Now it's our turn
http://yannone.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Now it's our turn
by Mark Yannone
While the Federal Reserve and the executive and legislative branches of the United States federal government conspire to relieve you and me of another $700 billion of our income, savings, and other assets, it's incumbent upon us, the people who created and first authorized these monsters, to assert ourselves with corrective action.
Elementary economics tells us that as our costs rise above our ability to pay, our expenses must be cut. Here is a starter list of annual expenses that must be reduced to $0.00, and the sooner the better:
Most of these federal activities are not permitted by Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (hence they are illegal) or they have been declared ineffective by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or they are both illegal and ineffective.
But this is just a hint of a start. A thorough and detailed audit of the federal budget will reveal many, many hundreds of billions of dollars of additional expenses that can and must be eliminated. The benefits of doing so are innumerable, among them these crucial few:
Americans will be solvent.
Our federal government will be far less criminal.
Americans' productivity will soar.
Americans will compete successfully in world markets.
Our resources will be much better allocated.
The world will not have to arm itself against us.
American families will be rebuilt.
Energy consumption will be greatly reduced.
When Americans regain control of their private property, citizens of all nations will benefit, for no one is exempt from the impoverishment and violence imposed by America's corrupt government.
Finally, as a special treat for those who object to the elimination of the federal income tax for individuals, I give you attorney Tom Cryer, a prince among America's many, many heroes past and present. Mind you, he stands in a large and growing crowd.
Tom Cryer
PS: For those not convinced of the need for meaningful, intelligent correction immediately, but certainly not panic, Ron Paul delivered the following message today.
September 24, 2008
Dear Friends,
Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.
The events of the past week are no exception.
The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China!
"This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters."
That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we're being told it's unavoidable.
The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences -- predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics -- are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve system is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!
The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.
Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.
Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.
There goes your country.
Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don't make me laugh.
Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major-party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind -- another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.
Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.
The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?
When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?
Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are and what kind of country we shall be.
In liberty,
Ron Paul
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Now it's our turn
by Mark Yannone
While the Federal Reserve and the executive and legislative branches of the United States federal government conspire to relieve you and me of another $700 billion of our income, savings, and other assets, it's incumbent upon us, the people who created and first authorized these monsters, to assert ourselves with corrective action.
Elementary economics tells us that as our costs rise above our ability to pay, our expenses must be cut. Here is a starter list of annual expenses that must be reduced to $0.00, and the sooner the better:
Most of these federal activities are not permitted by Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (hence they are illegal) or they have been declared ineffective by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or they are both illegal and ineffective.
But this is just a hint of a start. A thorough and detailed audit of the federal budget will reveal many, many hundreds of billions of dollars of additional expenses that can and must be eliminated. The benefits of doing so are innumerable, among them these crucial few:
Americans will be solvent.
Our federal government will be far less criminal.
Americans' productivity will soar.
Americans will compete successfully in world markets.
Our resources will be much better allocated.
The world will not have to arm itself against us.
American families will be rebuilt.
Energy consumption will be greatly reduced.
When Americans regain control of their private property, citizens of all nations will benefit, for no one is exempt from the impoverishment and violence imposed by America's corrupt government.
Finally, as a special treat for those who object to the elimination of the federal income tax for individuals, I give you attorney Tom Cryer, a prince among America's many, many heroes past and present. Mind you, he stands in a large and growing crowd.
Tom Cryer
PS: For those not convinced of the need for meaningful, intelligent correction immediately, but certainly not panic, Ron Paul delivered the following message today.
September 24, 2008
Dear Friends,
Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.
The events of the past week are no exception.
The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China!
"This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters."
That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we're being told it's unavoidable.
The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences -- predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics -- are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve system is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!
The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.
Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.
Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.
There goes your country.
Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don't make me laugh.
Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major-party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind -- another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.
Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.
The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?
When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?
Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are and what kind of country we shall be.
In liberty,
Ron Paul
Today is Constitution Day
I commend DownsizeDC.org for the absolute great work they do for the people of this country, and their unrelenting respect for the Consitution. Here is the latest e-mail update I have recieved from the them. Hail to them and more petition sites, such as these. I don't care if you agree with it or not, but I wanted to share it with everyone, for the opportunity to read such a great e-mail on such a special day, that goes, generally, completely unnoticed.
Quote of the Day:
"Americans just want us to... not be concerned if they can be constitutionally justified... Why, if we had to do that we could not pass most of the laws we enact around here."
-- Sen. John Glenn
Subject: The Unknown Holiday
Today is Constitution Day. Few Americans know this. Neither banks nor government offices will be closed. And most of us will go to work today, spending nearly half our time laboring to pay taxes to the various levels of government. In this sense today is no holiday at all. It's merely a designated spot on the calendar during which Americans are to . . .
Do what?
The politicians won't take notice of the day, though we've joined with the Liberty Coalition to encourage McCain and Obama to discuss Constitutional issues on the campaign trail. We won't be holding our breath in expectation that they will do so.
It remains to us, as individuals, to do something meaningful with the day.
We should be mindful of the role the Constitution has played in the success of our own lives. We live the freest and most affluent lives of any people on the planet, or in history. Our Constitution, which is now the oldest governing document in continuous use anywhere, has been crucial to this outcome.
The Constitution gave us a system of government with divided, competing, and explicitly defined powers. It gave us a Bill of Rights with strong limits on government action. The politicians have waged a continuous and largely successful assault on these attributes of our Constitution, but even so, the Constitution has continued to protect us often enough to make it one of the most important, if unappreciated, contributors to our daily lives and personal well-being.
It's easy to forget, overlook, or disparage, the number of times the Supreme Court has declared some act of Congress or the President as un-constitutional. But it has happened often, and has served to preserve our freedom and prosperity. In this we see not only the genius of the separation of powers, but also the continuing efficacy of the Bill of Rights. Without these attributes of our Constitution we would be not only less free, but also more poor.
Likewise, it's easy to under-appreciate the number of times Presidents have vetoed some over-reaching act of Congress, or times when Congress has acted to curtail the power of the Executive. Likewise, the Senate has often blocked actions of the House, and vice versa. And we have also been served when there have been partisan divisions between the Congress and the White House.
The separation of powers works. The Bill of Rights works. The Constitution works.
Look around the world. Wherever governments have less power, and the people more freedom, affluence, security, and peace reign. And wherever governments have more power, and the people less freedom, misery flourishes. And for as long as we have been the most free people in the world, we have also been the most prosperous and secure.
In America, even our poorest citizens live as kings compared to much of the rest of the world, and few of us need fear a policeman's knock on the door in the dead of the night, or that we will disappear into some camp or torture dungeon.
All of this, and more, is primarily a gift of our Constitution, for without it the people would long ago have voted their freedom away, and/or the politicians would have quickly assumed absolute power. A strong case can be made that only the Constitution has prevented these outcomes. So, today . . .
Ask not what the Constitution can do for you, for its gifts have already been conferred upon you in great abundance. Instead, ask what you can do for the Constitution. We would submit that you can, and should, speak up strongly on behalf of the Constitution's preservation. Please remind Congress that . . .
* Today is Constitution Day
* That they swore an oath to serve, protect, and defend the Constitution
* And that you would like to see them take concrete action to honor that oath, on today of all days
You can use your personal comments on two important campaigns to make these points to your elected representatives. First, ask them to pass the "Enumerated Powers Act," which would force Congress to specify their Constitutional authority for every act of legislation. You can send that message here.
Second, ask Congress to repeal previous egregious violations of the Constitution. You can do so by asking your representatives to co-sponsor Congressman Ron Paul's "American Freedom Agenda Act." This bill would . . .
* Repeal the “Military Commissions Act of 2006” and thereby restore the ancient right of habeas corpus and end legally sanctioned torture by U.S. government agents
* Restore the ”Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” (FISA) and thereby outlaw warrantless spying on American citizens by the President of the United States
* Give Congress standing in court to challenge the President's use of "signing statements" as a means to avoid executing the nation's laws
* Make it illegal for government agents to kidnap people and send them abroad to be tortured by foreign governments
* Provide legal protection to journalists who expose wrong-doing by the Federal government
* Prohibit the use of secret evidence to label groups or individuals as terrorists for the purpose of criminal or civil sanctions
Quote of the Day:
"Americans just want us to... not be concerned if they can be constitutionally justified... Why, if we had to do that we could not pass most of the laws we enact around here."
-- Sen. John Glenn
Subject: The Unknown Holiday
Today is Constitution Day. Few Americans know this. Neither banks nor government offices will be closed. And most of us will go to work today, spending nearly half our time laboring to pay taxes to the various levels of government. In this sense today is no holiday at all. It's merely a designated spot on the calendar during which Americans are to . . .
Do what?
The politicians won't take notice of the day, though we've joined with the Liberty Coalition to encourage McCain and Obama to discuss Constitutional issues on the campaign trail. We won't be holding our breath in expectation that they will do so.
It remains to us, as individuals, to do something meaningful with the day.
We should be mindful of the role the Constitution has played in the success of our own lives. We live the freest and most affluent lives of any people on the planet, or in history. Our Constitution, which is now the oldest governing document in continuous use anywhere, has been crucial to this outcome.
The Constitution gave us a system of government with divided, competing, and explicitly defined powers. It gave us a Bill of Rights with strong limits on government action. The politicians have waged a continuous and largely successful assault on these attributes of our Constitution, but even so, the Constitution has continued to protect us often enough to make it one of the most important, if unappreciated, contributors to our daily lives and personal well-being.
It's easy to forget, overlook, or disparage, the number of times the Supreme Court has declared some act of Congress or the President as un-constitutional. But it has happened often, and has served to preserve our freedom and prosperity. In this we see not only the genius of the separation of powers, but also the continuing efficacy of the Bill of Rights. Without these attributes of our Constitution we would be not only less free, but also more poor.
Likewise, it's easy to under-appreciate the number of times Presidents have vetoed some over-reaching act of Congress, or times when Congress has acted to curtail the power of the Executive. Likewise, the Senate has often blocked actions of the House, and vice versa. And we have also been served when there have been partisan divisions between the Congress and the White House.
The separation of powers works. The Bill of Rights works. The Constitution works.
Look around the world. Wherever governments have less power, and the people more freedom, affluence, security, and peace reign. And wherever governments have more power, and the people less freedom, misery flourishes. And for as long as we have been the most free people in the world, we have also been the most prosperous and secure.
In America, even our poorest citizens live as kings compared to much of the rest of the world, and few of us need fear a policeman's knock on the door in the dead of the night, or that we will disappear into some camp or torture dungeon.
All of this, and more, is primarily a gift of our Constitution, for without it the people would long ago have voted their freedom away, and/or the politicians would have quickly assumed absolute power. A strong case can be made that only the Constitution has prevented these outcomes. So, today . . .
Ask not what the Constitution can do for you, for its gifts have already been conferred upon you in great abundance. Instead, ask what you can do for the Constitution. We would submit that you can, and should, speak up strongly on behalf of the Constitution's preservation. Please remind Congress that . . .
* Today is Constitution Day
* That they swore an oath to serve, protect, and defend the Constitution
* And that you would like to see them take concrete action to honor that oath, on today of all days
You can use your personal comments on two important campaigns to make these points to your elected representatives. First, ask them to pass the "Enumerated Powers Act," which would force Congress to specify their Constitutional authority for every act of legislation. You can send that message here.
Second, ask Congress to repeal previous egregious violations of the Constitution. You can do so by asking your representatives to co-sponsor Congressman Ron Paul's "American Freedom Agenda Act." This bill would . . .
* Repeal the “Military Commissions Act of 2006” and thereby restore the ancient right of habeas corpus and end legally sanctioned torture by U.S. government agents
* Restore the ”Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” (FISA) and thereby outlaw warrantless spying on American citizens by the President of the United States
* Give Congress standing in court to challenge the President's use of "signing statements" as a means to avoid executing the nation's laws
* Make it illegal for government agents to kidnap people and send them abroad to be tortured by foreign governments
* Provide legal protection to journalists who expose wrong-doing by the Federal government
* Prohibit the use of secret evidence to label groups or individuals as terrorists for the purpose of criminal or civil sanctions
The single-issue GOP puts conservatism last
The War Party
BY JACK HUNTER
After vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's Republican National Convention speech last week, the pundits were impressed, the party was ecstatic, and even the Democrats recognized that the Alaska governor may be a formidable foe.
In hindsight, it's hard to imagine John McCain picking a better running mate, as the small town, straight-shootin', outside-the Beltway mother of five has not only become the life of his party, but has been successful in making everyone forget that Republican leaders could care less about any of the conservative values she represents.
Conservatives have been uncomfortable with McCain since the primary and rightfully so. McCain's support for campaign finance reform, his opposition to drilling in ANWAR, his vote against the Bush tax cuts, his subscribing to global warming hysteria, and his sponsorship of a bill that would have granted amnesty to illegal aliens are in direct opposition to what most Republicans believe. But still, say Republicans, he is the best man to fight the war on terror.
Consider two of the most prominent speakers the Republican National Committee saw fit to represent their party last week — Rudy Giuliani and Joe Lieberman.
The former New York City mayor is indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton on most issues, but is now considered a Republican star because he can invoke 9/11 with authority, and doing his best Mussolini impression, he can bang the drums for war abroad and a larger police state at home like no other.
If Obama, as Republicans claim, is indeed the most liberal Democrat to ever run on a major presidential ticket, then I defy you to show me where he stands to the left of Lieberman. In addition to being Al Gore's running mate in 2000, Lieberman stands for universal health care, supports partial-birth abortions, is anti-gun, and opposed Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. When WTMA host Richard Todd had the opportunity to ask radio host and former City Paper columnist Michael Graham why such an avowed liberal was being embraced by the Republicans, Graham replied, "Because he understands that foreign policy comes first and I agree with him." When Todd asked the same question of South Carolina convention delegate Cyndi Mosteller, she said, "Because he understands the importance of 9/11."
"This is a big tent party," she added.
But apparently the tent wasn't large enough for Republican Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, whose counter-convention in Minneapolis drew upwards of 12,000 supporters who listened to a day's worth of speeches on reducing the size of government, returning to the Constitution, and a bringing the Republican party back to its conservative roots. Paul, who received more votes during the primary than Republican convention speakers Giuliani and Fred Thompson, had to organize his own event because, due to his opposition to the Iraq war, the GOP would not even let him in the door at his own party's convention. Literally.
When I had the opportunity to ask Mosteller why antiwar Republicans like Paul or North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones or Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel were not given a voice at the convention, she replied, "If you get a tent too big, it's bound to have holes in it." When pressed, Mosteller added, "Hagel could not even get up on a national stage and even make a case ... and you know why?
Because the surge has, by God, worked." So much for the big tent.
In a country where upwards of 60 percent of the people believe the Iraq war was a mistake and our troops should be brought home, the few Republicans who agree with the American majority are not to be tolerated in the GOP. If you are pro-gun control, pro-socialized health care, pro-choice, pro-amnesty, all of these liberal positions can be tolerated so long as you are pro-war. If you are a staunch conservative on virtually every issue, if you're not pro-war, you're no longer welcome in the Republican Party.
Palin, who reportedly once supported staunch antiwar conservative Pat Buchanan for president, mouths the same neoconservative foreign policy rhetoric that now defines her party. Another place, another time, far removed from the context of the McCain campaign, the likeable and conservative Palin might have given a different speech.
But for now this is irrelevant. Palin will be to McCain what Spiro Agnew was to Richard Nixon and Dan Quayle was to George H. W. Bush — conservative vice presidents who had virtually no impact on the moderate presidents they served. In a McCain administration, it is more likely that we would see Lieberman appointed Secretary of State than Palin being given any responsibilities more significant than office secretary. And if there is one thing this election, this party, and their convention made clear, it's that Palin's entire purpose is to pacify traditional conservatives on the multiple issues they still care about, so that in Republican victory, McCain and the neoconservatives can finally get to work on their only issue.
BY JACK HUNTER
After vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's Republican National Convention speech last week, the pundits were impressed, the party was ecstatic, and even the Democrats recognized that the Alaska governor may be a formidable foe.
In hindsight, it's hard to imagine John McCain picking a better running mate, as the small town, straight-shootin', outside-the Beltway mother of five has not only become the life of his party, but has been successful in making everyone forget that Republican leaders could care less about any of the conservative values she represents.
Conservatives have been uncomfortable with McCain since the primary and rightfully so. McCain's support for campaign finance reform, his opposition to drilling in ANWAR, his vote against the Bush tax cuts, his subscribing to global warming hysteria, and his sponsorship of a bill that would have granted amnesty to illegal aliens are in direct opposition to what most Republicans believe. But still, say Republicans, he is the best man to fight the war on terror.
Consider two of the most prominent speakers the Republican National Committee saw fit to represent their party last week — Rudy Giuliani and Joe Lieberman.
The former New York City mayor is indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton on most issues, but is now considered a Republican star because he can invoke 9/11 with authority, and doing his best Mussolini impression, he can bang the drums for war abroad and a larger police state at home like no other.
If Obama, as Republicans claim, is indeed the most liberal Democrat to ever run on a major presidential ticket, then I defy you to show me where he stands to the left of Lieberman. In addition to being Al Gore's running mate in 2000, Lieberman stands for universal health care, supports partial-birth abortions, is anti-gun, and opposed Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. When WTMA host Richard Todd had the opportunity to ask radio host and former City Paper columnist Michael Graham why such an avowed liberal was being embraced by the Republicans, Graham replied, "Because he understands that foreign policy comes first and I agree with him." When Todd asked the same question of South Carolina convention delegate Cyndi Mosteller, she said, "Because he understands the importance of 9/11."
"This is a big tent party," she added.
But apparently the tent wasn't large enough for Republican Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, whose counter-convention in Minneapolis drew upwards of 12,000 supporters who listened to a day's worth of speeches on reducing the size of government, returning to the Constitution, and a bringing the Republican party back to its conservative roots. Paul, who received more votes during the primary than Republican convention speakers Giuliani and Fred Thompson, had to organize his own event because, due to his opposition to the Iraq war, the GOP would not even let him in the door at his own party's convention. Literally.
When I had the opportunity to ask Mosteller why antiwar Republicans like Paul or North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones or Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel were not given a voice at the convention, she replied, "If you get a tent too big, it's bound to have holes in it." When pressed, Mosteller added, "Hagel could not even get up on a national stage and even make a case ... and you know why?
Because the surge has, by God, worked." So much for the big tent.
In a country where upwards of 60 percent of the people believe the Iraq war was a mistake and our troops should be brought home, the few Republicans who agree with the American majority are not to be tolerated in the GOP. If you are pro-gun control, pro-socialized health care, pro-choice, pro-amnesty, all of these liberal positions can be tolerated so long as you are pro-war. If you are a staunch conservative on virtually every issue, if you're not pro-war, you're no longer welcome in the Republican Party.
Palin, who reportedly once supported staunch antiwar conservative Pat Buchanan for president, mouths the same neoconservative foreign policy rhetoric that now defines her party. Another place, another time, far removed from the context of the McCain campaign, the likeable and conservative Palin might have given a different speech.
But for now this is irrelevant. Palin will be to McCain what Spiro Agnew was to Richard Nixon and Dan Quayle was to George H. W. Bush — conservative vice presidents who had virtually no impact on the moderate presidents they served. In a McCain administration, it is more likely that we would see Lieberman appointed Secretary of State than Palin being given any responsibilities more significant than office secretary. And if there is one thing this election, this party, and their convention made clear, it's that Palin's entire purpose is to pacify traditional conservatives on the multiple issues they still care about, so that in Republican victory, McCain and the neoconservatives can finally get to work on their only issue.
545 People
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 Congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices! 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a Senator, a Congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She or He is the leader of the majority party. The speaker and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted – by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsible. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are in IRAQ, it’s because they want them in IRAQ.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way. There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like ‘the economy,’ ‘inflation,’ or ‘politics’ that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and no one else; and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 Congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices! 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a Senator, a Congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She or He is the leader of the majority party. The speaker and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted – by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsible. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are in IRAQ, it’s because they want them in IRAQ.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way. There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like ‘the economy,’ ‘inflation,’ or ‘politics’ that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and no one else; and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Libertarian Principles
We Libertarians challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.
1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.
1.1 Expression and Communication
We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.
1.2 Personal Privacy
We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
1.5 Crime and Justice
Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.
1.6 Self-Defense
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.
2.0 Economic Liberty
A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
2.1 Property and Contract
Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.
2.2 Environment
We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.
2.3 Energy and Resources
While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.
2.4 Government Finance and Spending
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.
2.5 Money and Financial Markets
We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.
2.6 Monopolies and Corporations
We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.
2.7 Labor Markets
We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.
2.8 Education
Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.
2.9 Health Care
We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.
2.10 Retirement and Income Security
Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.
3.0 Securing Liberty
The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.
3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights
The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.
3.3 International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.
3.5 Rights and Discrimination
We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.
3.6 Representative Government
We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.
3.7 Self-Determination
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.
4.0 Omissions
Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.
1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.
1.1 Expression and Communication
We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.
1.2 Personal Privacy
We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
1.5 Crime and Justice
Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.
1.6 Self-Defense
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.
2.0 Economic Liberty
A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
2.1 Property and Contract
Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.
2.2 Environment
We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.
2.3 Energy and Resources
While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.
2.4 Government Finance and Spending
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.
2.5 Money and Financial Markets
We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.
2.6 Monopolies and Corporations
We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.
2.7 Labor Markets
We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.
2.8 Education
Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.
2.9 Health Care
We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.
2.10 Retirement and Income Security
Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.
3.0 Securing Liberty
The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.
3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights
The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.
3.3 International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.
3.5 Rights and Discrimination
We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.
3.6 Representative Government
We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.
3.7 Self-Determination
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.
4.0 Omissions
Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.
What Is Libertarianism?
What Is Libertarianism?
Your Way to Freedom, Abundance, Peace, Justice
Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for the best of all worlds - a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.
The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.
Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.
Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).
Live and let live. The Golden Rule. The non-initiation of force.
Libertarians believe that this combination of personal and economic liberty produces abundance, peace, harmony, creativity, order, and safety. Indeed, that is one of the central lessons of world history. Virtually all the progress the human race has enjoyed during the past few centuries is due to the increasing acceptance of these principles. But we are still far from a truly libertarian world. Libertarians believe we would see far more progress, abundance and happiness if the ideas of liberty were fully accepted and allowed to work their miracles.
Our goal as libertarians is to bring liberty to the world, so that these wonderful and proven ideas can be put into action. This will make our world a far better place for all people.
See the Principles of Libertarians at this blog for better explaination
http://www.sodahead.com/blog/12320/
Your Way to Freedom, Abundance, Peace, Justice
Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for the best of all worlds - a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.
The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.
Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.
Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).
Live and let live. The Golden Rule. The non-initiation of force.
Libertarians believe that this combination of personal and economic liberty produces abundance, peace, harmony, creativity, order, and safety. Indeed, that is one of the central lessons of world history. Virtually all the progress the human race has enjoyed during the past few centuries is due to the increasing acceptance of these principles. But we are still far from a truly libertarian world. Libertarians believe we would see far more progress, abundance and happiness if the ideas of liberty were fully accepted and allowed to work their miracles.
Our goal as libertarians is to bring liberty to the world, so that these wonderful and proven ideas can be put into action. This will make our world a far better place for all people.
See the Principles of Libertarians at this blog for better explaination
http://www.sodahead.com/blog/12320/
What is a Neocon? Are you one?
Just for the sake of it. I thought most people who consider themselves Conservative had better re-think their postitions. I in no way favor this policy, but felt obligated to clarify my perception of the difference between a conservative and a neoconservative.
Neocon 101
Some basic questions answered.
What do neoconservatives believe?
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.
Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.
Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.
What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?
The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.
Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.
What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?
Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.
Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.
How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?
Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.
But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.
Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.
What does a neoconservative dream world look like?
Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.
Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.
Here is wikipedia's defintion of Neoconservatism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Are you a Neocon?
Neocon 101
Some basic questions answered.
What do neoconservatives believe?
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.
Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.
Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.
What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?
The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.
Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.
What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?
Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.
Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.
How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?
Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.
But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.
Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.
What does a neoconservative dream world look like?
Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.
Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.
Here is wikipedia's defintion of Neoconservatism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Are you a Neocon?
Where did all the real Republicans go?
This is something I have taken on doing lately. I get loads of mail from the Republican National Commitee, one U.S. Senator and about 5 State Congressman running for U.S. Congress, all wanting money. All of them are Neocons and incumbents alike. I have not seen a true Republican in this state yet. All offer the same B.S. of trying to play this left vs. right game, with their typical borrow and spend policies and terrorism B.S. all of which is a total opposite of what a true fiscal conservative is. I am not duped into believing this B.S. anymore than I am with the Socialist Democrats. Both are out for the same agenda of globalizing our nation and our children. So this is what I have been doing, I alone may make no difference, except in their wallets for a change. But if others alike did it. The expenses would mount till they finally realize that they have screwed up and we are not fooled anymore.
With the reply letters I get to send them all money, I have been typing my own message such as the one below and sending it back with their self adressed envelopes. They pay the postage not me, and they think they are getting money, but what they are getting is a wake up call from me. Here is my most recent letter I sent.
To Whom it may concern,
I will not fund a neoconservative agenda that has hijacked this once great party of true fiscal conservatives.
Until the Republicans in congress can start acting like Republicans instead of spending happy Democrats.
I will not vote for any of them, or send any of my money to any of them. I am looking for true conservative, old right Republicans
who spread and practice the message of our founding fathers of non-interventionism, no entangling alliances, fiscal conservatism, and
protecting the sovereign rights of all Americans. You Republicratic, neocons have helped increase our national debt by over 3 trillion
in the last 8 years and you wonder why you lost the majority in 2006. The Dems will continue to take seats from all the incumbent
Neocons because of your failure to follow the Constitution. America has awaken to this imperialistic movement and by no means are the Dems any better.
I will continue to waste your reply envelopes with these messages until I see a true Republican running for office or current Republicans WAKE UP!
With no regret,
(My name)
With the reply letters I get to send them all money, I have been typing my own message such as the one below and sending it back with their self adressed envelopes. They pay the postage not me, and they think they are getting money, but what they are getting is a wake up call from me. Here is my most recent letter I sent.
To Whom it may concern,
I will not fund a neoconservative agenda that has hijacked this once great party of true fiscal conservatives.
Until the Republicans in congress can start acting like Republicans instead of spending happy Democrats.
I will not vote for any of them, or send any of my money to any of them. I am looking for true conservative, old right Republicans
who spread and practice the message of our founding fathers of non-interventionism, no entangling alliances, fiscal conservatism, and
protecting the sovereign rights of all Americans. You Republicratic, neocons have helped increase our national debt by over 3 trillion
in the last 8 years and you wonder why you lost the majority in 2006. The Dems will continue to take seats from all the incumbent
Neocons because of your failure to follow the Constitution. America has awaken to this imperialistic movement and by no means are the Dems any better.
I will continue to waste your reply envelopes with these messages until I see a true Republican running for office or current Republicans WAKE UP!
With no regret,
(My name)
Freedom and Inequality
If men were like ants, there would be no interest in human freedom. If individual men, like ants, were uniform, interchangeable, devoid of specific personality traits of their own, then who would care whether they were free or not? Who, indeed, would care if they lived or died? The glory of the human race is the uniqueness of each individual, the fact that every person, though similar in many ways to others, possesses a completely individuated personality of his own.
It is the fact of each person's uniqueness — the fact that no two people can be wholly interchangeable — that makes each and every man irreplaceable and that makes us care whether he lives or dies, whether he is happy or oppressed. And, finally, it is the fact that these unique personalities need freedom for their full development that constitutes one of the major arguments for a free society.
Perhaps a world exists somewhere where intelligent beings are fully formed in some sort of externally determined cages, with no need for internal learning or choices by the individual beings themselves. But man is necessarily in a different situation. Individual human beings are not born or fashioned with fully formed knowledge, values, goals, or personalities; they must each form their own values and goals, develop their personalities, and learn about themselves and the world around them. Every man must have freedom, must have the scope to form, test, and act upon his own choices, for any sort of development of his own personality to take place. He must, in short, be free in order that he may be fully human.
In a sense, even the most frozen and totalitarian civilizations and societies have allowed at least a modicum of scope for individual choice and development. Even the most monolithic of despotisms have had to allow at least a bit of "space" for freedom of choice, if only within the interstices of societal rules. The freer the society, of course, the less has been the interference with individual actions, and the greater the scope for the development of each individual. The freer the society, then, the greater will be the variety and the diversity among men, for the more fully developed will be every man's uniquely individual personality.
On the other hand, the more despotic the society, the more restrictions on the freedom of the individual, the more uniformity there will be among men and the less the diversity, and the less developed will be the unique personality of each and every man. In a profound sense, then, a despotic society prevents its members from being fully human.
If freedom is a necessary condition for the full development of the individual, it is by no means the only requirement. Society itself must be sufficiently developed. No one, for example, can become a creative physicist on a desert island or in a primitive society. For, as an economy grows, the range of choice open to the producer and to the consumer proceeds to multiply greatly.Furthermore, only a society with a standard of living considerably higher than subsistence can afford to devote much of its resources to improving knowledge and to developing a myriad of goods and services above the level of brute subsistence.
"The freer the society, then, the greater will be the variety and the diversity among men, for the more fully developed will be every man's uniquely individual personality."
An excerpt from an article by Murray N. Rothbard
in a 1970 essay.
Read more... @
http://mises.org/story/3009
It is the fact of each person's uniqueness — the fact that no two people can be wholly interchangeable — that makes each and every man irreplaceable and that makes us care whether he lives or dies, whether he is happy or oppressed. And, finally, it is the fact that these unique personalities need freedom for their full development that constitutes one of the major arguments for a free society.
Perhaps a world exists somewhere where intelligent beings are fully formed in some sort of externally determined cages, with no need for internal learning or choices by the individual beings themselves. But man is necessarily in a different situation. Individual human beings are not born or fashioned with fully formed knowledge, values, goals, or personalities; they must each form their own values and goals, develop their personalities, and learn about themselves and the world around them. Every man must have freedom, must have the scope to form, test, and act upon his own choices, for any sort of development of his own personality to take place. He must, in short, be free in order that he may be fully human.
In a sense, even the most frozen and totalitarian civilizations and societies have allowed at least a modicum of scope for individual choice and development. Even the most monolithic of despotisms have had to allow at least a bit of "space" for freedom of choice, if only within the interstices of societal rules. The freer the society, of course, the less has been the interference with individual actions, and the greater the scope for the development of each individual. The freer the society, then, the greater will be the variety and the diversity among men, for the more fully developed will be every man's uniquely individual personality.
On the other hand, the more despotic the society, the more restrictions on the freedom of the individual, the more uniformity there will be among men and the less the diversity, and the less developed will be the unique personality of each and every man. In a profound sense, then, a despotic society prevents its members from being fully human.
If freedom is a necessary condition for the full development of the individual, it is by no means the only requirement. Society itself must be sufficiently developed. No one, for example, can become a creative physicist on a desert island or in a primitive society. For, as an economy grows, the range of choice open to the producer and to the consumer proceeds to multiply greatly.Furthermore, only a society with a standard of living considerably higher than subsistence can afford to devote much of its resources to improving knowledge and to developing a myriad of goods and services above the level of brute subsistence.
"The freer the society, then, the greater will be the variety and the diversity among men, for the more fully developed will be every man's uniquely individual personality."
An excerpt from an article by Murray N. Rothbard
in a 1970 essay.
Read more... @
http://mises.org/story/3009
