Sep 022013
 

With the recent media-hyped controversy over whether or not Ron Paul is racist, I thought I would record my two cents here for anyone who cares. I’ll let others hash out the journalistic digging of the facts in other forums, but suffice it to say for my purposes here that my own digging has satisfied my belief that Ron Paul is not racist. I’m not interested in arguing with anyone who disagrees, but I am simply going to state here why both Martin Luther King Jr. and Ron Paul are both inspirations to me.

Continue reading »

Share Button
Mar 112013
 

Editorial note: The following is the second and final part of a speech to the Republican Liberty Caucus of California, delivered March 2, 2013. The first part appeared on Monday, and can be seen here.

In the summer of 1983, there was a major split in the Libertarian Party. I had been a member since 1977. The split took out a good portion of the Party’s leading activists, and most of the money: although at the time the internal conflict looked to be over organizational and even personal issues, the split went much deeper than that – but it took time for the differences to play out. However, that’s another story: the story I want to tell you now is how an intrepid band of libertarians left the LP, and founded the first serious attempt to create an explicitly libertarian Republican organization.

In the wake of what was a debilitating split, two problems with the LP appeared insuperable: 1) it was clear to me, and a few others, that the LP had peaked. After a few years of seemingly unstoppable growth – we got 5.5 percent for governor [of California, in 1978], and the same candidate – Ed Clark – had polled nearly a million votes [for President] in 1980, although John Anderson’s third party campaign stole much of the media spotlight from the LP that year. Beyond that, however, we saw no opportunities for further growth, which led to the second big problem with the LP: ballot access laws. More than half the Party’s resources were spent just getting on the ballot: after that, there wasn’t much left to put into actually campaigning.

Continue reading »

Share Button
Nov 122012
 

Here is my post-election rant analysis, finally:

As I wrote in my August 17th article, Obama Will Win, Thanks to the Clueless Banana Republicans, “The so-called conservatives in America who preferred a socialist Big Government Establishment crackpot like Romney will nominate him and sweep Obama to a second term. The Romney supporters will once again put themselves in denial, call Romney a ‘conservative,’ (and) a ‘capitalist’ (which he certainly is not!)…”

And I was right. This was after all the cheating and voter fraud/intimidation in which the Banana Republicans stole the nomination away from Ron Paul, followed by their Soviet criminality in their suppressing the Paul delegates at the convention. Only in the Soviet People’s Republic of Amerika will the common sense people be referred to as “tinfoil hat” while the real tinfoil hat crowd are those very Banana Republicans and Democrats.

“There’s a sucker born every minute,” with the waste of time that people put into these meaningless elections, and the amounts of private wealth that soooo many people wasted on these political campaigns! Now, if you donated your hard-earned money to the Ron Paul campaign, I will cut you some slack. That is because Ron Paul is the only candidate who would actually restore our freedom, which would bring about prosperity. No other candidates would do that now.

Continue reading »

Share Button
Sep 122012
 

With Willard Romney and Rand Paul around, who need enemies? Who are all the millions of voters who supposedly voted for these kinds of people? (My thanks to Robert Wenzel for keeping us up to date on Rand Paul’s continuing spiral down into the depths of statist hell.) Willard Romney and Rand Paul are essentially saying now: “We want to help get Obama reelected!”

As you may have already heard, Willard Romney has now reneged on his promise to repeal ObamaCare. He says he now wants to keep parts of ObamaCare that he thinks are pretty good, regardless of their fascist unconstitutionality, such as forcing private insurers to have to provide insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. Romney wants to “replace” ObamaCare with his own plan.

Yes, he has a “plan.” Professional government bureaucrats who are driven to monopolistic power and control are driven to central planning, and they come up with their own plan for how the rest of the population ought to live. Never mind the idea of personal responsibility, and encouraging people to take care of themselves. And it seems that the economically-ignorant Romney has never learned that what drives up the costs of medical care and insurance are the very government-mandated bureaucratic intrusions, regulations and red tape, taxes and restrictions that have existed in America for many years now.

Continue reading »

Share Button
Aug 072012
 

The plan that would eventually be realized in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was hatched in a secret meeting of some of the nation’s most powerful financiers at the Jekyll Island Hunt Club in 1910.

The plan that would eventually be realized in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was hatched in a secret meeting of some of the nation’s most powerful financiers at the Jekyll Island Hunt Club in 1910.

John Tamny at Forbes comments in a blog post titled “Ron Paul, Fractional Reserve Banking, and the Money Multiplier Myth” that

there are those, most notably Rep. Ron Paul, who believe that no reserve requirement is enough. Their view is that fractional reserve banking – whereby banks lend out the vast majority of their deposits on hand – is the height of moral hazard such that banks should operate under 100% reserve requirements.

Paul’s intellectual mentor in this area is the late Murray Rothbard who proclaimed that “Fractional reserve banks…create money out of thing [sic, ‘thin’] air. Essentially they do it in the same way as counterfeiters.”

About Rothbard’s assertion, underlying it is a fanciful belief that the alleged “money multiplier” is fact as opposed to fiction. It’s the latter. Indeed, wise minds should quickly understand that there’s no such thing as a money multiplier such that Bank A can take in $1,000,000 and lend out $900,000, Bank B can then lend out $810,000, then Bank C can lend out $729,000 such that $1 million in deposits miraculously turns into nearly $2.5 million.

In truth, just as there are no sellers without buyers, there are no borrowers without savers; thus rendering the very notion of a money multiplier moot. $1 million doesn’t multiply into $10 million if it changes hands enough times; rather for someone to borrow someone else must be willing to cease using money in the near-term so that they can. That such an absurd bit of witchcraft has so long transfixed so many bright minds is one of life’s great mysteries. So while banks doubtless commit all manner of errors – capitalism is about both failure and success – the fact that they lend out the funds put in their care does not make them counterfeiters….

It’s certainly true that banks could maintain 100% of funds deposited, but if so, they wouldn’t be banks. Instead, they’d be warehouses for money, and those warehouses would charge depositors a fee for the right to deposit with them.

Continue reading »

Share Button
May 242012
 

The concept of “drinking the Kool-Aid” came from an event in 1978 where over 900 people died in a place called Jonestown in Guyana. Most of them supposedly died from drinking cyanide laced Kool-Aid. While questions have been raised as to the voracity of these reports, the term drinking the Kool-Aid has become synonymous with people who trust the sources of their information without question. I will stretch this out a bit and make the claim that Kool-Aid drinkers are those who trust anyone or any institution without question and do as they are told because of that trust.

Drinking the Kool-Aid kills. It zombifies the human being and removes its ability to blossom into an independent, thoughtful, free living organism able to determine its own fate. It removes free will. It turns a person into a robotic entity that will follow the will of its master right up to the point where its master causes its self destruction. So, who are the Kool-Aid drinkers today? Who are the next in line to have their strings pulled right up to the point where they self destruct?

Continue reading »

Share Button
May 222012
 

Hello again from Acapulco,

Sit down and grab a drink. We’ve got a lot to talk about!

For starters, I delayed my trip to Taxco until next weekend. Why? Well, I noticed that after a quiet week in Acapulco the city started to fill up on Friday. I could hear the roar in the city from my hilltop home and as I took my chihuahuas and our new Marketing escapee from the US, Ken Johnson’s husky/shepherd mix out for our daily walk, I noticed that almost every house in the neighborhood had 5-10 really nice motorcycles parked out front, each.

Continue reading »

Share Button
May 182012
 

While Ron Paul will no longer actively campaign in the remaining state primaries, he will nevertheless continue in the delegate-winning strategy, and go to the Republican convention. Contrary to State-shilling media hoaxers and propagandists, Dr. Paul has NOT dropped out of the race, and those who hope for a future of freedom should vote in remaining primaries.

But one must wonder why Ron Paul has not received as many votes as he should have during this election campaign.

Well, one of the unfortunate consequences of democracy and especially government’s seizure of education has been the decline in critical thinking and common sense in America.

In the mainstream of America, the people love the State, and they demonize those who challenge the State’s authority, legitimacy and policies. It seems that some of those most maligned are the libertarians, particularly the Austrian economists, historical revisionists, anarcho-capitalists or market anarchists, and voluntaryists.

Continue reading »

Share Button
May 072012
 

It’s safe to say that foreign policy was not the strong suit of this year’s contenders for the GOP presidential nomination. Rick Perry labeled the Turkish government “Islamic terrorists.” Newt Gingrich referred to Palestinians as “invented” people. Herman Cain called Uzbekistan “Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan” and memorably blanked when asked what he thought of NATO’s incursion into Libya. Michele Bachmann pledged to close the US embassy in Iran, which hasn’t existed since 1980. Rick Santorum gave a major foreign policy speech at a Jelly Belly factory in California.

Yet though the candidates and their views were often hard to take seriously, their statements on foreign policy reflected a more disturbing trend in the GOP. Despite facing a war-weary public, the candidates—with the exception of Ron Paul, an antiwar libertarian, and Jon Huntsman, a moderate internationalist—positioned themselves as unapologetic war hawks. That included Mitt Romney, marginally more polished than his rivals but hardly an expert. Given Romney’s well-established penchant for flip-flopping and opportunism, it’s difficult to know what he really believes on any issue, including foreign affairs (the campaign did not respond to a request for comment). But a comprehensive review of his statements during the primary and his choice of advisers suggests a return to the hawkish, unilateral interventionism of the George W. Bush administration should he win the White House in November.

Continue reading »

Share Button
Mar 302012
 

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

~ H.L. Mencken

A staunchly-defended article of faith in Western political rhetoric is the belief that democratic governments do not engage in wars with one another. This belief has been promoted for the purpose of generating trust in the state. If political systems are democratically constituted, it is contended, the public need not fear government officials whose powers could be taken away by the same electoral process that put them in office. The American Civil War, wherein the democratically-established federal and confederate states warred with one another would seem to put this doctrine in doubt. As would a couple of 20th century skirmishes that pitted democratic states such as Great Britain and the United States and others against a democratic Germany.

Beyond this simplistic faith in a “social contract” theory of the state lies the reality that such systems have always been under the control of small groups of persons who are answerable to no one, particularly those they presume the authority to rule. “Democracy” is just one abstraction that the state owners have employed to distract the attention of their victims; to create in the minds of their subjects the illusion that they, not the owners, are running the system.

Continue reading »

Share Button