan Federalists were unhappy he received undue adulation from the media and sought through law to “curb the temerity and impudence” of such individuals. 

The question arises then: when are we to apply and not apply the Logan Act?  Are we to merely call for its enforcement when it offends our egalitarian and conspicuous sensibilities?  That wasn’t its intent.  The Logan Act has been used in the past to threaten those who want to continue dialogue when our government has ended diplomacy.  Think Jesse Jackson and his Cuban negotiations, Sen. McGovern and Stokely Carmichael in protest to Vietnam.

There is as much an opportunity for enemies of peace to use this act (if it ever saw the light of day) against those who would choose to open a back channel and avert open war, say with Iran, Syria, China, North Korea, Pakistan, or Russia as it is for those to use it against the world’s enigmatic power brokers seeking to influence our elected representatives.  Something lobbyists do on a daily basis.

But, how many undeclared wars do we currently fight?  If Rand Paul, or Ron Paul for that matter, were prosecuted under the Logan Act attempting to quell one of these many dubious interventions – undeclared wars – we now find ourselves apart, the irony would be overwhelming.

What activists and concerned citizens should continue to do is scrutinize and expose where the rubber meets the road, where ideas are put into action – political reform, legislation, executive orders, court decisions, administrative rules and regulations, etc.

While every decision our leaders make should be thoroughly investigated, vetted and debated, for now Rand Paul should be allotted some breathing room.  He has set himself on the path for the presidency and while many wish he’d just take off where Ron left off, the princeling may not be – his thing.  Rand has yet, as far as his voting record is concerned, to fall to the dark side, until then we should reserve judgment.

What Rand Paul's Endorsement Is and Isn't

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

Sen. Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney as Republican candidate for President has formed a crack in the Paulista universe.  The vast majority of Ron Paul supporters, save an actual poll, are clearly rejecting the move as a sign that after all of their hard work, donations and success Rand has abandoned his base and sold out to the political establishment.  Just take a look at his Facebook page, yikes.

One example of the outrage: “NWO has a brand new tool in their toolbox.  How could you?”

Ron Paul by any measurement led the libertarian movement out of the political wilderness.  For decades he remained stalwart in his advocacy of the Constitution often being a lone voice of reason amidst calls for war, bank bailouts, undermining civil liberties and growth of national government.  Similarly his son has espoused these beliefs with the same vigor in his brief time in the Senate and has often been found willing to debate the finer points of libertarian philosophy while it may not often be popular.

The Pauls have been rock stars of a young, growing and vibrant liberty movement, which has proven capable of dismantling and remaking anachronistic state GOP leadership in their own image.  The Paulistas, while rancorous at times and buying wholesale into a very cynical view of their government, have displayed adept political maneuverability in securing more delegates than anyone thought possible.

The Ron Paul Revolution has tapped into a sustainable and vigorous movement while simultaneously creating a home replete with models of representation for moderates, disaffected liberals and disgruntled conservatives.  Why then would Rand endorse the personification of establishment politics?

First, lets make clear that what Rand Paul has not done, which is hurt the liberty movement.  The recent success of Ron Paul has shown the growing power of this faction of new politics.  The Ron Paul Republican is here to stay and that’s why you won’t see Ron Paul endorse Mitt Romney.  The brand is secure, however, there is some politics left to play – and this is all about politics.

The Paul strategy is quite clear - graft healthy philosophy onto a dying system.

Rand Paul's ideology might not be identical to his father's, however, the
movement of which he claims to still be apart may act like a life giving
philosophical graft.  The GOP is the dead vine blow, the liberty
movement is grafted above.

There is a reason why Rand chose Sean Hannity’s Fox News program to announce.  It is one of the most watched shows on television and the platform is directed right into the homes of moderates and the full breadth of the conservative establishment.  His intended audience was the GOP not his base, which looked at objectively is a small, but growing part Republican politics.

From Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post:

"In making clear that [Rand Paul] is publicly behind Romney, Rand Paul is sending a very clear signal: I’m a good soldier for the GOP.

Make no mistake: The Republican party establishment will never embrace Rand Paul as one of their own — nor would he want them to. But, it is possible that Paul playing the role of loyal Republican in the 2012 election could well neutralize some of the fears the party regulars have about the prospects of him carrying their standard at some point down the line."

His gamble has initially paid off as self proclaimed “neocon” commentators are already warming to a future Rand Paul run. As Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller crassly put it: “He’s everything you like about Ron Paul, without the crazy.”

This neutralizing effect would quell the anxiety over future attempts at interparty quibbling and reported outright fraud.  Even the firebrand Alex Jones, an advocate of libertarianism and paleoconservative ethos, on his radio program today wanted to believe that Rand and Ron Paul were more politically savvy than it would seem given the endorsement.  However, he argued that not only was this a bad move for Rand Paul, who has been on his show many times along with his father Ron Paul, but it was a move that the media elite and establishment agents may use to attempt to splinter the liberty movement.

Cynicism has its place, however, sometimes it gets in the way.  Jones does bring up a great point though, Ron and Rand most definitely coordinated the move, but to what end?  Cillizza points to something we’ve all suspected, but what about the Romney/Paul ticket?

We have speculated Ron Paul as a possible Vice President and gave the reasons why it would be a good idea.  We have also suggested Rand may be tapped for VP for the same reasons.  Daniel McCarthy of The American Conservative gives a few more:

"The symbolic power shift of putting an anti-statist, non-interventionist Republican in the number 2 slot — in contrast to Cheney in the last GOP administration — would have real-world consequences. That would keep Romney more interested than he would otherwise be in placating constitutionalists, for fear of an embarrassing split within his adminitration.

And a public official never just occupies a single office: the staff that Rand would put into executive-branch positions (even those associated with the institutionally weak vice presidency) would gain experience that would make them powerful rivals to the neoconservatives in staffing future GOP administrations."

Unfortunately none of these scenarios are likely to come to fruition.  The motivation against Barack Obama is demonstrably more widespread than the enthusiasm for Rand Paul and other than enthusiasm and fresh ideas Rand Paul doesn’t bring much to the table – as far as an establishment politician is concerned.  Marco Rubio on the other hand offers Latinos and Florida, Nikki Haley offers women and ostensibly some libertarianism, while Rob Portman is simply a reassuring water carrier.

To be sure, this was a political decision; therefore it should be judged on those grounds.  If Rand Paul doesn’t get anything for his endorsement, while pulling the chair out from under his supporters, it will be to his chagrin.  However, speaking slots at the GOP convention, cabinet appointments and other tangible influence will be a victory for the liberty wing of the GOP.  Revolutions don’t occur overnight, at least the organic ones.

Paul is Out, Liberty Coalition is In

Topher Morrison 

www.PurpleSerf.com

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

Paul has thrown in the towel, kind of.  He will not be competing in any of the states that have yet to vote, namely his home state of Texas and the other delegate mammoth, California.  Needless to say, Mitt Romney is the nominee, but this won’t be the last time we hear from Ron Paul.

From the Washington Times:

"Mr. Paul said he will continue to work to win delegates in states that have already voted and where the process of delegate-selection is playing out. He said that’s a way to make his voice heard at the Republican nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., in August."

For the coalition of conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, paleo conservatives, gold bugs, etc. who fell in line behind Dr. Paul this has always been more about the elevation of ideas than it has been a reaction against Mitt Romney or a “cult of personality” as some would have it.  Ron Paul is an admirable man, but as far as personality goes there are other more exciting libertarians – as we shall see.

This last drive was about building a home for sound money, constitutional government and a responsible foreign policy within the GOP.  That goal has been achieved.  You may be a Reagan Republican or a New Deal Democrat, but there is a new club to choose.  As I have mentioned before, 2012 bears witness to the rise of the Ron Paul Republican.

After the convention Ron Paul will most likely focus on his Campaign for Liberty and spreading the message he has for decades.  The 74-year-old Representative of Texas will conclude his official political life and will no doubt offer his support and endorsement to a new generation of libertarians.

Watch for politicians in the Liberty Caucus, the libertarian wing of the Republican Party to swell in the coming years.  Its members will undoubtedly be the next place to look for another Ron Paul.  Others to keep an eye on are:

Wayne Allen Root, vice presidential
candidate for the Libertarian Party
 and media personality

Sen. Rand Paul (R-TN)
Son of Ron Paul

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
Endorsed Ron Paul for President (2012)
and one of the youngest federal office holders.

There is a growing awareness of what libertarianism, just check out the Top 100 Libertarian Blogs, the message is expanding.  The most amazing thing about the liberty perspective, however, is the lack of recidivism to the old left/right paradigm.  Unlike all of the ex-conservative and ex-liberal stories out there – once a libertarian always a libertarian.

3 Reasons to Repeal 1913

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

cross-posted at

GreeneWave.com

This Saturday at a stump speech in Rochester, Minnesota Ron Paul may have outdone even himself.  Famous for advocating the repeal of many laws, the elimination of numerous agencies and substantially reducing the size and scope of the federal government Ron Paul recently told the Wall Street Journal “I’d really like to repeal 1913.”  Why a whole year?  Three reasons:

·      On February 3, 1913 the 16^th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified.  The amendment allows Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states per the Constitution Article I, Sections 2,8, and 9.

·      On May 31^st, 1913 the 17^th Amendment was declared part of the Constitution by Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan.  It established the direct election of U.S. Senators by popular vote stripping the right away from the state legislators.

·      On December 23, 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed.  This act grants a consortium of private banks legal authority to issue Federal Reserve Notes.

These three events are barely discussed in today’s retail politics, but they are at the genesis of nearly every controversy the country suffers from today.  After 1913, the United States, once a grand laboratory of democratic experiments became irrevocably chained to the one-size-fits-all decisions of experts and special interests in Washington D.C.

The 16^th Amendment or the federal income tax created the IRS as we know it today and allows the federal government to pool national wealth and keep it without returning it to the states.  This allows Washington to create massive entitlement programs, go to war, prop up foreign governments, fund extensive bureaucracies and bribe state governments with their own money to accept federal regulation.

The 17^th Amendment, while affirming the redemptive qualities of popular sovereignty by instituting direct elections of U.S. Senators, removed the state governments from the federal process.  The bicameral legislature was originally set up to represent both the people (House of Representatives) and the states (Senate) as an indispensible component of federalism and an essential check on government overreach.

Prior to 1913 Senators gave the 10^th Amendment teeth by acting as jealous guardians of individual state rights.  Held to account by local legislatures U.S. Senators were charged with preventing unlawful federal encroachment upon those rights.  Any legislation that would emphasize the federal government over of the state governments or their citizens would be voted down.

The Federal Reserve Act also known as the Aldrich Plan effectively privatized what was otherwise a public utility, the nations money supply.  Handing monetary policy over to a fundamental conflict of interest is all that is important here.  The Constitution as originally conceived charged Congress with the public regulation of monetary policy, not private banks.  The Federal Reserve inherently desires our government to spend more and thereby borrow more at interest, whether it be for peace or war.

Few Americans appreciate the fact that while the last century is known as the “American Century” we began it already on top.   By 1906 the United States was the dominant economy in the world, enjoying the highest living standards and literally recreating the world in our image.  It stands to reason therefore that it is what we did (or better yet, did not do) as a country in the 19^th century, which led to our prominence in the 20^th.

With this in mind it strikes me as odd when someone praises what we “accomplished” during the last century when it in fact these accomplishments testify to where we are now – divided, decadent, laden with debt and in decline.   Nonetheless it has become a buzzword for some to claim the Tea Party movement, conservative leaders and libertarians want to “repeal the 20^th century” evidenced here, here, here and in this video:

This byword hides the fact that nearly all of the 20^th century’s legislative accomplishments and wars are predicated on the fundamental changes that literally ripped the heart and soul out of the Constitution.  Its a matter of perspective, does one measure accomplishments on what we are able to do through government namely by winning wars or passing laws?  Or does one measure accomplishments on our aggregate ability to progress and add value to each others lives, something government can never do?

These three pieces of legislation over the last 105 years acting in concert have effectively ended capitalism and replaced it with corporatism.  The year of 1913 was crucial in reducing a vibrant republic to one glacial organism monolithic in its agenda, pallid in its imagination, unresponsive to the needs of its people and growing in capacity to harm not only Americans, but others as well.  We must now ask ourselves: shall we like so many other nations succumb and be pulled back into the fog of history or are we to reclaim our culture of freedom and emphasis on the individual and resist the fate of so many nations?

Ron Paul's Liberal Honey

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

cross posted at

GreeneWave.com

   Now that everyone’s feet have hit the ground and Romney has reasserted his “front runner status” (as the mainstream media enjoys to browbeat) some like Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard are musing about another Santorum surge; praying, hoping for Bush 2.0.  There is only one problem.  Although the GOP is potentially dethroning one of the most radical presidencies since FDR or LBJ, as Kristol laments, their Florida primary turnout was actually down 12% from 2008. 

How can Barak Hussein Obama, the Premier of Polarization, not light a fire under the GOP?  They better figure it out.  In Florida, Mitt Romney may have been able to outspend Newt Gingrich by a 4 to 1 margin; that will not be the case against Barack’s billion-dollar war chest.  Romney will need a lot more than millions in milquetoast rhetoric to revitalize this evidently anemic party. 

To be fair, this may have merely been the Florida GOP, Iowa’s turnout after all was record breaking, but was that because of Romney or something else?  Maybe it was the ugliness of the campaign that kept Floridians at home, but that most assuredly will not change as the Democrats plan to make this election more about character than content.  Perhaps it was the nature of the caucus. 

While the Florida Slugfest was grabbing national attention Ron Paul as usual was quiet, but diligent.  He was the first to release ads in Minnesota and Nevada and able to stay clear of the mud he was left alone to continue his long-term caucus strategy, which is proving fruitful regardless of the what the Media Masters tell you.

Ron Paul claims he is 3^rd in delegate count and supported: here and here even though the MSM has him in 4^th: here, here and here.  Why the discrepancy?  Free information sites like Wikipedia and The Green Papers offer a little more insight into the fog that often surrounds the U.S. electoral system. 

There are, for example, differences in “soft” versus “hard” delegates and “pledged” or “bound” delegates versus “unpledged” or “not bound” delegates. It essentially boils down to reporting projected versus formally pledged delegates.  The MSM prefers the latter.  In the end it’s more than just the ballot box, as Politico’s James Hohmann points out:

The primary and caucus “…states don’t award delegates on the day they hold votes, instead apportioning delegates at local party meetings, where Paul’s camp believes its superior organization can help it capture a majority that their candidate may not have won outright on election day.”

Spontaneous organization and zeal as I have mentioned is the bread and butter of Ron Paul’s Guerilla Grassroots.

            As the Christian Science Monitor points out Ron Paul with this odd strategy may in fact win more delegates this coming month than Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich combined!  The reason?  It is what Romney, Gingrich and Santorum all lack and what Ron Paul is in large supply – liberal honey.    

As evidenced in Iowa, Ron Paul pulls from the top of the political spectrum.  This may seem odd to hear, however, many now understand there is a false dichotomy afoot when someone tries to paint another as either left or right.  It is why we see Americans leaving the GOP and Democratic parties in droves.  Fundamentally the real dichotomy is authority versus liberty, everything else is retail politics.

Ron Paul is above the fray in this respect pulling and converting ostensibly progressive and conservative independents into his libertarian coalition of sustainable governance.  The most attractive characteristic of Paul’s liberal honey is it’s cheap enough for a conservative, but sweet enough for a liberal. 

Take ending the War on Drugs for instance.  It promotes personal responsibility with respect to treatment and education while simultaneously emancipating billions of taxpayer dollars dedicated to massive incarceration, property seizures and interdiction from the grip of big government.  Legalizing and regulating drugs like alcohol and tobacco as they once were would serve the single biggest blow to drug cartels and inner city gangs sustained by the black market’s inflated prices.  Moreover, the Drug War disproportionally affects minorities whom notoriously side with Democrats.  Ron Paul’s plan fundamentally undermines this entitlement.

            Liberal honey most importantly allows a left leaning voter to swallow some of Ron Paul’s economic medicine some view as austere.  His stance on the Federal Reserve for example is as bipartisan as it gets, over 75% of voters want a full audit of the Fed.  The idea there is a coalition of private banks dictating how much money to print for themselves, leading to trickle down inflation, is appalling to most Americans.  Ron Paul retains nearly exclusive rights to this idea – End The Fed.

            Local governance looms large in our political future too.   The famous liberal idiom “think globally, act locally” is about to be fulfilled and added to the libertarian lexicon – “think globally, govern locally.”  For far too long central planning has concentrated the power of government in Washington D.C. at the expense of our states, counties and townships.  Ron Paul’s efforts to allow the states to decide on abortion, gay marriage and education allowing everyone to more easily vote with their feet by rekindling our 50 democratic laboratories.

            While the anti-war movement was eviscerated after the election of our Peace President Barack Obama, Ron Paul’s plans to close our foreign bases and return our troops home resonates with independents, paleo-conservatives and progressives alike.  Its police state ancillary, the technological and industrial blowback from our militant adventurism, is on Ron Paul’s chopping block too.  Ending the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security, fusion centers, and curtailing Top Secret America appeals to social libertarians and liberals alike.

          When it comes to a head to head between Barack Obama and Ron Paul it would be a gas to see a 74 year old man run a hard right on economics all the while luring Obama’s base away from under him with all natural liberal honey.

Newt is Right, Time to Shoot The Moon!

 

            Newt Gingrich’s bold new idea, recently revealed at a stump speech in Florida, of seeding the Moon with American astro-colonists is actually not all that crazy.  What is crazy is asking taxpayers to continue to spearhead space exploration for another 53 years; on this point he is as usual – wrong.

In last night’s Jacksonville debate, former Governor Mitt Romney seemed to agree, I know Ron Paul does.  Romney, however, merely saw a golden opportunity to mock Newt for his outlandish idea and to weigh in on it as a former businessman:

“If I had a business executive come to me and say I want to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I’d say: ‘You’re fired!’” Romney boasted.

Only one problem, there are a lot of businessmen whom disagree with the former Bain Capital CEO.  Evidently Romney doesn’t know mitt about interstellar business.

Sir Walter Branson founder of Virgin galactic has kind of a knack for creating value and he sees a lot of it in space.  For example, Branson just completed the world’s first international spaceport in New Mexico and will soon shuttle wealthy space enthusiasts into low earth orbit. 

Virgin Galactic isn’t the only celestial startup, Bigelow Aerospace of North Las Vegas, Nevada aims to create orbiting luxury hotels and SpaceX has developed one of the first operational private space capsules called the Dragon.  For a surprising list of private space companies and their ideas for the future look, here.

            Newt’s reason for bringing up a moon base makes a lot of sense.  Evidently Florida’s Space Coast, a community heavily reliant on high tech spending, is hurting more than the rest of the country, treading water at 12% unemployment.  While I’m not necessarily a fan of some of Planet Newt’s ideas namely his love affair with geoengineering, what he refers to as “cheap” market-based approaches to anthropogenic climate change, he might be getting warm on this one.

            It is time to emancipate the U.S. from the U.N. “Space Treaty” we signed in 1967 in the midst of the Cold War and explore the final frontier!  Why can’t start colonizing the moon under a “northwest ordinance” and reignite the idea of manifest destiny?  Why can’t the moon be our 51^st state?  Are we to extend the same concept to the entire cosmos?  Do we have to become One World before we step off this rock?  If we wait there is a lot to lose.

            Gingrich wrote a pretty straightforward book a few years back: Drill Here, Drill Now.  In that vein Newt is for once consistent, a Moon base would be a colossal job creator.  NASA, however, probably shouldn’t build it even though they’re in talks with Russia for a joint venture to do so.  If Florida’s Space Coast want’s jobs they’ll find it in companies like Shackelton Energy Co. which seeks to extricate fuels like plutonium-238 and helium-3 by transforming the moon into a interstellar gas station.  Gingrich should write another book after he loses the election: Drill There, Drill Soon.

            Barack Obama deserves some kudos too.  Although Obama receives his due ration of ridicule I would like to thank him for ending the space shuttle program as it was because he highlighted for Americans the fact we don’t need government to be inventive, curious, or passionate when it comes to space travel.  When everyone was afraid we’d be hitch hiking on Russian and Chinese ships I said Goodbye NASA, Hello Space Age.  Finally the monkey is off our back.  Private companies might not be in it “For the Benefit of All” as goes the NASA motto, but their work will benefit all.

Paul's Guerilla Grassroots Could Win Nevada & Latinos

You can buy this shirt at Atomic Flip for $29

The Guerilla Grassroots

It is no doubt to anyone that Ron Paul is running an unconventional campaign and it isn’t just his patented guerilla grassroots replete with money bombs and a legion of fervent Paulistas that raises eyebrows.  Paul has a unique and long-term caucus strategy focusing on proportional delegates, picking his fights carefully. 

His campaign is famous for relying on relatively decentralized even “rouge” and local efforts who distance themselves from even official Ron Paul campaign organs, as evidenced in South Carolina.  The Washington Examiner reported: “Charleston for Ron Paul prefers the official Paul campaign to stay unaffiliated.”

Many lauded the technical acumen of the Obama campaign for its utilization of social media and get out the vote efforts, but it pales in comparison to the self-starting nature of Ron Paul’s campaign.  For example, RonPaulCountry.com has a “Grassroots War Room” founded by volunteers out of New Jersey and it literally makes you feel as if you’re in a real time political bunker. 

Inundated with timetables for the next primary and information directing potential Paulites to where they are needed most.  It offers an impressive platform all the while reminding its members: “…Because saving the country should be fun”, yet another example of the privatization, technical prowess and devolution inherent to Paul’s unique brand of electoral politics.

While some in the mainstream media saw the Paul campaign backing off in South Carolina it could have also been as easily characterized as de facto delegation of campaign responsibility.  If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.  In the end Charleston for Ron Paul efforts were entirely volunteer, self-funded and self-directed – frugal. 

These examples of spontaneous organization couldn’t be more fitting for a man who has spent over 30 years educating the American public on the benefits of the invisible hand in the free market, a hand which evidently has its fingers all over Ron Paul’s campaign.

Looking Past South Carolina

            While South Carolina wasn’t a win for Ron Paul, the Gingrich win will sap strength from Romney and guarantee a longer primary season, moreover it will reduce the prospects of Rick Santorum climbing any higher than his Iowa zenith.  While Paul has sustained a significant blow in South Carolina, his campaign will undoubtedly continue to slog through this back loaded GOP marathon. 

As I have argued before Ron Paul’s plans to Win the West, a region more in line with his libertarian social platform is key to his success at forcing the GOP to assimilate much of his platform.  Even if Paul doesn’t win the nomination if he can accumulate enough delegates he might be able to impose a libertarian platform upon the eventual nominee.

            After South Carolina, while the nation has already started to become distracted by the Florida throw down and its boatload (no pun intended) of delegates, Ron Paul was the first to buy ad time in Nevada and Minnesota (site for his 2008 shadow convention).  Nevada political guru Jon Ralston confirmed my sentiments about the libertarian leaning Silver State, which may deliver Ron Paul a needed victory.  According to Ralston: “Nevada is to some extent still a very libertarian state…That goes across party lines and Paul is officially a libertarian running in the Republican party.  There’s a lot of resonance there.”

The Hispanic Vote

            Time’s blog Swampland mentioned that much of Ron Paul’s appeal to Hispanics which makes up 26% of Nevada’s population, nearly 34% in California, 27% in Arizona will theoretically play into Paul’s favor.  While Ron Paul supports English as the official language of the Federal Government, building a boarder fence, minutemen volunteerism, ending or better put clarifying the 14^th Amendment’s controversial birthright citizenship provision, and rejecting amnesty he is overall pro immigration free from federal subsidy through food stamps, social security, hospital mandates and free education.

            The disparate affects on Latinos on both sides of the borders who are caught in the middle of the War on Drugs should prove to play in the West as well.  Recently, it was found the US-Mexico border region was deadlier than war torn Afghanistan, the vast majority were cartel-sponsored murders.  There were even bizarre stories of gladiator games, which would select the strongest captor for suicide bombings in towns controlled by rival cartels. 

Stateside, Latinos are four times likely to be incarcerated than whites according to the Department of Justice, talk about "resonance".  Both Romney and Gingrich scoff at the prospect of reevaluating drug laws, they would rather demagogue the issue than solve it.  Hispanics evidently agree with some of this as 51% view Paul in a favorable light compared to 25% for Romney.

The fact the West Coast as well as upcoming Minnesota leans left bodes well for Dr. Paul as he is often credited for pulling left of center issue voters into his coalition of civil libertarians.  West Coast independents whom gravitate toward these same social values will find Paul’s brand much more appealing than those of Gingrich and Romney whom are attempting to desperately evince social conservative metal.

Ron Paul's Wild West

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

            As Ron Paul moves West he should grow stronger.  Western states have been traditionally less-establishment than eastern states mainly because of their separation from Washington D.C., but also because as one moves west the more suburban and rural one will most likely find their self.  It is a widely understood phenomenon that cities and especially D.C. tend to be more liberal as they are closer to the spigots of government largess.  

            There is a historical reason why there tend to be more libertarians out West than on the East Coast.  The West identifies itself more with traditional America as a pioneering culture than the East Coast, which has always had a continental feel. Moreover, the frontier experience of American settlers was of rugged individualism, self-reliance, but most importantly the frontier expanded quicker than the federal government could grow leaving most westerners on their own.  This experience is in sharp contrast to those left in New York, Pennsylvania, New England and the South.

From the early 1800s to the last lower 48 territory when Arizona became a state in 1912, the West was relatively untamed.  Private associations called land clubs dominated the scene.  Throughout the statehood process and before incorporation of towns and cities these land clubs enabled settlers to elect local officers and select arbitrators to resolve disputes.  Other than that you were on your own.

The best modern example of libertarian leanings in the West is the Libertarian Party itself, founded by David Nolan in Colorado Springs, Colorado.  He was originally born and raised on the East Coast, but disgruntled with Nixon’s Vietnam policies and his abandonment of the gold standard Nolan established the party of principle in his home in Colorado in 1971. 

Libertine cities like Las Vegas extol legalized and safe prostitution, relaxed gun laws, legalized gambling, strong property rights and manage to allow around the clock drinking 7 days a week all without the sky falling.  The famous libertarian think tank the Cato Institute was founded in San Francisco before moving to Washington D.C.  The libertarian Independent Institute, however, is in Oakland, C.A.  Reason Magazine, a leading libertarian publication, is based in Los Angeles.

            While coastal California, Oregon and Washington don’t necessarily scream for the libertarian economic ideals Ron Paul espouses his libertarian social platform of drug reform, gay marriage, freedom of speech and internet freedom will loom large in contrast with Mitt Romney who has been relatively mum on these issues.  Most of all, however, Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy will resonate in the libertarian west.  With regard to California, Ron Paul won the California straw poll unfortunately with little mention.

            While Utah is most assuredly in Mitt Romney’s corner with the majority of its citizens of the Mormon faith their strict state’s rights positions are very much in line with Ron Paul.  The state actually flirted with a soft repeal of the 17^th Amendment, providing the popular election of federal senators, in favor of their selection by the state legislature and confirmation thereafter by the people through popular vote.  Ron Paul feels the states were denied their representation as states in the federal system after the 17^th Amendment’s passage in 1913, the same year the Federal Reserve Act was passed.

            Polling hasn’t yet been forthcoming since Romney’s victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, but with other candidates sure to putter out and unable to sustain a nationwide campaign, unlike Ron Paul it will be interesting to see how polls will change in this back loaded primary season.

50 Things I Hate About Romney: PART 1

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

I created this video just before Newt Gingrich rose in the polls and when he did I didn't feel it appropriate to release considering there was so much to knock him on.  Now that Romney has cemented his front runner position, at least for now, I thought we should take another look at his record.  This first part covers the economy.

If you like the video please "like" it "comment" and "share!"  There is 40 more things I hate about Mitt and there is a long primary coming!

Rise of the Ron Paul Republican

The GOP doesn’t have a Ron Paul problem 

it has a libertarian problem.

Image Source: RonPaul.com

When the GOP lost Congress in 2006 and weren’t able to install a Republican as president in 2008, overshadowed by the “historic election,” it was back to the drawing board for the party of Lincoln.  But it was in March of 2007, just after the 110^th Congress was sworn in, that Ron Paul began to break ground on a permanent home for the libertarian ideals he had been espousing for over 30 years. 

            Libertarianism, while having been traditionally an esoteric subject, began to manifest as a movement in 1971 in response to Vietnam, its voracious appetite for blood and treasure and a burgeoning welfare state both of which contributed to the abandonment of the gold standard.  (It was President Nixon’s decision to rely wholly on the Federal Reserve for our nation’s monetary policy that spurred Ron Paul into office in the first place.)  

To proto-libertarians, drawn from conservatives, independents, blue dog democrats, the progressivism of the left and the conservativism of the right were merely two features of the same problem – big government happily placating, if not, openly catering to corporate interests.  Between the platforms of war and welfare libertarians established their political beachhead in the “Party of Principle” - the Libertarian Party.

In 1978 the libertarian Cato Institute was founded in Northern California and provided needed conceptual ammunition to the fledgling movement.  By that time the “free minds and free markets” of Reason Magazine was in its 8^th year of regular publication and busy popularizing economic superstars like F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Murray Rothbard.  If necessity is truly the mother of invention, the malaise of the 1970s was midwife to the birth of libertarianism. From then on the intellectual-political infrastructure necessary to broadcast and mobilize the ideas of individual liberty grew exponentially.

By 1975 even Ronald Reagan seemed to be equally enamored with the prospects of libertarianism.  This from Reason Magazine:

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism [emphasis added].  I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

After reading this it should be no surprise why Ron Paul was one of the first to endorse Ronald Reagan for president.  A president who, contrary to revisionist conservatives, didn't always please the hard line neoconservatives.

By the time of Reagan’s rise, however, it wasn’t the libertarians who were to capitalize on the backlash against stagflation and the "new normal" Cater attempted to impose on America, but the Grand Old Party.  Albeit the corruption and tepidity under Nixon and Ford left the party beleaguered and exhausted it was still a dependable and well-financed machine by 1980. 

While Ronald Reagan assumed the ethos of libertarianism and attempted to graft it onto the Grand Old Party some of it stuck, but much of it didn’t.  Reagan too, while previously extolling libertarian virtue fell short of achieving a fundamental restoration of our republic.  The Reagan Revolution was, as many political movements are (think Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street) co-opted by the old guard - the establishment - whom shepherded new energies into old interests. 

From 1980 to 1992 and three Republican administrations the government still grew, foreign intervention persisted even after the demise of the Soviet Union, no departments were cut, and debt increased.  Some of the sound economic decisions bore fruit, which staved off disaster, spurred needed innovation and restored some of America’s confidence, but the course of government expansion was fundamentally unaltered.

The GOP received a second chance in 2000, but after Bush’s restrained foreign policy promises were abandoned and the ill-defined War on Terror began, much of the same occurred under his eight years as had occurred under Bill Clinton. Bush federalized more of the American education system, passed a colossal unfunded prescription drug entitlement program, endorsed massive militarism, sponsored the curtailment of civil liberties and oversaw the unprecedented bailouts of 2007.  All of these decisions echoed the encroachments and profligacy of former Democrats and Republicans alike, hence the Tea Party movement.

Conservativism is not a misnomer as Reagan put it, conservativism is legitimately its own brand and uses a similar tool to progressivism in order to impress its social goals here and abroad - the state.  But unlike progressivism, libertarianism is, as conservativism is, now and for the foreseeable future a part of the "right" and therefore part of the Republican Party.   

Many who call themselves conservatives or conservative independents are in fact libertarians they just don’t know it yet, but they will.  For years libertarians lived in the political backwaters and were never really taken seriously, but since 2008 and the ideological bankruptcy of the GOP they've been called in again as they were in the Reagan Revolution to breath new life into a failing ideology, but this time they're not going away.

Ron Paul has carved out a home for libertarians under the GOP’s famous Big Tent.  After years of proffering an austere voting record, sometimes referred to as academic or impractical, Ron Paul is a living breathing example of constitutional fortitude.  Dr. No, as he is often called will probably be known most for what he stood against than what he stood for, but amidst a government which has for the last 100 years, stood for too much, done too much and grown too large Ron Paul's brand of politics is welcomed.

             The year 2012 bears witness to the rise of the Ron Paul Republican.  From now on those who raise his once lonely banner will have a platform from which to run for office. The libertarian wing is now open for business and will continue to siphon off voters from the Democrats and return disgruntled independents to a still hemorrhaging GOP.  

             There is now a fundable and dependable political machine waiting to propel libertarians wherever they need to go.  Win or lose the nomination libertarians are here to stay – the Ron Paul revolution has just begun.