Thursday, May 17, 2012

NDAA Provisions Struck Down in Federal Court

NDAA Provisions Struck Down in Federal Court 

Michelle Obama said she was for once in her adult life proud of her country when support for her husband as President of the United States reached a crescendo.  Hope was returning to America.  That idea has been significantly called into question over the intervening years.  However, what occurred yesterday should make all Americans proud.  Our system, seemingly broken in countless ways – still works.

The controversial National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) signed by Barack Obama, whose provisions (SEC. 1031 & 1032) give the National Security Council and the U.S. government the power to detain anyone deemed to be a “terrorist” indefinitely without charge or trial anywhere in the world including U.S. citizens was struck down in federal court on Wednesday by Judge Katherine Forest.

The ruling was due to a lawsuit brought about by titans in the civil rights community.  The plaintiffs in the case include scholars, journalists and activists namely Noam Chomskey, Daniel Elseberg, Chris Hedges, Naomi Wolf, and Cornel West.



NDAA was borne out of bipartisan effort with rabid support from Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Carl Levin (D-MI) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT).  Sen. Graham is probably the most vociferous proponent literally screaming at his colleagues in the senate, “When [terrorists] ask for their lawyer, you tell them ‘shut up’!”



Here Sen. Graham reiterates that National Security interests supersede those rights and liberties ensconced in the bill of rights and Constitution he is sworn to protect.  “You are not to be given a lawyer if our national security interests [a.k.a. National Security Council an unelected body] dictate you are not to be given a lawyer.”


Judge Kathrine Forest of the southern district of New York evidently disagrees with the senator.  She struck down provisions 1031 & 1032 precisely because she feels they infringe on 1st and 5th Amendment rights.  Those Amendments guarantee freedom of speech and due process.  Why the law wasn’t also struck down on 6th Amendemnt grounds, right to speedy trial and concepts of habeaus corpus, is unclear.

Sen. Lindsey Graham may see the entire world as a battlefield, including the internet, but his legislation puts in jepordy nearly 800 years of common law respecting the individual rights against aggressive encroachment by the state, whatever the excuse.  The Magna Carta from which our Constitution and bill of rights owes so much, signed in 1215, says as much:
In clause 39 of the Magna Carta, John of England promised as follows:
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

What if a Dictator is Boring? Can We Laugh at Ourselves?

Topher Morrison
www.PurpleSerf.com

What if a Dictator is Boring?  Can We Laugh at Ourselves?
The Dictator starring Sasha Baron Cohen
In what was anticipated to be Sasha Baron Cohen’s magnum opus, “The Dictator”, has unfortunately suffered a critics coup prior to its U.S. release.  But, we shall see how the peasants react at the box office this week.

According to co writers of “The Dictator”, Jeff Schafer and David Mandel, Mr. Cohen is essentially playing the amalgamated personification of Kim Jong-il, Idi Amin, Serdar Turkmenbashi and of course what we all suspected since we first saw the baby blue uniform – the late Muammar Ghaddafi of Libya.

After all, this particular dictator, His Excellency Admiral General Shabazz Aladeen (nod to 1001 Arabian Nights) of the Republic of Wadiya (nod to common middle eastern geographical features), is a fascistic, misogynistic, anti-Zionist from North Africa.  He’s also an ophthalmologist (probably a last ditch effort to wrap Bashar al-Assad of Syria into the mix).

Alas, critics across the globe have offered their long knives rather than the typical enthusiastic appraisal of Mr. Cohen’s comedic command.  The Boston Globe asked if Mr. Cohen’s act was “getting old” and even after the Los Angeles Times gave “The Dictator” a polite golf clap Betsy Sharkey left her readers with something to think about:
"Still, by the end [of the movie] it’s hard not to think that this particular joke has gone on too long. Perhaps it is time for Baron Cohen to have a go at pushing other acting boundaries harder, and give the Borats, the Brunos, the Aladeens of the world, and us, a rest."
Rene Rodriguez of the Kansas City Star went a bit further, anticipating Mr. Cohen may have even jumped the shark and turned around to give it a high five:
“The Dictator” does for “Sacha Baron Cohen” what “The Love Guru” did for Mike Myers: Reveal that this sharp, revered comedian with an uncanny ear for absurdist humor is a mere mortal capable of great folly.
In your humble author’s opinion, the proper analogy would be Baron Cohen and Tom Green.  After everyone eventually came to recognize who they were the precious candid camera comedy was no more.  The real magic was seeing how unwitting clerks would react to Tom Green using tens of thousands of pennies to buy groceries or unsuspecting patrons of a country and western bar in Tucson, Arizona joining Baron Cohen in a sing-along version of “Throw the Jew Down the Well.”



Whether Sasha Baron Cohen is going downhill as all other comics seem to be tragically destined to do is not our concern.

It is easy to make fun of cartoonish characters like Col. Ghaddafi, his guilded wardrobe of flowing dessert robes, colorful military ensemble and praetorian of virgin women. Ghaddafi has been the poster dictator for this type of comic cruelty since he co-starred with Fidel Castro, Yassar Arafat, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ayatolla Khomeini in 1988’s “The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!”

The creators of South Park and Team America, showed us it was ok to be racist when satirizing a despot (that is its own article), but didn’t his HD glasses, throwback tunic and cognac on tap deserve some barbs?

What about Serdar Turkmenbashi who turned the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan into his own private Disney World replete with golden statues of himself in every public space?  Sure, gas is only cents on the dollar, but isn’t a man who renamed the days of the week after himself a prime candidate for public humiliation, even posthumously?

Initially I’d have to agree with Aristotle that the right genre for dramatizing bad men is indeed comedy.  If we can’t remind those who refuse follow history or current events that these men still linger how else are we to reach them other than through Hollywood?

Then again, is it good to depict for the masses these buffoonish characters in caricature?  Is this robbing us from learning about some dark part of humanity we instinctually admire, gravitate to and are suckered in by?  In this case I would have to agree with Confucius; dead leaders need to be respected even when you hate them – they’re us.

What about when dictators, despots, tyrants – whatever you want to call them – aren’t funny?  What happens when they are banal, quiet or aplenty?  Who’s making fun of oligarchies?  It will doubtfully reoccur, while photos still circulate, that evil will once again feel like dawning black leather, jack boots, red arm bands and skulls.  If so they’d be easy to spot, wouldn’t that be nice?  Likewise, they won’t always resemble a human rainbow.
The Human Rainbow
While not originally comedic 2004’s film “Downfall” turned Hitler’s rants into a viral meme allowing anyone to subtitle the footage.  “The downfall of arguably the most evil man in history was thus transmuted through satire into everyday yip-yap” writes Stuart Jeffries of the Guardian.
Imagine trying to satirize the concept of “tyranny of the majority,” universal healthcare, repealing the 2nd Amendment, states rights or the U.S.’s growing drone army.  Political cartoons accomplish this in small does, providing an almost ethereal comic relief, but nothing for a broad audience like “The Dictator” and other blockbuster movies.

Besides handily sating those who understand green fascism with Zoey’s (played by Anna Faris) zany eco-terrorizing rants “The Dictator” seems to come close to sacrificing a politically sacred cow.  Baron Cohen’s characters may be loosing steam, but his jabs at “democratic” systems of government as dictatorships couldn’t be a more prudent critique (if it is in fact a critique) of the West’s longstanding fetish with democracy.

In our “Responsibility to Protect” and the century long quest “to make the world safe for democracy” Baron Cohen may have opened some eyes to the idea that maybe democracy isn’t the summom bonum we’ve been sold for so long.  Since after World War II America has overthrown dictators left and right and in the last decade alone our foreign adventurism has cost America trillions of dollars and arguably millions of lives in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.  Our actions have solidified Russian and Chinese opposition effectively raising the prospect of renewed global tensions similar to the Cold War.

Seeking peace through democracy couldn’t be any more absurd.  Democratizing states are some of the most violent on Earth.  Democracies may not fight each other, but internally they’re a demonstrable mess.  In fact it is pure democracies which often yield the dictators we loath the most.

From F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, commentary on the rise of Nazi Germany:
“The inability of democratic assemblies to carry out what seems to be a clear mandate of the people will enevitably cause dissatisfaction democratic institutions.  Parliaments become regarded as ineffective talking shops unable or incompotent to carry out the taks for which they have been chosen.  The conviction grows that if efficient planning is to be done the direction must be taken out of politics and placed into the hands of experts – permanent officials or independent autonomous bodies.”
Just look at the popularity of Congress, can anyone make fun of that?  Is there any doubt left that the executive branch over the last decades has accumulated more and more power?  F.A. Hayek’s observation was based upon the German’s desire for “efficient planning” not liberty.  Under liberty individuals do the planning and democracy is subordinated to merely checks and balances not the ethos of a nation.

If we continue down this road of alienating other nations, what Barack Obama promised he would reverse, the real question becomes – will we be able to make fun of ourselves.

Monday, May 14, 2012

Hell on Earth: Mexican Drug War Yields 49 Headless Bodies

Topher Morrison
www.PurpleSerf.com

In what is widely believed to be the latest clash between two of Mexico’s main crime syndicates, the Zetas gang and the Sinaloa Cartel, officials struggle to identify 49 bodies.   The Associated Press (AP) reports that although the bodies were found without gunshot wounds some were heavily decomposed, decapitated and totally dismembered.

Victims of the latest carnage, the “Cadereyta 49” as they are coming to be referred, highlights the alarming notion that Mexico is teetering on the brink of narco-genocide, a type of national bloodletting of a wholly different order than previous eras. Rather than a government carrying out a policy of ethnic cleansing or oppression the devastation being experienced in Mexico is due almost entirely to a black market in the violent throws of realignment after the 2008 financial crisis blew a hole in the U.S. economy.

“Drug violence has killed more than 47,500 people since President Felipe
Calderon launched a stepped-up offensive when he took office in
December 2006. The campaign has seen the two cartels emerge as
 Mexico’s two most powerful. At least one of the two cartels
is present in nearly all of Mexico’s 32 states.”
 – Associated Press
Astonishingly, it was been reported the people of northern Mexico sometimes have no one protecting them as some municipalities, including Cadereyta, have been without law enforcement for years allowing cartels to move in to fill the void.  When police are there, however, they are often corrupt to the point were an entire police force was fired and disbanned.  According to BorderLandBeat.com:
Though hard to imagine the cruelty of cartels to gather large groups of innocents for shock and attention thereby highlighting messages or a perception of power, another perspective is it is far easier, and efficient in their viewpoint.
By targeting a bus load of migrants, or giving corrupt police the task to collect innocent victims off the streets.  Compliant and respectful of authorities, they are easy prey, no bullets, no fighting, no bloodshed sustained on the part of the criminals.
Effectively, like lambs to the slaughter.
The recent slayings are only the last of four massacres in the last month.  The most horrific detail is these victims are not believed to be rival gangsters or meddling journalists, but innocent bystanders.  According to the AP:
Some victims in earlier body dumps have turned out to be bakers, brick layers, even students – anyone who could be snatched off the streets in mass killings that one captured gang member said were designed to ‘cause terror.’
The mass murder of 35 last year in Boca del Rio, Veracruz is a testament to this gruesome tactic.  The very same city whose police officers were purportedly rounding up children for the massacre.
The Cadereyta municipality has seen homicides of this nature increase 10-fold over the past three years.  Another example of why Mexico’s border region was the most violent place on the planet last year, more so than even war torn Afghanistan.  More from the AP story:
"[In Cadereyta] there have been 74 killings in the first four months of this year in, compared to 27 over the same period in 2011 and seven in 2010, according to figures from Nuevo Leon state prosecutors.
The massacre follows the discovery of 14 men left in a van in downtown Nuevo Laredo on April 17 and 23 people found hanged or decapitated in the same border city May 4.
Eighteen dismembered bodies were left near Mexico’s second-largest city, Guadalajara, last week. Among the nine people identified in that attack were bricklayers, waiters and at least one student. None had criminal records."
This is all part of a sadistic strategy of “heating up the plaza” a way of luring local law enforcement, state police and Mexican military to crack down on a rival cartel’s activities.  A black market false flag so to speak.
The cartels are of course known for their barborous gambits.  Last year it was reported that Mexican drug lords are forcing innocent civilians into gladiatorial death matches.  Once a victor emerges they are “rewarded” by being forced to run a veritable kamakazi mission into a rival cartel’s territory.  According to Paul Thompson of the Daily Mail:
"Almost 200 bodies were found near the Mexican city of San Fernando with most having died from blunt force trauma.
Many are thought to be victims of the blood sport where cartel chiefs re-enact the gladiator contests."
In a country were citizens are defenseless, where the black market makes up a sizable portion of the economy, according to Havoscope $126.08 billion, and the state controls much of the rest it is hard to see a way forward.  There have been serious talks of legalizing illicit drugs throughout Central and South America, but without the major consumer, the United States, following suit all these efforts accomplish is open season for Cartels.

Some wonder why we don’t use our growing arsenal of drones to expidite justice.  The only question would be: when do the cartels get their own?  After all, they already have planes, trains, tanks and submarines.

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.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Govern Locally, Not Globally

Govern Locally, Not Globally
Is this not pro Earth?
Introducing: Lexicon of a Libertarian

If you want to replace an established system, be it religious, cultural, scientific or political an equally comprehensive system must be introduced to take its place.  Specifically, the new system must solve the failures and embrace the success and often the routines of the former.

Take Christianity for example.  Within 300 years it grew from an obscure Jewish cult to a multinational religion, larger than Judaism had ever been or wished to be.  Christmas and Easter take place on the Winter Solstice and Spring Equinox, not of mere coincidence, but of prudence.  By superimposing Christianity over the dominant pagan religion of Rome and by respecting the same holy days it was ensured a smooth transition.

This series begins without a predetermined end, as a musing on how the Lexicon of a Libertarian might provide our current national and geopolitical model with a similar thorough transition to an emphasis on individual liberty.

When God was Killed Technocrats Just Took His Place

The video below is of Michael Shermer, founder and publisher of Skeptic Magazine.  Beginning at 13:30 (I would highly suggest watching the entire video) he provides a deft analysis of modern religion after anamism, polytheism and monotheism proved insufficient to answer and solve mankind’s problems or its propensity to create new ones.

 

Shermer begins with a self-reliant hominid on the plains of Africa.  According to Shermer the hominid and successive generations of humans struggling to survive and therefore operating from a position of advanced insecurity saw patterns everywhere.

The attempt to explain and predict these patterns and the world around them gave way to the idea that there was something larger than oneself.  After the epiphany, mankind established dogma and superstition to cope with what we could not immediately understand.   This is the broad stroke that seems to paint much of our existence.

According to Shermer’s dialectic, after monotheism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) proved an illusion big government became the new world order.  The idea that “government can rescue us” is pervasive and is based on the dogmatic belief that mankind, through scientific experts, can somehow provide all the answers.

This from Friedrich Nietzche’s The Gay Science (1882):

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”

Understand that there is no fundamental change in the human condition when God is killed and the mantel of science is assumed.  If the science of psychology has taught us anything it is that we are still as insecure as our hominid forebears.  Because we are insecure we look to each other, but most importantly to our state and our leaders for answers.

Since the turn of the 20th century we thought by rejecting the false gods of the supernatural realm for the real gods of secular and by embracing the redemptive qualities of democracy that people, through science and its technology, would bring us closer to utopia – a new stage in human existence, what Nietzche called the Übermensch or Superman.

The problem is that science, like democracy is essentially a utilitarian device.  While science may lead us to knowledge and democracy may safeguard internal peace and individual freedom, humans are behind both and therefore both are by no means infallible.   What happens when science or its Supermen are wrong?  I’ll put it this way; propaganda was not perfected by monarchs.

This intoxicating prospect of Übermensch wrought disastrous consequences in the 20th century.  We found democracy and authoritarianism were not mutually exclusive as the state became superior and jealous of the individuals whom had built it.  Over and over again in Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Imperial Japan, Communist Cambodia, Islamic Indonesia, etc. there was avalanche after avalanche of tyranny.

Government in its last analysis is force, even when ostensibly governed by science or Nietzhe’s Overmen.  The methodology of science in its purest form may in time unlock a universe of puzzles, but its Supermen cannot as Nietzche and others wished, establish a new and comprehensive hierarchy of values for mankind.  Ironically, Nietzche and his progeny never understood that man as a being of nature operates under similar laws, which cannot simply be repealed and replaced by decree.  Equally ironic was that the Crown and the Church before them had already tried and failed.

F.A. Hayek from Road to Serfdom on Hitler’s attempt:

“Where the precise effects of government policy on particular people are known, where the government aims directly at such particular effects, it cannot help knowing these efforts, and therefore it cannot be impartial.  It must, of necessity, take sides, impose valuations upon people and instead of assisting them in the advancement of their own ends, choose the ends for them.  As soon as the particular effects are foreseen at the time a law is made, it ceases to be a mere instrument to be used by the people and becomes instead an instrument used by the lawgiver upon the people and for his ends.  

The state ceases to be a piece of utilitarian machinery intended to help individuals in their fullest development of their individual personality and becomes a “moral” institution – where “moral” is not used in contrast to immoral, but describes an institution which imposes on its members its views on all moral questions, whether these views be moral or highly immoral. In this sense the Nazi or any other collectivist state is “moral,” while the [classical] liberal state is not.”

“Govern Locally, Not Globally” – An Emphasis on You

While Shermer claims “the idea that government can rescue us is no longer the wave of the future” current trends do not favor this sentiment.  Big government has never been bigger and its technocrats have already overrun the planet, look no further than the European Union, the U.S., China, the African Union and ultimately the United Nations.  Only a few free and prosperous citadels remain.  The rest are struggling to tread water amidst a sea of debt and conflict while the U.N. and powerful internationalists try to consolidate and retool our entire global economy.

There are approximately 196 “independent” countries throughout the world (I use independent carefully because it most definitely is up to debate) all of which like businesses compete for the nearly 7 billion residents of this planet.  Seems like a pretty small number of competitors right?  That is why many including myself have advocated “Let a 1000 nations bloom!”  If we can’t decentralize power within our own countries lets just create new ones.

Nietzche was right about one thing, his emphasis on secular man.  We are the only ones, not angels or aliens, who can and should be held responsible for our fate.  “Either we died because of our religion or our religion dies because of us” Nietzche proclaimed.

We are understandably insecure beings and the natural inclination, the path of least resistance, has always been to rely on superstition, God, the state, empire, supermen and even skepticism itself for consolation.  But if we must kill anything it is the predilection of consistent deference to central government, organized religion, ephemeral movements or ethereal beings.  There have only been a few instances in human history when we have chosen the difficult path, to respect each other’s unalienable rights and liberties.  In this world of bigger is better it may be best to remind ourselves small is beautiful.

LEFT: Anglo Saxon Freemen RIGHT: Ancient Israelites guided by God's pillar of fire
The ancient Israelis and Anglo-Saxons respected the fundamental unit of society – the individual.  Both cultures retained a constitution of sorts whether oral or ensconced in the Arc of the Covenant and both favored a decentralized familial organization of governance.  In fact Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin originally proposed the seal for the United States to honor these two rare civilizations:

The culture of a society is dictated by the individuals that make it up.  In a free society we are individually empowered to seek our own value system and through free association may enter or exit relationships with those who share a similar disposition or freely confront and debate those who do not.  When this model is reversed and ever-larger groups try to impose by force arbitrary relationships and values upon us calamity has been sure to follow.

Although the world has become smaller due to science’s technology it does not follow that there should be a larger worldwide government.  Contrary to what is claimed a one world government regardless of design will assuredly result in despotism.  The infrastructure needed to maintain a world government will beckon for a leader strong enough to wield the vast array of public policy tools and charismatic enough to ameliorate its disparate parts.  Such a leader is no doubt to arrive, but as history has shown us he will most likely not offer us more power over our own lives.  We know this because, in the words James Michner:

“A man can read 10,000 pages of history and find only the corruption of power and the defeat of hope.”

It was said that all politics is local, but our politics today are plagued by foreign policy, national politics and very little about events in our hometown or district.  Actions like the Repeal of 1913 or Seasteading will return power to the local level where it serves more intimately and efficiently and where it will ultimately empower free humanity to resist this new world order.  Historically while countries may fall to tyrants and cataclysm exodus was still possible, in a one world government there is nowhere to run.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

3 Reasons to Repeal 1913

Topher Morrison
cross-posted at
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 16th 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 31st, 1913 the 17th 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 16th 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 17th 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 10th 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 19th century, which led to our prominence in the 20th.

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 20th century” evidenced here, here, here and in this video:


This byword hides the fact that nearly all of the 20th 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?

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Ron Paul's Liberal Honey

Topher Morrison
cross posted at

   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 3rd in delegate count and supported: here and here even though the MSM has him in 4th: 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.