Yearning to Breathe Free

Bob Barr selected as Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee

2008-05-26T09:11:00.002-05:00

I got a text message last night from a friend of mine who is in Colorado at the LP National Convention. Barr has been selected as the presidential candidate. Las Vegas entreprenuer Wayne Allyn Root, who was also vying for the presidential nomination, accepted the Vice-Presidential nomination.

My thoughts?

Certainly the LP could have done worse, and done better. But the selection of Barr is not a bad choice. He's an experienced politician, with name recognition, and will bring credibility to the LP as a candidate.

Is he ideal? Of course not. But with Barr as a choice, I may re-think my decision to sit out this election cycle.

The Ten Steps to Fascism

2008-04-06T08:50:00.004-05:00

Here is a pretty engaging video of a lecture given by Naomi Wolf on a recent book of hers. (Note: It's a bit long... 45 minutes. So pack a lunch.)

Can you hear the Conservative now? ("Oh.. Wolf is a leftwing moonbat!") Maybe so, but how is that a response to the points she raises?

One of the defining marks of fascism is its rejection of intellectual discourse, in favor of sloganeering. I've yet to hear any of Wolf's critics engage her points in a rational manner.

Where Taxes Are Lowest

2008-03-13T08:47:00.003-05:00

Obama's Fraudulent ACORN Campaign

2008-03-12T21:30:00.006-05:00

I have a friend who works for the United Way who told me this story over dinner tonight.

Apparently, the Obama campaign hired a few dozen people to canvas the Miami Valley to in the run up to the Ohio primary. To do this, they used a "company" called ACORN. This organization told these canvassers, "On March 11, show up at the United Way building in Dayton, and you'll get paid."

The problem?

ACORN wasn't located there. Never was. No one had even heard of ACORN. Never been in the building.

My friend told me that the United Way was overrun throughout the day by people "looking for their checks".

Imagine their surprise when it was revealed ACORN didn't exist. It was just an empty office suite.

Is this "change"? Or is Obama just another slimy politician grasping for power?

Blogging Through Blowback, Chapter 3 - Stealth Imperialism

2008-03-04T20:12:00.002-05:00

One of the justifications pedaled by the advocates of empire is that U.S. hegemony over the rest of the world is needed in order to provide stability, and tame the violent impulses of otherwise natural enemies in the wilds of global politics. America, it would seem, has been crowned by destiny to inherit this “White Man’s Burden”, and it would be patently irresponsible to shirk this responsibility.

But the question needs to be asked: at what point does a policy of American hegemony, along with the bureaucratic interests and associated rent seekers that evolve there from, become a threat to the world security that is the stated mission of the empire? This is the subject of the third chapter of Chalmers Johnson’s book, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire.

From reading the next chapter, one really gets a sense that the Pentagon, and the Defense Department overall, has grown so unimaginably large, that it has become a government unto itself. With its budget in the hundreds of billions, it has created a physical presence on the world stage that has become the metaphorical equivalent of the 900 lb gorilla sitting in the living room. With its various programs to help train elite paramilitary units for other countries (which invariably are then employed as terror and death squads for repressive, but “friendly” regimes), and its influence in helping to facilitate multi-billion dollar business deals to sell weapons to regimes, indeed, if one worries about weapons proliferation and geopolitical instability, one need look no further for the root cause than America’s own military bureaucracy.

Much of this cannot help but force one to wonder how truly unsafe these policies make American citizens. As we help to buttress various regimes under the guise of helping them to defend themselves against attack from aggression, the reality is that we turn a blind eye to the oppressive and brutal aspects of those same regimes. Case in point would be the tale of the Suharto regime of Indonesia, its rise to power, and its subsequent overthrow after years of brutal oppression of political and ethnic undesirables. Behind it all was an American presence, enabling and condoning the atrocities committed by this corrupt regime. The people of that country are aware of the American role, even if the average American is not.

In one very telling part, Johnson comments on how the secrecy of the Defense Department’s more nefarious programs are preserved: outsourcing. As former Special Forces personnel retire from active duty, they often go to work for, or start up their own, private firms, which then offer their knowledge for sale to foreign governments. This is all done with the blessing of Defense Department officials, who can avoid accountability for this because,

One reason privatization appeals to the Pentagon is that whatever these companies do becomes “proprietary information.” The Pentagon does not even have to classify it; and it becomes private property, information on the activities of such companies is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. Given the extreme legalism of the American political culture, this is sufficient to shield such companies from public scrutiny, although it would not protect them from the new criminal court.

So there you have it. A runaway bureaucracy that enables oppression and terrorism of foreign peoples, while helping to subsidize a vast military industrial complex, and protecting the world against largely self-manufactured threats. This chapter has been the most powerful so far in demonstrating that blowback is probably the one of the most serious issues faced by America, and will continue to become even more so as we continue our pursuit of empire.

Reading more of this series, "Blogging Through Blowback"

Chapter 1: Blowback

Chapter 2: Okinawa: Asia’s Last Colony

Libertarians for Open Government

2008-03-02T14:08:00.004-05:00

Here is a video clip of Carla Howell, libertarian activist and Chair of the Committee for Small Government, discussing their open letter to the Massachusetts legislature demanding they open the State's books to the public in an easy to access and understand format.

This is very similar to the bill that Representative Tom Brinkman proposed last month here in Ohio, to much acclaim. (Note, the conservative blogosphere is not among his fan base.) HB 420 requires the State to post its finances and expenditures in a very clear format online, so that ordinary citizens can see where the money goes. The only people who would oppose this are people who believe that government should work in a shroud of secrecy. (Like all those Conservatives who believe the activities of the FedGov should remain hidden.)

Also note, the Committee is sponsoring a ballot initiative to repeal that state's income tax. When they tried this 6 years ago, it got almost 45% of the vote. Imagine that, the residents of TAX-achusetts almost voted to END their income tax. What do you think if the same question was posed here in Ohio, which is theoretically more fiscally conservative?

The thing is...Activists in the Libertarian Party of Ohio will be working on a similar initiative in the coming months to kill the income tax, which they've humorously labeled the "R.I.P" (Repeal the Income tax Petition).

I wonder if Conservatives will stand in the way of this. My bet is, of course they will. Since when can you count on Republicans do actually act in a manner consistent with their stated principles?

Let's Impeach the President

2008-03-01T18:41:00.002-05:00

Says Neil Young.

Personally, I never liked his singing voice, but he writes some great protest anthems.

Note to self: add this to the list of songs to learn.

Lew Rockwell Interviewed by Scott Horton

2008-03-01T09:39:00.003-05:00

One of my favorite libertarian writers/thinkers is Lew Rockwell. The guy is able to put our state of affairs into such stark, clear perspective, its hard to make a serious case for things like war, inflation, taxation, and such. His articles have always inspired me, and I often wish I had 1/100th of his skill at writing.

Recently, he was interviewed by Scott Horton and the interview is every bit of engaging.

This is a MUST listen.

The Continued Demise of the Dollar

2008-02-29T13:06:00.006-05:00

Ron Paul discusses the continued destruction of the American dollar on the Fox Business Channel.

Ron Paul knows his stuff. Yet, this is the guy who Conservatives reject on the grounds that he would jeopardize American security and continued global hegemony. The real irony is the Imperial agenda that these War-lovers advocate is what will ultimately spell the complete destruction of America. Hopefully, we can wake up before that day comes.

Brinkman: Anti-Tax Gunslinger

2008-02-29T09:01:00.006-05:00

I almost forgot about this. Last month, Tom Brinkman was named the "Pistol of the Month" by the Buckeye Institute, for his efforts to cut taxes, eliminate wasteful spending, and fight for responsible and open government in general.

Tom Brinkman, Ohio's Ron Paul

2008-02-28T22:06:00.003-05:00

In a further display of how devoid our Conservative friends are of any real intellectual integrity and principle, the Weapons of Mass Discussion blog take some pot shots at one of the most principled members of the Ohio State House of Representatives, Tom Brinkman. There's an interesting exchange in the comment section, which I attempted to contribute to, but WMD is really more about creating an echo chamber for the masterbatory thoughts of the pro-war crowd, than creating a forum for real discussion.

(Man, I love to hear Conservatives whine about how Republicans have no principles. I'm going to buy them all a compact mirror for Xmas.)

In any case, one of the contributors to that discussion wrote an excellent article on one of the virtues of Tom Brinkman's record as a legislator...specifically, that he's not qualified for Congress because he's just not corrupt enough!

I know Tom Brinkman. I've met him a couple of times, and a couple people I know used to work for him at his printing company. This is a good man whom I've always described as "Ohio's Ron Paul". He takes his job as a legislator seriously, and he is guided by his principles. Like Ron Paul, this does not make him too popular with the lobbyists.

I wish Tom Brinkman well in the upcoming primary election. If I lived in his district, I'd vote for him.

Immigrants Less Likely Than Natives to Rape and Pillage

2008-02-28T10:53:00.002-05:00

Uh-oh. Looks like one of the myths that the anti-immigrant crowd likes to peddle is about to be dispelled.

Study: Incarceration rate lower for immigrants

Immigrants in California are far less likely to land in prison than their U.S.-born counterparts, a finding that defies the perception that immigration and crime are connected, according to a study released Monday.

Foreign-born residents make up 35 percent of the state's overall population, but only 17 percent of the adult prison population, according to the Public Policy Institute of California, which conducted the research.

Although the article focuses on legal immigrants, it extends its findings to the incentives faced by "illegals".

And those here illegally have incentive to avoid contact with the law, which could lead to detection of their immigration status.

Certainly, there are many factors that influence such issues, and many things can be debated. But one thing is for certain – xenophobes are wrong to try to paint immigrants (legal or otherwise) as inherently prone to criminal activity. They are not a menace to society.

Conservative Co-Worker Says: Black Market Barbers Are A Menace to Society!

2008-02-27T18:59:00.003-05:00

Here we have a video of a New Hampshire liberty activist who decided to perform a manicure...without a license! (Gasp!!)

Thankfully, the Thin Blue Line is there to apprehend this terrorist before he was able to do more cuticle damage to innocent Americans.

Seeking to get a Conservative opinion, I forwarded this video over to a co-worker of mine who is a dyed-in-the-wool, red-blooded Christian Conservative.

His take?

Yes! String the guy up! We must obey the law no matter what it says! The law is there for a reason!

Oh? And exactly what reason is that?

Apparently, that little piece of paper that you get from spending hundreds of dollars (or more) on beauty school classes and licenses will stop serial killers from opening barber shops to lure unsuspecting victims to their graves. There is also a health component involved.

I'm sure everyone has read about that epidemic of disease that swept the country last year, which was traced back to black market barbers...right?

Hahaha... I shit you not. I swear on my grandmother's urn, those were his actual words.

Of course, I got the sense that he was pulling my leg. (He had to be. Who in their right mind believes crap like this??) So after ridiculing him (as he properly deserved) for being, well...insane...I approached him and asked him to be serious and tell me if, in his Conservative view, the proper role of the state was to control and regulate the ability of people to ply a trade, even one so innocuous as performing manicures.

In his view, yes, it absolutely was. The State should and properly has the power to erect barriers on an individual's freedom of enterprise. No person should be able to start a business or perform labor for someone else without State approval. When I accused him of being a protectionist, his response was that it's nothing more than "political malcontentism". He rejected the thought that this was the real economic analysis of the issue.

Licensing creates special interest groups who can extract higher than normal market prices from legal restrictions on competitive commerce. That is economic fact, as indisputable as the sky is blue and the grass is green.

So then I asked him...what if his wife decided to pick up a pair of scissors and give his son a little trim behind the ears. If an unlicensed barber is such a menace to society that government needs to jail people who have not jumped through bureaucratic hoops to enter the Barber's Guild, then what is it that magically transforms this unlicensed mom from a risk to the very life of her offspring into a model of safety and integrity?

There's no money involved, said he.

Well, actually there is. If you don't pay someone else to cut your hair, you are essentially paying yourself to do the service.

Oh, well, a mom cares about her kid, so that's ok.

Apparently, this paragon of capitalism thinks that business people hate their customers, and plot ways to harm, maim, and kill the people who come to them for goods and services. Thank God for the State and its magical documents!

Does anyone really believe conservatives know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to economics and liberty?

I sure as hell don't.

Ron Paul Fires at Ben the Bonzai Banker

2008-02-27T18:53:00.002-05:00

Its amazing how so many people recognize that central planning doesn't work, but still embrace central planning of the monetary system. We know why Conservatives reject this kind of argument, because without a central bank, they couldn't wage their wars.

And as we've established, Conservatives do love their war. Yum!

States Rights, Properly Understood

2008-02-27T18:30:00.003-05:00

The funny thing is, the conversations I seem to have always seem to work in themes. I'll converse with people who don't know each other about similar topics or issues. It's really weird how that happens to work.

Perhaps, there is a conspiracy afoot. Hmm.

Anyway, a theme of some conversations recently were on the original construction of the republic, the Constitution, and "states rights". We are so far removed from what our framers created, I doubt that they would recognize the nation they founded. The warnings of anti-federalists like Patrick Henry seem awfully prescient.

These conversations brought to mind a couple of podcasts that I've enjoyed, which helped guide my understanding of such matters. The first one is a lecture by Tom Woods, author of the best selling "The Politically Incorrect Guide to History", entitled, The Principles of '98, and discusses the Jeffersonian origins of the States' Rights tradition, beginning with the infamous Kentucky Resolutions.

The second was a lecture by economic historian and author of a bunch of books, (and featured banquet speaker for the upcoming Libertarian Party of Ohio convention) Tom DiLorenzo, titled "The Classical Liberal States' Rights Tradition" . (Video of this lecture can be viewed here.)

These are awesome lectures on the history of the decentralized power structure that was the intent of the Founding Fathers. They run counter to our modern policies of central authority, empire, and hegemony.

Give them a listen.

Buckley, Dead

2008-02-27T15:12:00.001-05:00

As Lew Rockwell posts on the LRC Blog:

The CIA agent, founder of the modern conservative movement, enforcer of warfare-state discipline on the right, brilliant writer and editor, transoceanic sailor, harpsichordist, TV star, charming aristocrat, founder of National Review and Young Americans for Freedom, enabler of neoconservatism, expeller of heretics from Birchers to Rothbardians, and thoroughly bad ideological influence in general, is dead at 82. Here is the NY Times obit. David Gordon and others will have more to say about him and his movement in LRC.

$0.05 Wisdom

2008-02-27T08:48:00.000-05:00

"Politics is the art of obtaining money from the rich and votes from the poor on the pretext of protecting each from the other." ~ Anonymous

How to Understand the Sub-Prime Mess

2008-02-24T22:28:00.003-05:00

The Sub-Prime Mortgage Primer

(Of course, the true enabler of it all - the Federal Reserve - remains hidden... But this is funny nonetheless.)

A Pertinent Observation

2008-02-22T08:08:00.001-05:00

"Under the pressure of fanaticism, and with the mob complacently applauding the show, democratic law tends more and more to be grounded upon the maxim that every citizen is, by nature, a traitor, a libertine, and a scoundrel. In order to dissuade him from his evil-doing the police power is extended until it surpasses anything ever heard of in the oriental monarchies of antiquity." - HL Mencken

That does seem to be the case these days.

Cop Wants Booze, Dishes Out A Beating to Get It

2008-02-20T23:38:00.004-05:00

Yeah.. Here we have another He-Man Cop beating a woman, this time for having the temerity to refuse to serve him a beer.

I tell you, when I go out to the bars, some of the most outrageous drunks are cops. They know they can get all liquored up and then have a free pass if they get pulled over on the way home, since no cop is going to bust a fellow cop.

This guy apparently thinks the leeway he gets from being a lawman extends to stomping on a chick less than half his size.

Nice, huh? And this is a guy we trust to wear a badge and carry a gun.

Move Over Romney, Wal-Mart's in the House

2008-02-20T08:02:00.008-05:00

Forget RomneyCare...or HillaryCare...(but I repeat myself.)

It’s Wal-Mart to the rescue!

Yes, that’s right. The free market is doing what it always does: innovates new solutions to old problems and meeting societies needs.

Wal-Mart can be good for your health

But the medical industry doesn’t like it.

Many medical groups, like the American Academy of Family Practice and the American Academy of Pediatrics (to which I belong), have published position papers opposing retail clinics. Their basic argument is that retail clinics run counter to the concept of "a medical home," a place where patients receive care for any and all of their problems. They worry that patients will have no sensible place to follow up their test results, and that putting a clinic in a mall or a Wal-Mart could expose shoppers to people with a contagious illness.

The medical community needs a second opinion. Retail clinics are good for American healthcare. By giving doctors a run for their money, they force us to do something we don't do well: innovate. At their best, retail clinics can make doctors look like smart entrepreneurs instead of a self-interest group futilely trying to protect archaic ways of doing business.

Of course they don't like it. Competition is cutting in on their turf. Boohoo.

When we discuss the problems in Healthcare today, most people (ignorant of basic economics) believe that it’s the nature of the marketplace to blame, and can imagine the only solution being one set forth by government. But the fact is, the marketplace is not to blame. We are in the position we are in because of past government interventions in the marketplace. From the cartelization of the healthcare and drug industries through the over-empowerment of HMOs and the insurance industry, costs have skyrocketed and access has dwindled. To boot, these groups (like all others who feed at the government trough) have powerful incentives to protect their special-priveleges.

But the free market is unstoppable. As long as there is breathing room, the market will develop ways that will provide some relief from State-caused problems.

Enter low-cost, drop-in retail clinics.

On the other hand, retail clinics are thriving. They provide excellent access. After all, what's more convenient than showing up any day, night or weekend to have your sore throat checked? No telephone time spent on hold trying to make an appointment, no shuffling your personal schedule to get there.

Then there's cost. Retail clinics operate on a fee-for-service basis and don't accept insurance. Most charge a maximum of $50, which is significantly cheaper than the $100-plus your insurance company (or you, if you carry an increasingly popular high-deductible insurance plan) will pay when see your doctor for the same concern. That relative savings makes retail clinics a great place to go if you're uninsured and have a minor medical problem.

And how do consumers like this alternative? They LOVE it.

This desire to pay out of pocket is a not-so-subtle sign that consumers are asserting their purchasing power in the health sector, just as they would with other goods and services. A 2005 Wall Street Journal/Harris poll confirms this: Eighty percent of retail clinic users expressed satisfaction with the cost of services; 89 percent were satisfied with the quality of care; 88 percent, with the staff's qualifications (usually nurse practitioners).

And there are many reasons for this successful model.

The success is due to a few reasons. First, retail clinics don't do everything. Literally, a customer has to choose what he or she wants from a menu of choices posted on a marquee. Choices are limited to simple, easy-to-handle medical problems like sore throats, allergies and cold sores or a request for routine flu or pneumonia vaccinations. No acute medical problems, like injuries or asthma, are addressed. All decisions are made using very strict decision trees, leaving no room to treat issues beyond or outside of them.

Clinics make no claim to be a medical home. Statistics support the safety of this approach. The CEO of MinuteClinic, the largest of the retail clinic chains, said in 2007 that they have never had a patient show up with chest pain, and that fewer than 10 percent of patients are turned away. Also, there's nothing complicated about communicating with a patient's primary doctor. Specialists and emergency rooms routinely send letters or faxes to primary care offices to inform them about a patient, his or her diagnosis, prescribed treatments and a follow-up plan. Retail clinics have made efforts to do the same. So rather than writing position papers opposing retail clinics, medical organizations ought to use them to encourage bold innovation.

God bless the free market.

Let’s just hope that the State-Worshippers in both parties stand back and let the market do its work. Marketplace innovation is what is needed, and will ultimately be what helps reduce and eliminate the problems we face today. What we don’t need is Mitt Romney style socialism.

He-Man Cop Beats Woman to Bloody Pulp, His Manhood Is Proven

2008-02-19T19:14:00.007-05:00

I can't think of another profession where you can mercilessly beat a woman to a bloody pulp, and get away with it.

...unless you are caught on tape, that is. But hey...if there is no recorded evidence of a 200+ lb man brutally assaulting a woman half his size, then there is no crime, right?

Watch this video of a cop attempting to book a woman suspected of DWI. He turns off the camera, and when it turns back on, she's lying in a pool of her own blood, and has to be taken out on a stretcher. She's even still in hand-cuffs.

How wonderful. Your tax dollars at work.

Are you proud?

This is the nature of the State, people: violence. The people that are drawn to law enforcement career are people who crave power. The power to bully others that comes with donning a badge is like cocaine to these people. It is the deep, dark longing in their diseased souls.

Saying this out loud, of course, will illicit shrieks of hysteria. Ack!! These people want to protect and serve!! They would protect you if you needed help!!

Well..maybe so. But these same "public servants" would not think twice about turning their guns on me if I refused to pay their "protection money." Just as they think they are entitled to beat handcuffed women who might be just a little feisty, they would have no problem assaulting someone who objected to their racket.

The best thing that could happen is if we abolished the government monopoly in police services, and allowed a more competitive market place to occur. As what happens in all free and open marketplaces, service quality would be improved, costs would be lowered, and abuses by officers who violated the rights of individuals (accused or not) could be soundly punished.

In this case, I am glad to see the police officer was fired. But what does it say that he is not being charged with a crime and sentenced to prison? And he's appealing his suspension? What kind of maniac is this??

Oh wait. He's from the government. He's only here to help.

Economic Sanctions Are Anti-Capitalist

2008-02-19T13:26:00.002-05:00

I wonder, does anyone really believe the arguments the government puts out to justify any of its policies? I know Conservatives do. But I mean, the rest of the sane world.

US says it won't lift Cuba embargo

For years, Americans were threatened with fines and jail terms if they tried to buy a stogie made in Cuba. The justification was that a free nation should not allow its free citizens to do business with people they freely choose to do business with if those other people live in countries where the government assumes the authority to tell them who they must do and not do business with.

(I’ll pause a moment to let the irony sink in.)

The goal of these sanctions was to force Fidel Castro from power. Of course, like all government programs, they failed spectacularly. But now that Fidel has stepped down, will the sanctions be lifted?

Nope.

So tell me again, what were those sanctions in place for?

“…a city councilman mouthing slogans and propaganda and promising pork and bankruptcy….”

2008-02-19T11:27:00.001-05:00

That’s how Tom Woods describes Chris Peden, the establishment hack who is challenging Ron Paul in the primary for his Congressional seat.

Woods writes:

As with so many other politicians, the message of "change" turns out to be more of the same. The Federal Reserve has wrecked the dollar and inflated the housing bubble? Then more of the same is just what we need. Or at least that’s what I assume Peden’s position is. Like every other politician in America, he is completely silent on the issue of money and the Federal Reserve, standing idly by while ordinary Americans are silently ripped off year after year. Chances are, he (again like most politicians) doesn’t know the first thing about it. How else can we explain his failure, in the midst of a Fed-induced downturn, to utter a single word about how we got here?

Over $50 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities is coming due in the next few decades. The national debt keeps skyrocketing, the dollar keeps plummeting, the prices of necessities are rising, and the housing bubble is bursting. Ron Paul understands these issues – in fact, he’s the only one in the presidential race who’s bothered to bring them up.

A Martian glancing at Chris Peden’s political positions, on the other hand, could be forgiven for assuming that these problems do not exist. It’s all business as usual, full steam ahead. A financial catastrophe is coming? Why, let’s carry on as before! Is this the Peden message that Republican Party hacks in Texas are so excited about?

The rest of Peden’s propaganda is the same old establishment boilerplate, along with a complaint that Ron Paul doesn’t vote for the pork and the corporate welfare that Peden himself promises to support.

This is the genius who is campaigning against Ron Paul. And not merely campaigning against him, but misrepresenting and smearing a man with a voting record unmatched in all of American history in its commitment to freedom, and whose knowledge of economics, foreign policy, and the Constitution makes him an intellectual giant among Washington’s pygmies.

Stick and Stones May Break My Bones

2008-02-19T11:01:00.002-05:00

...but aggressive language warrants a tasing.

Handcuffed man 'tasered to shut him up'

What warranted this torture?

Mr Brown admitted he lost control when police locked his sister up so he began "using aggressive language", telling officers to release her because she had done nothing wrong.

"A policeman unlocked my cell to what I thought was going to be frisked-processed while still handcuffed and during this process I was hit with a Taser gun three times in a row by an older policeman," he said, according to the statement.

Mr Brown's father Bryan, who has given statements to investigating officers, said about a week after the alleged incident he spoke to the officer who tasered his son.

The officer said "it shut him up, didn't it?", and hung up, he said.

Government Police…Here to protect, serve, and torture.

How the State Turns Everyone Into Assholes

2008-02-19T08:37:00.002-05:00

Stef Molyneux at Freedomain Radio explains:

An instant classic!

I totally agree with Stef when he says that it takes a Herculean effort in self-deception to believe in the virtue of the State.

Death, destruction, poverty, social strife, moral decay...these are the fruits of the State.

Sound Money = Stable Economy, Increased Properity

2008-02-18T22:02:00.006-05:00

From the Inbox. Take a monent to do something to help put the economy back on sound footing. Our financial system is a mess, and it's all because of our socialized monetary system. Ron Paul - a lifelong advocate for sound money - is proposing a pair of bills that would help in that endeavor. Read below and check it out.

*****

Quotes of the Day:

"Inflation has now been institutionalized at a fairly constant 5% peryear. This has been determined to be the optimum level for generating the most revenue without causing public alarm. A 5% devaluation applies, not only to the money earned this year, but to all that is left over from previous years. At the end of the first year, a dollar is worth 95 cents. At the end of the second year, the 95 cents is reduced again by 5%, leaving its worth at 90 cents, and so on. By the time a person has worked 20 years, the government will have confiscated 64% of every dollar he saved over those years. By the time he has worked 45 years, the hidden tax will be 90%. The government will take virtually everything a person saves over a lifetime."'

-- G. Edward Griffin

Subject: New Ron Paul money bill

The above quote may need some explanation. Most people don't knowthat the Federal Reserve has the power to create new dollars out ofthin air.

It does.

Most people also don't know that this is one of the ways the government pays its bills. The process is simple . . .

The Federal Reserve creates new dollars.

It transfer these dollars to the federal government in return for Treasury bonds.

The U.S. Treasury uses this money to cover some of its expenses.

It's a neat trick. The politicians don't have to raise your taxes,but they have more money to spend.

What happens when this new money hits the economy? Apologists for the Fed use a clever supply-and-demand argument to claim that nothing at all happens. Here's how the argument works . . .

Economic growth equals increased productivity equals an expanded supply of goods and services.

An expanded money supply equals an increased demand for goods and services.

If the expanded demand equals the expanded supply prices will remain stable.

Insto, presto, no price inflation will result.

But there are two big problems with this argument. First, it assumes that the Fed will be able to determine the total supply of goods and services in the economy, and keep the money supply in balance with it. This assumption causes the argument to fail, instantly.

Total U.S. economic activity amounts to many trillions of productive events. No amount of reporting to the government could possibly measure this with any degree of precision. It's inevitable that the Fed will misjudge how big the economy is, and thereby misjudge how much money creation is consistent with avoiding price inflation.

When the Fed causes the money supply to grow faster than productivity grows, supply and demand will be out of balance. There will be more money chasing relatively fewer goods. The result will be higher prices on the things you buy.

Each of the dollars in your pocket will buy less than they did before. Your savings will lose value. This is one way you pay the government's inflation tax. Here's another way . . .

Your wages will rise slower than prices will. It's much easier for a super-market to change a price tag on a carton of milk than it is for your employer to adjust your compensation. Your standard of living will decline as your paycheck buys less. This is another way you pay the inflation tax.

How do we eliminate the hidden inflation tax? Congressman Ron Paul has developed a simple approach to this. He wants to end the Fed's monopoly over the money supply. He wants to make the Fed compete with other forms of money, such as gold. This competition would reduce the Fed's ability to inflate the dollar supply. Toward this end . . .

He first proposed the "Honest Money Act," which would repeal the legal tender law and provide people with increased legal security to make transactions in other forms of money, such as gold.

Now he has a new bill, designed to remove the federal government's monopoly control over the creation of coins. This new bill is called the "Free Competition in Currency Act."

We have joined these two bills into one campaign!

If you want to stop paying the inflation tax please send Congress a message asking them to co-sponsor these two bills. You can do so here.

Thank you for being a part of the growing DownsizeDC Army.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Carlin on Voting

2008-02-18T17:16:00.001-05:00

I particularly like his turnabout on the old "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain" saw.

This is a classic!

The Quadraplegic Menace

2008-02-18T12:11:00.002-05:00

Rest easy, my fellow Americans. The "Thin Blue Line" is standing guard ready to protect you from terrorists of all shapes and sizes.

Here we have one of our brave law enforcement agents putting the smackdown on a quadraplegic.

Another villian is thwarted! The day has been saved! Order is restored!

Long Live The Empire!

Nuclear Pyramids

2008-02-18T09:50:00.002-05:00

Gene Lyons: Tied down by our empire

Almost regardless of who wins the presidential nomination, there's small likelihood of serious debate about the most crucial long-term foreign-policy question facing the American people: Do we or do we not want to maintain a global empire by force of arms? Or, to put it another way, what's in it for us, as individual citizens, for the United States to maintain 800 military bases around the world? Does the word "superpower" actually mean anything in today's world?

Hardly anybody in the foreign-policy establishment likes having it put that way. It strikes them as vulgar and reductive. Hence anybody who questions, for example, whether the United States really needs to spend almost twice as much on wars and weaponry as the rest of the world combined gets caricatured as a crackpot isolationist - the kind of person who, in the usual formulation, would have ignored Hitler's military buildup in the 1930s.

Lately, I’ve been having a few conversations about foreign policy and American Empire. The more I talk to pro-Empire types, the more I am convinced that these people live in a world of pure fantasy. Moreover, I am convinced that it gives them some sort of primal satisfaction to be able to identify with a State that is powerful enough to obliterate all life on the planet, many times over.

To them, the State is a God. And like all Gods, it is a receptacle to place all of one’s anxieties and phobias about the known, and mostly uncontrollable, universe. This faith will transcend any and all rational argument and evidence that the road to empire is the surest way to the destruction of society.

Feeling good is more important that prudence, responsibility, and rationality.

Survey Says: Make Them Read!

2008-02-17T13:53:00.003-05:00

If you haven't noticed, I've started putting a poll off to the left hand side of this blog. I plan to change up the question on a weekly basis. Last week's question was whether Congress should be mandated by law to read the bills that they vote on. The overwhelming response was, Yes!!

(Incidentally, only one person said, no. I'd like to hear from that person about their reasoning. Do they think we are better served by Congressmen that vote out of ignorance of what they are voting on?)

In any event, there is a movement afoot to do exactly this. The Downsize DC Foundation has working diligently to mount a campaign to enact a law which would require each Congress to certify, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has read the entire bill, or sat through a public reading of the entire bill. Furthermore, all bills to be voted on would be required to be posted on the internet for about a week, to allow for public commentary.

If you believe in responsible and open government, then stroll on over and find out how you can help the Read the Bills Coalition.

Blogging Through Blowback, Chapter 2 - Okinawa: Asia's Last Colony

2008-02-16T21:17:00.007-05:00

After finishing the second chapter of Chalmers Johnson’s now-classic, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, a few observations come to mind. The subject of the chapter was our presence in Asia, generally Japan, and specifically Okinawa. As I read this, I kept recalling how many advocates for Empire like to spout off the mantra that we are only in these countries because they have asked us to be there, and we selflessly oblige. We are “needed”, they say, and Empire and global hegemony is an expression of American charity.

Of course, it’s pure fantasy. But I digress.

Some thoughts? Well, first, I wonder what most Americans would think if there was a foriegn military presence on our soil, occupying vast tracts of the most highly desired real estate, with our local economies being altered to suit the demands of these foreigners in rather seedy ways, while crime rates around these bases skyrocket and little ability to seek adequate justice.

This is what many people on the island of Okinawa probably feel about the U.S.

I recently had a discussion with a co-worker of mine who is ardently pro-Empire. He likes to use the “we are invited” slogan in a lot of his arguments. So I asked him what he might think if the rather large air force base that is just down the street from his house was an installation belonging to a foreign military power. I asked him what he might think if his town had a vibrant and thriving red-light district where his own daughter went to work, while most of the rest of the town was full of bars. And what if his town experienced a lot of violent crime, much due to those foreigners, and his ability to seek justice and restitution from the authorities was stifled because of the particular political arrangements. Would that make him mad?

Yet, this is exactly what goes on in Okinawa. Even aside from widely publicized cases, such as the rape of a young girl by American servicemen a few years back, crime statistics show that sexual assaults are more than double than the rate measured in other places where military personnel are stationed. Add this to a cultural taboo for women to not talk about these types of things, and the real rate is probably much higher. American personnel who commit violent or property crimes are protected from prosecution by local authorities because of treaty agreements. The result is that locals who experience injustice at the hands of American military are often left in the lurch.

The bottom line is, our presence in Okinawa is not very well regarded by a sizeable portion of that populace.

But the real question raised by this chapter: what the hell is our purpose there anyway? While one can debate whether we were needed there at one time (which you won’t find me asserting), what is clear is that our presence there has little justification today. Most of the excuses for our presence there were phrased in Cold War terms, which are now embarrassingly outdated. The geo-political world has changed, but we have not, and its amazing to me that we still waste our tax dollars on such things. Whatever you may think of the need to have been there in the past, surely we can agree Japan does not represent a critical interest today.

We should get out.

Read Blogging Through Blowback, Chapter 1

Read Blogging Through Blowback, Chapter 3 - Stealth Imperialism

Protect and Serve???

2008-02-16T18:28:00.003-05:00

More police idiocy.

Watch this cop arrest a firefighter who is in the process of assisting someone in need.

Amazing!

The word is that the cop has been disciplined. But what consolation would that be to the person who was in need of help, if something more serious had happened?

The Difference

2008-02-16T14:51:00.002-05:00

Question: Are you getting $3 trillion worth of liberty?

Liberty March on Washington

2008-02-16T09:58:00.003-05:00

Are you concerned about the direction of America is heading? Do you want to see an end to U.S. Imperial aspirations? Would you like to see our economic system placed on a stable foundation with a return to an honest and sound monetary system? Would you like to see the income tax eliminated?

Sometime later this year, at a date still to be determined, a march on Washington will be planned for all people who desire the restoration of the Republic, the Constitution, and liberty. Ron Paul is calling on all of the people who so passionately carried his campaign forward to unite and let the politicians in Washington see just how strong this sentiment is.

Go here and pledge to attend.

Bill Anderson on the Pro-Life Lobby

2008-02-15T15:57:00.003-05:00

This was originally posted on the Lew Rockwell.com blog, and I thought it a very pointed observation, so I'm reposting it here. This is especially relevant, as I just recently had an extended conversation with a Christian conservative friend of mine who backs Huckabee because he's for a Constitutional amendment on this issue, while at the same time insisting Paul is really "pro-abortion". The bottom line is, if pro-Lifers were really serious about doing something about abortion, Ron Paul has proposed a very simple method for overturning Roe, which conveniently gets ignored. See below. - LJ

***

As usual, Anthony and Ryan are dead on. The modern "fight" against abortion is little more than a shell game, as the so-called Right-to-Life lobby has submarined everything that would have effectively overturned Roe. Here is the thing to keep in mind: the "official" Right-to-Life lobby needs to have the issue nationalized if for no other reason than to protect their own jobs in Washington, D.C.

No, I am not saying that the Right-to-Life lobby is a jobs program for "respectable" activists (though at times that is what it seems to be). However, once Roe was overturned or Congress had voted to take all abortion issues out of the federal courts, the issue no longer would be nationalized, and there would be little need for a Right-to-Life presence in Washington.

One reason that they insist on a Constitutional amendment is that they know it never will pass. Thus, they keep their presence in DC indefinitely. Furthermore, that means that they have a presence right now in every appointment to the federal bench. If Ron Paul were to have his way and take abortion out of the federal courts, then many of these federal bench appointments would be irrelevant, at least where abortion is concerned, and one thing that a well-funded lobby does not like is being irrelevant.

What really bothers me, however, has been the way that the so-called Right-to-Life lobby has treated Ron Paul. His message has by far been the most devastating against legalized abortion, as he has stated over and over again that he never came up against a situation in which abortion was necessary to save the life of a mother, despite having participated in more than 4,000 deliveries.

Yet, the lobbyists dare call him "pro-abortion." That is untrue and evil.

***

Authoritah!

2008-02-15T10:03:00.000-05:00

Judge Dredd Saves Humanity from Scourge of Skateboarders

2008-02-14T10:09:00.003-05:00

So here we have some kids skateboarding in a public area, which probably was annoying to some people enough to call the cops in to put a halt to this crime against humanity.

Whew! Thank god! Another crisis averted! Civilization has been saved from the barbarians at the gates!

Notice how angry the enforcer gets when the kid (whose probably feeling pretty tense in the face of such an over-the-top display of domination) keeps calling him “dude” and “man”. This cop feels personally slighted that the kid does not recognize the holy symbol (aka. Badge) that he is wearing. To the cop, this kid needs a stern lesson in “who’s the boss?”, so that he’ll grow up to be a compliant servant of the State.

I like how the cop says that unless this kid learns this lesson, he may not live very long. Freudian slip? Perhaps. After all, the police have the authority to shoot you if you resist their demands.

Perhaps he should have Tased the kids. That’s what they are going to start doing in the UK

Carnival of Ohio Politics #104

2008-02-13T21:19:00.001-05:00

The Carnival is up, and you can read it here.

Enjoy!

Battered Democrat Syndrome

2008-02-13T12:30:00.004-05:00

Like anyone really expected the Democrats to actually do anything about the war….

The Chicken Doves

Elected to end the war, Democrats have surrendered to Bush on Iraq and betrayed the peace movement for their own political ends

Quietly, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been inspiring Democrats everywhere with their rolling bitchfest, congressional superduo Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have completed one of the most awesome political collapses since Neville Chamberlain. At long last, the Democratic leaders of Congress have publicly surrendered on the Iraq War, just one year after being swept into power with a firm mandate to end it.

Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history, Reid explained his decision to refocus his party's energies on topics other than ending the war by saying he just couldn't fit Iraq into his busy schedule. "We have the presidential election," Reid said recently. "Our time is really squeezed."

Anti-war democrats are disingenouous, or flat out naïve, to assert that Democrats really are an opposition party. And not only did they cave, it was pure cowardice.

There was much public shedding of tears among the Democratic leadership, as Reid, Pelosi and other congressional heavyweights expressed deep sadness that their valiant charge up the hill of change had been thwarted by circumstances beyond their control — that, as much as they would love to continue trying to end the catastrophic Iraq deal, they would now have to wait until, oh, 2009 to try again. "We'll have a new president," said Pelosi. "And I do think at that time we'll take a fresh look at it."

Yeah… They sound like Republicans whose litany of excuses for not shrinking government had no end. There was always some reason why they couldn’t fulfill their promises. Democrats are no different.

And yet, despite their claims that they want to end the war, it is apparent they have no intention of ending Republican wars.

In reality, though, Pelosi and the Democrats were actually engaged in some serious point-shaving. Working behind the scenes, the Democrats have systematically taken over the anti-war movement, packing the nation's leading group with party consultants more interested in attacking the GOP than ending the war. "Our focus is on the Republicans," one Democratic apparatchik in charge of the anti-war coalition declared. "How can we juice up attacks on them?"

It’s disheartening to see the alleged anti-war movement get bamboozled the way they have.

Many of them are flocking to Obama, whose rhetoric on interventionism, war, and empire is frightenly similar to Bush. They rail against Republican wars, but never actually do anything about them. It’s sad to see even how their rhetoric has changed. It’s almost like Battered Woman Syndrome. They will do backflips to justify the party that they support, even though that party is completely unresponsive to their demands.

Ugh. What’s a peacenik to do?

Beware Presidents Bearing Gifts

2008-02-12T13:31:00.000-05:00

The Meaning of Ron Paul

2008-02-12T10:22:00.000-05:00

Lew Rockwell sums up the "meaning" of Ron Paul’s candidacy in the context of today’s political environment.

Ron Paul Has Already Won

One of the cruelest traits of democracy is that its politics takes on the role of teacher to the nation, the force by which people are trained what to believe about virtually every subject that matters for the future of civilization. And mostly what they learn is wrong.

They learn that robbing people is fine and perfectly legal so long as the machinery of democracy cranks out that result. They learn that killing foreign peoples is an appropriate path to creating national unity. They learn that demagoguery and lies are successful paths toward getting your way.

Not only do they learn: they also participate in this by voting and are then led to the belief that they must accept the results, lest they question the very basis of modern life. This is why people who believe in politics as an ideology – that it is an excellent mechanism for the management of society – end up adopting a moral code that contradicts all teachings of all the world's religions and ethical systems. Neither Aristotle, nor Moses, nor Jesus, nor Confucius, nor Mohammed, nor Buddha, nor Gandhi, nor any other revered figure in history conditioned moral teaching with majority rule (or rule by well-organized factions).

So in a hyper-politicized society, where all principles seem ephemeral and truth is relentlessly manipulated by our political masters and their allies, what is the way out? We can take a cue from Ludwig von Mises. He believed that the only way to fight bad ideas is with good ideas, stated plainly and courageously. To him, the obligation of a defender of freedom is to be an intellectual dissident, then embrace the truth of human liberty and its consistent application to all political issues, and then let that truth be known.

Notice that Mises did not say that error and fallacy should be combated through putting the right people in charge, through lobbying pressure, through manipulating the process, or even participating in it. Indeed, he rightly saw that modern political parties do not represent the general interest but, in fact, are gloried lobbying groups for particular state-granted favors; the same applies to the think tanks and magazines connected to them. In contrast, he believed that the most direct path to cutting through the thicket of the democratic nation state was simply to embrace and then tell the truth.

Obama/McCain Parody

2008-02-11T11:55:00.000-05:00

If anyone has seen that funny little Obama feel-good video going around, you'll love this.

Conservatives, Bankrupting America

2008-02-11T10:19:00.000-05:00

This is an old article, but a friend of mine recently reminded me of it.

Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S.

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.

He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."

"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.

He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."

"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.

The War Party will insist that an interventionist foreign policy is the ONLY policy that will protect America. The War Party, obviously, doesn’t understand economics.

The more we over-extend our Empire, maintaining a global military machine, the more of a burden it will be on the American economy to create the necessary wealth to feed it. Given that the trend here in America is toward MORE socialism, those Conservatives who are willing to write off non-interventionists like Ron Paul are virtually guaranteeing America’s destruction. Of course, to these people, its more important to "feel good" about what you are doing, rather than worry about the real effects and consequences of their policy proposals.

These people are delusional. And when America’s Empire collapses, you can rest assured that they will not look in the mirror for the answers to the question of why it all happened. They will point the finger and "liberals" and "peace punks".

But the truth is, they will have destroyed America.

Is John McCain Electable?

2008-02-11T09:32:00.000-05:00

Here is an interesting montage of John "100 Years of War" McCain. I particularly liked the exposure of his hypocrisy on the POW issue (beginning around the 7-minute mark).

Dogbert the Economics Prof

2008-02-11T08:36:00.000-05:00

From War Games to Police State

2008-02-09T13:50:00.000-05:00

The Toledo Blade is reporting the Mayor of that city is telling the Marines to take a hike, because there are people in Toledo who aren’t enamored with the idea of War Games being played in their backyard. In predictable fashion, the right-side of the blogosphere (the side that believes that nothing military related should ever be criticized, limited, or placed anywhere lower than Sainthood) is just spitting with anger over this. (Here , here , here , here and here)

Now, is there any rational reason that something like this might be opposed? I mean, we know that to Conservative Military-Worshippers, you can’t love your country if you hate the government, because to them the State and the Country are identical. Criticize one, you criticize the other. But that all just dogma, and is completely separated from the truth.

So why would someone not want the military conducting war games out in the street where your kids are playing, or in the coffee shops where you are getting your lunch, or perhaps down the hall from your office at work?

Well, the way I see it, this is all just part of a pattern to destroy liberty in this country. Allowing the military to conduct war games amongst our homes and businesses is just a way to start getting people accustomed to seeing armed government agents wherever they go. Militarizing society is just another step toward the implementation of a full blown police state.

And don’t give me this “readiness” hogwash. For one, I doubt Toledo is in any danger of being attacked by armies of rampaging Canadians. Secondly, the military controls large tracts of land in various parts of the country. I’m sure they could allocate a few million dollars from their budget of…what? $500 billion?… to build mock cities to conduct these drills… away from the public.

I’m not surprised by the reaction I’m seeing from the War Worshippers. Nothing must be allowed to interfere with the rolling of the American War Machine…even Americans who wish to keep the State’s machinations held down and restricted to a separate sphere of life.

There is no need for the Marines to play their games in Toledo. Kudos to the Mayor.

What is A Neocon?

2008-02-09T12:24:00.000-05:00

Gordon Gecko over at the Taxman Blog asks this question:

But can somebody explain to me what the distinction is between a neo conservative and a plain ordinary vanilla conservative.

Coincidentally, the other day I was listening to a podcast on just such a topic.

Scott Horton interviews Jim Lobe

If anyone is interested in hearing about the intellectual origins and evolution of the neo-conservative movement, from the Trotskyite Left all the way into the heights of the Bush administration, give it a listen. Its about 55 minutes in length, but well worth the time.

تتوق للتنفس الحرة

2008-02-09T09:04:00.000-05:00

A lot of Armchair Warriors like to charge us more rational types of wanting to appease and surrender to the terrorists because we think there is a better way to solve problems than by carpet-bombing third world countries, propping up foreign dictators with foreign aid, establishing a worldwide network of secret prisons and torture room, and using our CIA undermine democratically elected governments. To hear them describe it, you would think we were actual agents of Al Qaeda, and should be hauled off to Guantanamo and subjected “enhanced interrogation techniques”.

It got me thinking…how does Yearning to Breathe Free translate into Arabic?

According to this translator:

تتوق للتنفس الحرة

In a non-related (and older) story:

Dissident Saudi Blogger Is Arrested: Popular Internet Commentator Had Called for Political Reform

I wonder what his blog was called. Hopefully, it wasn’t Yearning to Breathe Free. I’d hate to be mixed up with him. Hmmm.... Perhaps Conservatives are right and we need to have a national ID card…or at least a number tattooed on our forearm…to prevent such identity mishaps from ever occurring. Better yet, we could have a microchip implanted in our brains when we are born, that way we'll never have to worry about it. Come to think of it, maybe the Conservatives have a point when they advocate the State implement some sort of national registry of all citizens.

After all, how else can a farmer keep track of his inventory of livestock?

The Father of All Things

2008-02-08T23:03:00.000-05:00

Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. Peace and not war is the father of all things. - Ludwig von Mises

This quote has been running through my mind lately. So many people think that the State and its wars can create a better, safer world for us all.

That's a lie. Mises was right.

What Choice for Peace AND Prosperity Voters?

2008-02-08T19:14:00.000-05:00

In his latest op-ed piece, Doug Bandow says,

The appalling presidential election campaign drags on. On Super Tuesday Democrats split almost evenly between Hillary Clinton, a hawk turned slightly dovish, and Barack Obama, an Iraq war opponent who otherwise has found no foreign intervention he opposes. A divided Republican electorate boosted John McCain, an enthusiast of war in the Mideast (Iraq and Iran), Europe (the Balkans), and Asia (North Korea). Electoral laggards Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee match McCain's rhetoric, but their commitment to at least one war on every continent is less certain.

Amidst this gaggle of warrior wannabees ready to sacrifice American lives for mostly frivolous national "interests," Ron Paul labors on. The only genuinely anti-war candidate left in the race, he is largely ignored by the media and despised by establishment political interests. He obviously won't be winning the Republican nomination; he now must decide whether to "go independent" in the general election.

The article continues on with Bandow commenting on the meaning of a McCain candidacy, the effect on conservatives, and the prospects for an Independent presidential campaign by Ron Paul. While he makes some very astute points about the GOP, Democrats, conservatives, and independents, I have to disagree with him when he makes a suggestion that an independent Ron Paul candidacy would attract conservative voters. In my experience, as I see now, Conservatives keep moving themselves away from the most conservative option on the table – Ron Paul. They will eventually fall in line with McCain because, let’s face it, they’re not going to vote Democrat. Conservatives will never leave the GOP plantation. They’re stuck there. And that’s why their candidates are always so piss-poor.

But Bandow has a closing point that I have to whole-heartedly agree with:

Advocates of liberty have no major party home. Since 2001 the Republicans have proved to be particularly inhospitable to anyone who believes in both peace and prosperity. The nomination of John McCain should drive away even more of those who support constitutional governance.

Amen, Doug. Amen.

Make Congress Read!

2008-02-07T23:15:00.001-05:00

From the inbox. This one is from the Downsize DC Foundation. As you can see from the icon to the left hand side of the blog, I am a member of the "Read the Bills Coalition". Here is another description for why we need to get this bill enacted into law. If you agree that Congress should actually know what the laws that they pass actually say, then I urge you to find out more about this, and take action. - LJ

****

There are many reasons to downsize DC. A big one, quite simply, is that Big Government hurts the economy:

Most government regulations do not achieve their intended purpose of protecting workers and consumers, but only create unemployment and higher prices.

Deficit spending causes monetary inflation, and worker's wages do not keep pace with higher prices.

Complicated tax laws are grossly inefficient, draining the economy of hundreds of billions in filing costs.

Income taxes make it harder for families to save, and for businesses to expand.

Every dollar the government wastes is one dollar stolen from the private sector, from the people. For example, the cost of one military helicopter used in an unnecessary war is equivalent to that of 400 cars or 10,000 laptops.

Government is not capable of managing the economy. Its options are mis-managing the economy, or leaving it alone. This means that a real economic stimulus bill would reduce the government's role in theeconomy. It would:

Repeal counter-productive regulations.

Attack inflation by curbing the government's ability to borrow and print money.

Simplify the tax codes and cut tax rates.

Cut wasteful spending.

Last week, the House passed the 22-page H.R. 5140 just one day after it was introduced. This "economic stimulus" bill is a fraud:

Instead of regulatory reform that would attract business to America and increase employment, it gives businesses some very temporary tax breaks that won't help them in the long term.

Instead of attacking inflation, it makes inflation worse by borrowing still more money, and counts on a temporary spending spree this summer to revive the economy. Yet the artificially-created demand will likely cause prices to rise even higher.

Instead of genuine tax relief and tax reform that will make the economy more productive, the people will receive a one-time handout that increases the national debt, raises the inflation tax, and increases the debt burden on future generations.

No spending cuts will offset the cost of the package.

You may disagree, and believe this package will at least be a stop-gap that prevents the recession from getting worse. Even so, should a bill that adds $150 billion to the national debt be introduced and passed in just 24 hours? Shouldn't committees study it, and shouldn't the people have a chance to read it and contact Congress with their opinions?

There have been signs of a looming recession for several months -arguably, years - and Congress had all this time to prevent it. Instead, it waited until the last minute to ram through a short-sighted "emergency" bill. That's the way Congress works. And that's why we need the Read the Bills Act.

The Read the Bills Act would not just require Congress to read the bills they pass, it would also require that bills be posted on the Internet for seven days before a final vote is taken. This would give both Congress and the people time to study bills carefully before the vote. If a $150 billion borrow-and-spend bill troubles you, you would have the chance to let Congress know. They wouldn't be able to pass it in a day.

There are no exceptions for "emergency" bills under RTBA, which means Congress could no longer wait until the last minute to "do something." They would instead have to plan ahead. With planning and feedback from the people, they are more likely to write better bills.

Please tell Congress that you object to the $150 billion the House spent in haste. Tell them that they had several months to produce a thoughtful stimulus package. And tell them they would govern better if they passed the Read the Bills Act. You can do so here.

Also, please consider adding your blog or website to the Read the Bills Act Coalition. This will spread the word about the RTBA, and you'll get a link on our blog and a mention in a Downsizer-Dispatch. Details are here.

This week, we welcome two new members to the Coalition:

Pursuit of Liberty

MPAssetProtection.com

Rich Vermillion

As further ammunition for the Read the Bills Act, we keep tract of the number and length of the bills Congress passes. Although it met for relatively few days in January, the House managed to pass 19 bills totaling 815 pages. The Senate spent most of its time in debate, but passed 3 bills totaling 607 pages. You can see the list of bills at the bottom of the blog version of this Dispatch.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

Conservative Whack-A-Mole

2008-02-07T14:35:00.000-05:00

Now that Mitt the Socialized Medicine Man has dropped out of the race for the GOP Presidential nomination, I've polled some of my conservative friends. Who will they support now?

First, they supported Giuliani.

Next, it was Thompson.

Then Mitt.

Now...one person has indicated he's going with Tax Hike Mike... but the others are silent. Silence, in this case, means resolving themselves to accept McCain.

My brief scan of the conservative side of the blogosphere results in nothing but silence. People who hated McCain, figuring him a Democrat in disguise, have either already given up their hope for Conservatism to survive and jumped on board, or, I predict, will soon. Up to now, they railed against the prospect that a "RINO" would be their standard bearer. They would quote Reagan and Goldwater at length, say that if you don't go into the booth and vote for the most conservative candidate, you have failed the cause. They justified their support for one lukewarm candidate after another in the hopes that "conservatism" would win the day.

Meanwhile, the most conservative candidate in the race - Ron Paul - is barely given a thought, or even opposed with vitriolic intensity. One guy after another drops out of the race, and these self-described conservatives keep moving themselves leftward, compromising their views hoping that "this candidate can win". Well, maybe the candidate can win... but the ideas lose.

Then there's Ron Paul - principled, unwavering, and consistent - standing firmly in place, repeating his message of limited government, the Constitution, sound money, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, and yes...individual liberty. All alleged conservative values. He has the most consistent record of any one in the field. No flip-flops. The man believes what he stands for, and stands for what he believes.

And conservatives keep moving to the left. Walking away from the most conservative candidate available.

I've always charged Conservatives with being bloodthirsty, deathdealing warmongers who utterly lack principle. The behavior I am seeing from them in this election cycle proves that point. Take away the willingness to bomb any and every country into submission if they even smell a "terrorist", and Ron Paul gives them everything they could possibly want - ending the income tax, Constitutionally limited government, protected borders, opposition to abortion, etc.

But the war thing is a deal breaker.

Conversely similar to my liberal anti-war friend who is willing to let the war machine rage, so that he can get closer to his goal of socialized medicine, these conservatives are willing to sacrifice their opposition to big government, so that the war machine may continue to rage.

From where I sit, Conservatives have become one-trick ponies. War, at all costs! If you aren't espousing war and empire, you aren't welcome in the Conservative tent, no matter how true you are to all the rest of the Conservative agenda.

Romney Cuts And Runs

2008-02-07T12:41:00.000-05:00

Wow!

I didn't see this coming.

Tax Hike Mike is staying in for the time being. I expected him to drop out. He'll be gone soon.

So, now what will Conservatives do. Will they consider a vote for Ron Paul now????

Where Has the Anti-War Movement Gone?

2008-02-06T20:06:00.000-05:00

I was recently having a discussion with a friend of mine; an ultra-liberal, Bush-hating guy who has always been fervently anti-war. I got to discussing with him the election, and whom he would be supporting. Of course, he knows I support Ron Paul, and for the many reasons why. He, as it turns out, is an Obama supporter.

I asked him, if the time the primary rolls around, if the Democratic race is sewn up, would he consider jumping over to the GOP and voting for Ron Paul. Ron Paul is, after all, the only anti-war candidate left in the field. All the rest are pro-war to whatever degree, and Obama, specifically, sounds an awful lot like Bush to me when I hear him talk about war and empire. Ron Paul, being an “arch-conservative Republican”, is a major turnoff to my friend, but I’m hoping I can appeal to his anti-war values to persuade him. So, I say:

Dude… I know Ron Paul has a lot of positions that you are really against. In fact, there are a few things about Paul’s platform that I don’t like either. But tell me something… Are all of those other issues worth allowing an unjust, immoral war to continue? Can you set aside those things for the moment, and help stop the killing? Is socialized medicine, changing the make up of the Supreme Court, and all that so important to you that you’d be willing to let tens of thousands of Iraqis suffer and die from our bombs and bullets and our torture chambers, so that you can advance your agenda?

His answer?

Yes, he is willing to let the war continue.

Bush's Legacy: 1 Million Dead Iraqis

2008-02-06T11:28:00.000-05:00

When Warmongers, Inc. want to make the statement that "the world is a better place now with Saddam out of power", tell them that there may be 1 million people who disagree with that assessment.

Of course, they can’t verbalize their disagreement, since they are dead.

Scott Horton Interviews Allan Hyde

I guess you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, eh?

Bush: I Am Above The Law!

2008-02-06T10:34:00.000-05:00

Bush: Uniter, Decider, and Now, Interpreter

When George W. Bush signed the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act into law last week, he again thumbed his nose at Congress by taking a second now-familiar step: he issued a "signing statement" – a declaration that effectively asserts his authority to ignore parts of the law he disagrees with.

His action brought harsh criticism from dozens of legal scholars and advocacy groups who point out that U.S. presidents have the authority under the Constitution to veto or approve acts of Congress – but not to modify them.

Bush's latest signing statement declares his right to ignore sections of the law establishing a commission to investigate U.S. contractor fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan, expanding whistleblower protections, requiring that U.S. intelligence agencies respond to congressional requests for documents, banning funding for permanent bases in Iraq, and prohibiting funding of any actions that exercise U.S. control over Iraq's oil revenues.
…
Bush's use of signing statements has become one of the hallmarks of his administration. UFPJ charged that during the past seven years, the same kind of language used by Bush last week "has been the precursor to numerous violations of law by his administration, including sections of law banning the use of torture and banning the use of funds to construct permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. The president has signed laws blocking funding for the construction of permanent bases in Iraq six times, but never stopped the construction."

When conservatives griped about Clinton committing perjury, they protested that even the president must obey the law. Yet.. George W. Bush can get away with ignoring the law if he wants to.

So.. let me get this straight...

Liberals, not above the law.

Conservatives, above the law.

Hmmm. Pick one, guys.

My Thoughts on Super Tuesday

2008-02-06T09:37:00.001-05:00

Super Tuesday was yesterday. My take?

Well, I’d like to say I’m disappointed about Ron Paul’s numbers, and perhaps, on some level I am. But then I have to remember that since I’ve become active in politics, the results – both qualitiave and quantitative – we are seeing from the Ron Paul campaign far exceed anything I’ve seen before from a libertarian-oriented campaign. Yes, it’s easy to look at a few early successes and then be tempted to irrationally fantasize about wildly unreasonable things. But we need to put this campaign in perspective: the vote totals, the amount of money raised, the amount of publicity, the impact on the national debate…in each of these, the amount of success has already been beyond my wildest expectations.

So, his numbers were rather lackluster in many States yesterday. Some states, specifically the more western ones, they were really good. That’s great. But any Ron Paul supporter who wants to get down about the direction of this campaign needs to stop and consider the big picture. I have always been very uncomfortable with the characterization of Paul as some kind of new American savior…as though he is some kind of messianic figure who represents the key to redemption of our liberties and prosperity. Placing one man - a politician, no less - in such an unreasonable position is bound to produce profound disappointment when he doesn’t live up to our hopes. What we need is to stop, take a deep breath, and look at the glass as half-full, not half empty. Look at the successes. Compare these successes to past libertarian campaigns. Can you not see that this is a sign that the libertarian influence in the world of politics is growing?

Other thoughts… Not surprised to see McCain clean up as he did. Huckabee did better than I expected, and Romney a little worse. I thought Huck would get blanked, and then be forced to drop out. Him winning a couple of States probably means he’ll be around for a while, making it harder for Romney to go after McCain.

Paul? He’s got the money. All we can hope is that the passion of his grassroots base doesn’t give up the fight. Paul has repeatedly said, his campaign is about them. They are the ones in this race, and if they give up, the campaign will end. Personally, I’d like to see Paul’s supporters stay in it until the end.

If we’re going to go down, let’s go down fighting until the very end.

Ron Paul Interviewed on THINKFuture Podcast

2008-02-05T15:11:00.001-05:00

Listen to it here.

I've always said that Podcasting is a great new alternative to the MSM, and I'm glad to see candidates take advantage of new technologicial media. Libertarians have always been forward-thinking, cutting-edge types, and Paul going on the THINKFuture show demonstrates that.

Ignoring the Evidence

2008-02-05T13:43:00.000-05:00

And from our "Beating A Dead Horse" department…

Iraqi scientist gave CIA information that should have prevented war

Chalk it up to example no. 2425612437846262 of intelligence that was ignored in the desire to wage an unnecessary war.

Of course, Warmongers, Inc. will maintain that this information wasn’t credible, or that this is part of a "vast left wing conspiracy", or some other nonsense, and insist that we did the right thing at the time, given what we knew, and it is our duty to commit to the goal of this fundamentally misguided action. No matter how many people die, no matter how bad the economy gets, no matter how much the dollar is devalued…stay the course. Just a little more war will solve everything!

Face it. WMD was a deliberate fabrication. War was a waged on false pretenses, and no amount of "sticking it out" is going to change that. War never creates, it only destroys. Bush's war is destroying us from the inside out.

When you are in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging.

Politics Divides, Markets Unite

2008-02-05T11:04:00.000-05:00

In discussing the race and gender issues surrounder the election, Evan over at The Future Uncertain says in a recent post:

That is no reason not to vote for such a candidate – we can’t elect white males forever just because the first NWM or his supporters will cynically use his NWM status for political advantage – but the increase in tensions that will occur is another marker of the difference between politics and the market – one relies on manufacturing conflict, the other on achieving cooperation.

As I’ve noted before , many female Clinton supporters are looking to vote for a woman out of pure misogynistic impulses. I’ve been trying very hard to find out what Obama stands for, what sort of "change" he will bring, and such, and sadly, the only thing I can possibly see is that he stands for a change of skin color in the Oval Office. His rhetoric on issues of war and empire are standard fare and, in my view, barely distinguishable from Bush. He's got typically left-wing economic ideas. And, oh yeah, he's a black guy, which I'm sure he doesn't want you to focus on, even though one campaign video after another keeps invoking the race card in the most subtle, but obvious ways.

I really hate politics and the effect it has on people. I engage in various conversations about politics with friends and such, and its really depressing to see the conversation focus not on principles and ideas of government and liberty and things of real substance, but rather "should we have a woman for president?", or "would we elect a black guy?", or "wouldn’t a black woman (Condi) as a running mate be the ultimate trump card for the GOP?"

Politics forces us to focus on the most base aspects of society. Evan is totally right that politics gets us to focus on those areas that we are divided – race, gender, class, religion, etc. – and it should be no surprise that political "solutions" always breed more social conflict.

The market, on the other hand, allows people of differing backgrounds to come together for a common purpose. Say what you want about the profit motive, you have to agree it helps to alleviate and minimize conflict between groups that would otherwise want to shoot each other.

The Neal Boortz Guide to Voting

2008-02-05T09:53:00.000-05:00

On his show notes this morning, Neal Boortz lists out what he sees as the main points to pick your candidates. I love how he lists Huckabee here, who’s broke and washed up, and I predict will drop out in the next couple of days, but he ignores Ron Paul who agrees with him on 99% of all the issues, has more money than God, and a very passionate network of grassroots support.

Boortz says:

REASONS TO VOTE FOR:
Mitt Romney: Someone once said that the business of America is business. Mitt Romney has shown astounding success as a businessman.
John McCain: There is no question about his dedication to the cause of protecting our nation from Islamic radicalism. For some, this is the most important issue in the election. His experience in Washington makes Hillary's so-called experience look like nothing more than a quick tour of the White House.
Mike Huckabee: First, he's a genuinely nice guy. Second ... a vote for Huckabee is a vote for the FairTax. This will be a signal to many candidates that although Mike doesn't really stand a chance of winning the nomination .. he still enjoys voter support because of his promotion of the FairTax.
Hillary Clinton: The Dick Morris scenario. Hillary will be such a complete and total disaster as president that a disgusted America will put the Republicans right back in control of the congress in two years.
Barack Obama: He's not Hillary.

REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR:
Mitt Romney: Stalwart opponent of the FairTax, though with no logical reason.
John McCain: Campaign finance reform .. the attack on political free speech.
Mike Huckabee: Precursor to a theocracy?
Hillary Clinton: Where do we start. She's a lying megalomaniac.
Barack Obama: This guy really showed an affinity for Marxist professors in college and law school. He's the most liberal Democrat candidate in decades ... perhaps ever.

Ok, allow me to correct Boortz’s obvious oversight (choke!):

Reasons to vote for Ron Paul: The Constitution. Dramatic cuts in spending. Wants to abolish the IRS and the income tax. Supports restoring a sound monetary system. Will end the war and scale back the Empire.

Reasons to not vote for Ron Paul: You actually want more government, more taxes, more inflation, and more war.

Why We Need Sound Money

2008-02-04T11:32:00.000-05:00

Newsweek has a good article called, Why Americans Are Going Broke

Times are bleak for the U.S. consumer. The average household owes 20 percent more than it makes each year. The personal savings rate is in negative territory. Record numbers of Americans are losing their homes to foreclosure, and millions more are struggling to keep up with their monthly bills and obligations. And the nation's economy isn't in much better shape. The Treasury Department has estimated that, with the added costs of the economic stimulus plan passed by the House of Representatives this week in an effort to avoid a recession, the federal deficit could rise to as much as $400 billion this year.

God bless Keynesian economics!

(Oh... that sound you heard was called "sarcasm".)

For those who may not know what that is, that’s pretty much the standard perspective you get when you take a college economics course. According to the propaganda, economic health is measure by how much we spend. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is a measure of all the expenditures made in a given economy in a year. A recession is defined by negative growth in this number for two consecutive quarters.

This is why you get Bush and company telling us to go out and spend, and have “confidence” in the economy. This is why they think that these rebate checks will stimulate the economy. Spend, spend, spend! And if you don’t have it… borrow some money and spend it! After all, saving your money will only make you poor. (It’s true. Modern Econ textbooks will talk about something called the “paradox of thrift”. It’s total bunk, but apparently, they can get away with peddling such nonsense.)

The plan does promise some relief for struggling Americans: a rebate for taxpayers. The government is counting on recipients not to save it or put it toward debt but to do what they've done best over the past 30 years: spend it. Never mind that overspending is what's put many in the financial predicament they now find themselves in.

But this may not address the fundamental issue:

What other explanations should we consider? One of the most important factors is the easy availability of universal credit, plus the fact that the marketplace [is open to us during] every waking moment. Because purchases can be completed so quickly, they're very unlikely to be interrupted by a prudent thought. A third reason why people are going broke is the basic insecurity of our economy. If you have a consumer society where no one is saving—where no one is encouraged to save—and millions are in debt [and then] you hit them with a jolt to their income, they're instantly going to be in trouble.

Exactly.

Now, many of the proponents of the FairTax rightly point out that a consumption based taxation system, like the FairTax, would alter the incentives in the system and help improve things. They are essentially correct to a degree on that point. However, look at the root cause: easy credit. That is only made possible because of a loose, fiat monetary system…ie. The Federal Reserve system. A consumption tax will not curb government spending, and it will not curb spending patterns of individual consumers who have already demonstrated that they have no problem with living a lifestyle financed by debt.

The only way the really put the economy back on sound footing, with the proper incentives in place for prudent and stable economic growth, is where the costs of credit can reflect real market conditions. Credit and savings must be linked in a real way, and you cannot do this when the central bank can raise or lower interest rates on a whim, and create new money out of thin air.

Anyway, the interviewee in this article implicitly accepts many of the economic assumptions that are being peddled today: spending drives the economy, government can make things better by forcing people to act properly, and that “predatory lending” was the cause of the housing bust. All of those are pure nonsense. But I’m glad to see the seeds of recognition are being sown. The real culprit is the Federal Reserve and its monetary system of inflationary fiat currency.

This Is Just Wrong

2008-02-04T10:35:00.000-05:00

Crack Found in Man's Buttocks

Need I say more?

Bush Says, Show Me the Money!

2008-02-04T09:53:00.000-05:00

Bush proposes $3 trillion budget.

Bush, who was the first president to propose a $2 trillion budget, back in 2002, will leave office as the first president to hit $3 trillion with a spending plan.

Let’s see.. A 50% increase in just six years. At that rate, the size of the Federal government would double every ten years.

Do you think your real living standards double every ten years?

Government is a high growth industry.

Thank you Conservatives. None of this could have happened without you. You've been really helpful.

Stark County Cops Treat Crime Victim Like Dog

2008-02-04T00:10:00.000-05:00

Lest any of you think that police officers are the vanguard of all that is decent in the world, watch these videos and think twice next time before you call 9-1-1 for help. You just might end up getting treated like a criminal by the very people who are supposed to protect you.

Warning... they are a bit disturbing.

Part 1:

And Part 2:

The Intellectual Heritage of Neo-Cons

2008-02-03T23:55:00.000-05:00

Which means, the intellectual heritage of most self-described Conservatives, these days. Most self-described Conservatives couldn't tell Friedrich Hayek from Selma Hayek. So it's no wonder that they can't tell when they're being conned into embracing Trotskyism.

Who Is Your Enemy?

2008-02-03T12:43:00.000-05:00

Stefan Molyneux of FreedomainRadio put out a superb podcast that really puts the heat on the anti-immigrant crowd. (Note: clicking link may take a few moments for podcast to start playing. Patience.)

Although I don’t agree the title of the podcast (Podcast # 962: “Why Libertarianism Fails, Part 3”) is a very good description for the topic of discussion, the podcast is really provactive and puts the sword to the throat of those who believe the State should do something about the "invasion" of "illegal" immigrants. He completely demolishes the idea that being anti-immigration is anything but the worst, most hideous form of Statism, completely anti-liberty, and truly inhumane.

At the climax of the talk, he says (and I don’t have any transcription software to do this accurately, so this may not be 100% verbatim),

Who is the threat here, I mean really? Who is the threat? Is it the guy picking blueberries under the hot noon-day sun, a job that you would never want? Making the price of fruit cheaper for you and your family? Is it that guy who’s out picking blueberries for a couple a bucks an hour? Is that guy really your enemy? Is that the person who is threatening your freedom?

Or is it perhaps, the political class, the rulers, the REAL rulers with their B-52s, and their nuclear weapons, and their aircraft carriers, and their 700-plus military bases all over the world, raping women in Okinawa, occupying Japan and extracting money through force, occupying every single continent except for Antarctica, blowing up hundreds of thousands of highly volatile and aggressive Muslims, throwing YOU in jail if you fail to pay off their money (demands), throwing YOU in jail if you happen to smoke a little vegetation, throwing YOU in jail if they want your property and you resist, throwing YOU in jail for any one of the millions of petty regulations that are thrown up to block and impede the natural progress of the free markets?

Is it the guy picking your fruit who’s really your enemy?

Or is it the people who will throw you in the rape rooms of American prisons if you so much as cross or question their commandments, who can invent laws to enslave you and have enslaved you, who run up massive national debts that are going to cripple the economic possibilities of your future and your children’s future, who provoke conflicts around the world, who declare war, who maim you, who force you to pay for unjust wars?

Is it the guy picking your fruit, or picking your pocket, with a gun to your temple?

My only comment is: Damn! I wish I wrote that.

Are We Turning Japanese?

2008-02-03T12:06:00.000-05:00

Jim Jubak really thinks so.

Japan's crisis, like the recent one in the United States, began with an extraordinary real-estate boom. In 1987, the price of land in Japan's three biggest metropolitan areas climbed 44%. Prices went up 12% more in 1988 and then 22% in 1989.

And like the U.S. real-estate boom, the Japanese boom was fueled by cheap money. The Bank of Japan, that country's Federal Reserve, had lowered the discount rate -- the rate it charges other banks -- to a post-World War II low of 2.5% from 5% in 1984-87. In those same years, the money supply grew by better than 10% a year.

And even those official numbers don't capture the full size of the flood of cheap money. Japanese companies, including banks, were able to sell bonds in the European market with an interest rate of 1.5%. When those loans were swapped back into yen, the profits from the swap reduced the
cost of money to zero.

For those of you non-economists out there, if you want to learn more about what exactly is going on, you may want to do a little study on the “Austrian Business Cycle Theory”. There are two good podcasts you can listen to of lectures given by Dr. Joe Salerno, as he explains money, the economy, and the effects of central banking. You can watch/listen to them here and here. Each one is about 90 minutes long, but he does a good job of explaining the theory behind what causes the boom-bust cycle.

Open Letter to Conservatives

2008-02-03T11:24:00.000-05:00

Although this article is entitled, "An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh" , I think it could very well be an open letter to all those conservatives who are worried about a McCain nomination. Author Allan Davis says,

There's only one thing standing between John McCain and the nomination – and a Hillary presidency – and that's a brokered convention. Without a lock on the nomination, the party gains a few more months to cool off, examine their priorities, rethink the election. In a convention, the delegates become a captive audience, forced to listen to a voice of reason. Hopefully, someone besides John McCain can come out of the convention on top.

The only way to force a brokered convention...is to advise your audience to support Ron Paul. Yes, it just might be the ultimate in "lesser of two evils" voting. But, there are likely only one or two issues where you and he really disagree, and he has to be closer to your opinions than any of the other candidates.

As persuasive as I think this is, I don't hold out much hope that Conservatives will now flock to Ron Paul. Most Conservatives I know are firmly in the grip of a "war at all costs" mentality, and although Paul gives them 99% of what else they want, they won't give up their fantasies of imperial greatness. But because they can't get over Paul's opposition to Empire, they are going to end up with a nominee that will give them the 1% that they can't get from Paul, and that's about it.

They'll consider turning their back on tax cuts, judges, and immigration...but war? Never!!

In the end, I expect that they'll hold their nose and compromise on every other issue that's important to them, because war and empire mean just that much more to them.

Blogging through Blowback, Chapter 1

2008-02-03T10:36:00.002-05:00

I’ve gotten through the first chapter of Chalmers Johnson’s Blowback: Costs and Consequences of American Empire, and so far I’m enjoying the read. Since 9/11, there has been much debate over our foreign policy, and this book lays a good foundation for those who wish to learn about the actual nature of American imperialism.

He spends the opening chapter discussing what blowback is, and why it occurs. He provides a contextual framework by discussing at length the American-Soviet competition during the cold war, and how each tried to maintain of string of “satellites” to protect its sphere of influence from encroachment by the other. Indeed, when he discusses the nature of American (and Soviet) empire, he clarifies that unlike traditional empires that sought physical territory to rule over, the nature of American empire has been more ideologically based. The rule has been that through foreign policy, often utilizing covert CIA operations, American policy has sought to undermine regimes that were not compliant to the demands of the political class in Washington, D.C. Regimes that were amenable to American military demands, would be provided with all the support needed to maintain power, and if that meant looking the other way while some of these governments brutally oppressed their people (which happened almost 100% of the time), then so be it. In short, our “colonies” consisted of compliant puppet governments. And most ironic of all, there was very little difference between American and Soviet policy in this regard.

One can argue whether all of this was necessary, given the conditions of the Cold War. What Johnson fears most, however, is that unless American foreign policy adapts to a changed world, the model of hegemony that arose from the Cold War era will lead America to collapse. He uses the analogy of two scorpions doing battle, and although one is the victor in the struggle, the wounds incurred may lead to death shortly thereafter. The realities of the modern world have changed, and unless America doesn’t re-examine its foreign policy, its inflexibility will be its ultimate demise.

What’s most amazing to me, however, is that this book was written before 9/11. It actually discusses briefly people like Osama bin Laden, and made a prediction that we would continue to see more and more blowback. I remember when 9/11 happened, and I had made some comments to people that I knew that this was the chickens coming home to roost, many had no idea what I was talking about. Libertarian writers had been saying for years that our interventionist foreign policy was going to cost us dearly, yet they were ignored, which is why that day came as such a shock. At the time, many were very hostile to the idea that our own policies may have been to blame. These days, as cooler heads can discuss the events rationally, it is safer to raise the issue of whether Empire is a prudent, let alone desirable, strategy.

I’m glad I started reading this. Its been sitting my shelf for about 3 years, waiting for me to get to it. As Johnson has come out with two more books as a follow up, which I intend to get and read, I figure its high time I read this book and start boning up on the true nature of American Empire.

Read Blogging Through Blowback, Chapter 2 - Okinawa: Asia's Last Colony

McCain, Then and Now

2008-02-02T14:12:00.000-05:00

Apparently wars started by Republican presidents need to be waged in perpetuity. Democratic wars should not. Right, John?

Coulter to Endorse Hillary

2008-02-02T12:27:00.000-05:00

Holy Cow! Ann Coulter would vote for Hillary?? Surely, someone has slipped me a mickey...

(For all the wrong reasons, of course...but what does this tell you about the Democratic Party?)

Hat tip to Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em

A Sign of the Times!

2008-02-02T12:01:00.000-05:00

This sign is located on the I-40 West, coming into Nashville, TN

Love it!!

(Hat tip to my buddy, Jamesh)

Comparing Candidates on Taxes

2008-02-01T21:11:00.000-05:00

The Tax Foundation has created a comparison chart for all the candidates and their proposals regarding tax policy.

You can line up different candidates and compare them on things like income taxation, estate taxes, the AMT, and so on.

Enjoy!

Presidential Spending Analysis

2008-01-31T13:13:00.000-05:00

Here's some analysis of the presidential candidates' proposed spending patterns.

And a very telling chart:

It's funny how many conservatives are griping about McCain's lack of conservatism, contra Romney, and it's Romney who is proposing to make government bigger!

And what about Thompson? The guy who was lauded as the only "real" Conservative in the race, is bested by Tax Hike Mike Huckabee!

Its just goes to show you, not all may be what the MSM paints it to be.

Tom DiLorenzo on McCain, Bush, and Bush

2008-01-31T13:04:00.000-05:00

On the Lew Rockwell.com blog, Tom writes:

In attempting to deceive everyone into thinking he's some kind of limited government conservative last night, McCain boasted that he's being supported by a gaggle of GOP poltical hacks and hangers on, including lots and lots of former Bush I and Bush II appointees, some of whom were sitting right there in front of him.

And what, pray tell, was conservative about either of these administrations? The first thing Bush I did was to denounce all real conservatives as "uncompassionate" while embracing Ted Kennedyism. His son did the same, increasing domistic spending more than LBJ did, while inviting the lunatic fringe of American politics, the Trotskyite neocons, to dominate his administration.

McCain clearly has no idea whatsoever of what a Goldwater conservative, or a Taft conservative, was or is.

Many Republicans have no idea what Conservative means, and that includes many people who currently self-identify with that label.

Amnesty? Show Me the Victim!

2008-01-31T10:30:00.000-05:00

I’ve been having a couple of conversations lately about "amnesty" for "illegals" (so-called). It’s a topic that I’ve not addressed much, but I guess I should.

My whole take on "amnesty" is…amnesty for what? What "crime" has been committed that we need to give out pardons for?

And by "crime", I mean, what act of the violation of another person’s rights or property has occurred that warrants punishment by the State?

If Charlie Richguy offers me a job, and I accept it, no crime has been committed, even though I may have beat out a dozen other rivals for the job. If Larry Landlord has an apartment that I choose to sign a lease for, no crime has been committed either, no matter what anyone may say.

Yet, this is exactly what the anti-immigration crowd wants you to think.

When Charlie or Larry make a business deal with Miguel Fencejumper without the permission of Bill Politician, it is a high crime that needs to be harshly punished. Amnesty then becomes the waiving of the authority of the State to interfere in consensual relationships.

While my gut feeling about saying "I support amnesty" implies recognition that the State has authority over such things – which I firmly deny – I am of the opinion that amnesty is the only just course of action.

And for those of you who want to whine about "rewarding" law breakers, please! Choosing to respect the natural rights of someone is not rewarding them.

Their liberty is not yours to give.

I’ll change my mind about amnesty when someone can show me exactly whose rights are violated by someone moving across an imaginary line that exists only in the minds of politicians, and their fawning conservative idolators.

Show me the victim.

The Fed Induced Bubble Burns

2008-01-31T09:41:00.000-05:00

With the Federal Reserve created Housing Bubble coming to a predictably disasterous crash, is it any wonder we are seeing a rise in the arson rate?

I’m not surprised.

In fact, this perfectly demonstrates the destructionism that lies at the core of a socialized monetary system. Artificially low interest rates skew natural market signals, and produce malinvestment. Capital is misallocated in ways that does not reflect the actual demands of society, and instead of being put to use in socially creative ways, it is reduced and destroyed.

So the Fed tricks people with the lure of easy money into investing in resources they can’t afford, and when it all comes crashing around them, the appeal to just destroying the property becomes a convenient escape.

Dangerous Reading

2008-01-31T09:00:00.000-05:00

First the “money bomb”, and now the “book bomb”.

When the Boortz Tax book came out, mass sales pushed it up on the New York Times Bestseller’s list, and helped produce a groundswell. The hope here is to get a million people to read the Ron Paul manifesto.

I can’t seem to find word on when exactly the book will be available for purchase, but at the site, you can pledge to buy a copy.

Manufacturing War

2008-01-30T19:52:00.000-05:00

The other day I started reading Chalmers Johnson’s book, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire . I hope to blog about it as I go through it, chapter by chapter. I’m half way through the first chapter, so I’ll report in when I get done. But so far, what’s amazing to me is that this book was written before September 11th, 2001. He practically predicted that fateful day.

This morning on my way in to work, I listened to a podcast of an interview with him. In it, he discussed all sorts of topics pertaining to foreign policy, empire, war, and the economy. What grabbed me most was an observation he made about the fact that while our manufacturing base has been eroding over the past X number of years, to the point where many major industries are now based overseas, the manufacturing that is left here in America has become increasingly concentrated in meeting the needs of the military.

Talk about converting your economy into a war machine!

I don’t think that bodes well for the long-term prospects for America, when our entire manufacturing base is devoted to death and destruction.

Listen to the podcast here.

The interview was about an accompanying article written by Johnson. You can read that here.

The Candidate Matrix

2008-01-30T13:20:00.000-05:00

As I said, I'm addicted to these things. I can't help it.

The Matrix

Bar Room Politics

2008-01-29T21:23:00.000-05:00

I was out the other night at a bar having a few beers with a buddy of mine and the conversation briefly turned to the election. He's a Democrat who is on the fence about whom to support. I encouraged him to consider going Republican and voting for Ron Paul. He says he's going to think about it, which I appreciate.

So another guy on my left overhears us and he chimes in. The following conversation went something like this:

Him: You support Ron Paul?

Me: Yeah.

Him: That's the wrong direction for what we need right now.

Me: Oh? You think we need more war and a bigger empire?

Him: No, no. But he'll pretty much dismantle the Federal Government.

Me: He wants to obey the Constitution. You don't think we should follow the Constitution?

Him: No, no. We need a strong central government.

Me: Well our "strong central government" has turned into a worldwide empire, and is now in the process of destroying our currency.

Him: Well, we don't want to pay $8 for a gallon of gas.

Me: If we keep debasing the currency, we are going to pay that much anyway. What do you think inflation is?

Him: We pay a lot for gas because of the existence of futures markets in energy. Big corporations can buy up big chunks of oil and monopolize supplies.

Me: Futures markets have existed for many, many years, in many different types of commodity markets - energy, farm products, currency, etc. They exist as a financial tool and provide a way to hedge against risk. If what you said was true, we'd pay $50 for a loaf of bread.

Him: (Blank stare for a moment) Hey! Look what's on TV!

I never did find out exactly who he supported. On one hand, his ignorance of economics and finance led me to believe he was a Liberal. But he felt sympathetic to endless warmaking, which would have pegged him as a Conservative. (Of course, many conservatives aren't that saavy on economics, but they are less likely to blame corporations for all economic woes, even when the criticism is legit.)

Arlo for Ron!

2008-01-29T21:05:00.000-05:00

Arlo Guthrie endorses Ron Paul.

Guthrie (or “legendary folk singer-songwriter Arlo Guthrie” as he is called in the text of the announcement) said “I love this guy.”

“Dr. Paul is the only candidate I know of who would have signed the Constitution of the United States had he been there,” Guthrie said in the announcement. “I’m with him because he seems to be the only candidate who actually believes it has as much relevance today as it did a couple of hundred years ago.”

Here he is playing his signature piece, Alice's Restaurant.

Hat tip to the Lew Rockwell Blog

A Good Description of Conservatism

2008-01-29T18:47:00.000-05:00

"Conservatism has always been messianic, militarist, nationalist, bloodthirsty, imperialist, centralist, redistributionist, and in love with the hangman state." - Lew Rockwell

A Picture Worth A Thousand Words

2008-01-29T13:32:00.001-05:00

Yeah... that about says it all right there.

Let's Get Out of Iraq and Get Back On Track

2008-01-29T09:34:00.000-05:00

I read about this new song by the legendary Merle Haggard on LewRockwell.com this morning. As Vedran Vuk notes,

When songwriters such as Merle Haggard begin changing their minds on Iraq, then the end signs of the Republican Party are truly amongst us. Mainstream political analysts keep talking about the strong pro-war base. What they do not see or care to admit is the cracks appearing even within the hard-core pro-war base.

Note to self… get out the guitar and learn this song.

A Warrant for Bush and Cheney's Arrest?

2008-01-29T09:11:00.000-05:00

A Vermont town will vote on whether to arrest Bush or Cheney if they ever set foot in the State.

Well, it has to start somewhere.

Can you imagine it, though? Watch the local cops try to put the Emporer in cuffs. Would his SS detail (Secret Service, that is) stand by and respect the rule of law, and the authority of local jurisdiction, or would they hold true to ideology of Bush being above the law.

In a twist of irony, at least this town believes in issuing warrants.

Great Quote

2008-01-27T02:24:00.000-05:00

"Free markets have rescued more people from poverty than government ever has." -John Stossel

Walter Block on the Only Legitimate Functions of the State

2008-01-25T09:48:00.000-05:00

I just got done listening to this podcast, a talk by Walter Block on how libertarians analyze the role and purpose of law. It’s not clear to what group he is speaking, but it seems to be a non-libertarian group, or some kind of class interested in some basics of libertarian thought.

There was one part where he expertly explains the minarchist view of the role of the State, and it’s only legitimate functions. He says:

Armies to keep foreign guys off our back. Police to keep local bad guys off our back. And courts to determine who the good guys and the bad guys are.

Very well put.

Why Fiat Currency Is Practically Worthless

2008-01-25T09:40:00.000-05:00

Found the following graph on the Mises.org blog . It pretty telling to see how our currency has rapidly declined since Nixon severed all ties to a real asset - gold - and left the management of the currency entirely to the central bank - the Federal Reserve.

Yeah... we need to restore our currency to a position of stability. How can we reasonably talk about economic problems when the Federal Reserve is wreaking havoc?

Empire of Fear

2008-01-24T12:20:00.000-05:00

Hat tip to my buddy, "Canadian Floyd"…

Database assembles U.S. warnings of Saddam threat

WASHINGTON, Jan 23 (Reuters) - The Bush administration's warnings about prewar Iraq, from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's "mushroom cloud" to Vice President Dick Cheney's statements on weapons of mass destruction, were released on Wednesday in a searchable online database.

The Center for Public Integrity, a Washington research group highly critical of U.S. policy in Iraq, put together 935 comments uttered by eight top administration officials including President George W. Bush in the run-up to the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
…
The Center for Public Integrity, which released the database on its Web site at (here), said the comments show how Bush and senior administration officials "methodically propagated erroneous information over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001."

Yeah… fear is such a useful tool to promote Empire, isn’t it?

Give Them Guns

2008-01-24T10:53:00.000-05:00

I get the whole "what about the poor" argument a lot, as though the existence of an underclass is an argument for the State, per se. Nevermind the fact that the market is an empirically proven success at rolling back one obstacle after another in the process of improving living standards. Nevermind that it’s the State itself that erects barriers, breeds dependency, and destroys the very things that are essential to progress, thus hurting those on the margins of society the most.

The argument goes, that without the State, those "poor" would perpetually be locked out of rising levels of prosperity, while the rich get richer. That’s why we need the State – if not to engage in outright redistribution of wealth, but at least to force some people to pay to provide for certain goods and services to be available to those who might not otherwise be able to afford them.

So, I’ve made a decision. With such a persuasive argument like the one above, I guess I have to concede the Statist’s point. So here is my new proposal on how to deal with the problem when asked, "What about the poor?", or "How will the poor get (fill in the blank)?"

From now on, my new answer will be: Give them guns, and let them go take what they need from others.

Yes, that’s right. If the Statist is worried that without the State, then some disadvantaged fellow can’t get something he thinks he needs, then we should allow him to grab a gun or a knife and go rob someone in order to get the funds he needs to buy those services on the open market. We should reform our legal system to allow for a claim of poverty as a defense strategy when a person is charged with a violent crime.

It’s the perfect compromise. The "rich", who make large incomes and are able to afford the purchase of goods and services, will have to resort to buying the things they need. The "poor", who have lower incomes, will be allowed, if they can’t afford to buy it in the open market, to go steal from people who have more than they do, so that they can buy what they need too. If you are "rich" and have a large degree of wealth, then it is absolutely unjustifable that you should be allowed to commit theft just to enrich yourself. The "poor", on the other hand, that’s ok. If they need to mug an old lady, or hold up a liquor store, then we should excuse that. After all, it’s the only just thing to do, right?

Oh…you don’t like that solution?

Why not? After all, it’s what we ask the State to do. Instead of the "poor" (or some other special interest group) doing the actual robbing, we delegate the task to the politicians and the bureaucrats in the IRS. They are the ones that say, "give me your money, or men with guns will be knocking on your door". What’s wrong with letting the poor do the deed themselves?

I think, under my system, we take the mask off what we are really advocating. It’s a more honest solution. If you want the State to take care of the poor, then fine, I’ll agree with you. Let’s solve the problem of poverty through violence. But let’s have the courage of our convictions, and be honest about it. Plus, it’s a more economical approach, as we reduce the agency costs. Instead of the poor having to hire someone to steal for them, they can get the same result for a lower price, say, the couple hundred bucks it takes to buy a gun and a few shells.

You say you don't like my proposal?

Then maybe you will want to reconsider yours.

The Meaning of Thompson

2008-01-23T11:06:00.000-05:00

I think Fred Thompson’s surrender in the fight for the GOP Presidential nomination is a bit more important than most people may realize. As I’ve gone around discussing politics and economics with various people, particularly those on the "conservative" side, its become my impression that Thompson was a sort of "compromise" candidate. Many conservatives who claim to believe in small government, federalism, lowering taxes, fiscal responsibility, and such, and should, in theory, be delighted by Ron Paul’s candidacy, were not willing to give their support to him. With the steady drumbeats of the media spoonfeeding people the "front-runner" candidates (read: the only ones you can support in respectable company), it becomes very difficult to justify, emotionally, support a "fringe" candidate (as defined by the MSM), even if that candidate represents almost everything they could want.

Thompson, however, provided an outlet for this anxiety. He was "conservative" enough to past muster on the stated political values of these people (albeit in a severely watered-down way), while at the same time being respectable enough to the MSM to be cast as a "serious" candidate. Throw in a teaspoon of "underdog", and you have yourself a candidate that well-meaning conservatives could get behind with some modicum of pride. In short, they want smaller government, a stronger economy, and more liberty, but they have allowed themselves to be pushed into the closet by the MSM, and as a result, are embarassed to admit their true longings.

This is completely understandable, and I have nothing but sympathy for anyone who longs for liberty. But sometimes, the cure for the disease requires some short term pain and discomfort.

With Thompson dropping out, true conservatives are now going to have their choice put into very clear terms. One one hand, you have a pack of big government warmongers who will continue to trample the Constitution, expand government, oversee the continued destruction of our monetary system and our economy, and continue driving the road to the complete collapse of America. On the other, you have a bona fide conservative constitutionalist who advocates abolishing the income tax, obeying the Constitution, and has a plan to restore a sound monetary system and promote the continued prosperity of America.

Every MSM-approved candidate has severe disqualifications that any intellectually honest conservative would admit. Romney brought socialized-medicine to Massachusetts. "Tax Hike Mike" Huckabee, in addition to being a religious nut-job, is the most economically liberal of the slate. Rudolf the Red-Nosed Mayor is pro-abortion, pro-gay, firmly anti-capitalist, and fascist to the core. Warhawk McCain has long been viewed as a Democrat-wannabe.

Thompson’s departure puts the choice for conservatives in very stark terms. Do they follow their heart and obey their principles? Or do they allow themselves to cower in fear, and go with an emotionally "safer" choice?

Only time will tell.

Isolationism vs. Non-interventionism

2008-01-22T22:19:00.000-05:00

Tom Woods describes it perfectly in this interview…

Brian Saint-Paul: In the realm of foreign policy, what's the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism? The terms are often used interchangeably -- and incorrectly -- in the current presidential race.

Thomas E. Woods Jr.: An isolationist -- if words have any meaning at all -- is someone who wants to isolate the country from interaction with the rest of the world. We're not talking simply about disengagement from foreign conflicts but also drastically reducing our trade relations around the world -- and perhaps, initiating trade wars. So the real isolationist is someone who wants the military budget limited to what's required to defend the country, but who also wants national self sufficiency and isn't interested in diplomatic engagement.

When you put it that way, very few people would qualify as isolationists. We should remember that the term itself wasn't actually invented by those critical of U.S. foreign policy. The term 'isolationist' was actually invented by their opponents to smear them in the 1930s, and frankly, I can't think of anybody who would take a totally isolationist view.

Saint-Paul: So the Founders were not isolationists?

Woods: No, they were in favor of non-interventionism, which is a different thing. Non-interventionism means that while we do want to isolate the country from foreign conflicts, we don't want to roll up into a ball and sit in the corner. Non-interventionists don't want to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries and we don't want to get involved in wars that are none of our business. And we want to define what is our business in a reasonable, non-insane kind of way. After all, not everything in the world is our business.

Yes...Despite what many may think, not everything is our business.

Thompson Quits

2008-01-22T15:48:00.000-05:00

Hat tip to Freedom’s Right for the heads up.

Did I speak too soon? Apparently, Fred Thompson is announcing that he's a quitter.

I’m only surprised that he cut-and-ran so quickly. He was banking on a one-shot campaign, but he failed. I thought he'd at least try to fight for Florida.

Guess I was wrong.

Note to all you Thompson supporters: Ron Paul is everything Thompson was (except a warmonger) and more. Its not too late to come over to a REAL conservative constitutionalist.

Now...what's the over-under on Giuliani bailing out? He's next.

Big Government Warmongers Going Down, One by One

2008-01-22T15:28:00.000-05:00

A while back, Giuliani was reported to be running severely low on campaign funds, and unable to raise cash because of his poor showings. Thompson failed to make waves in South Carolina, which he was banking on. And now, Tax Hike Mike is broke.

Oh…and Ron Paul’s third money bomb for MLK day raised almost $2 million.

(Jealous, Mike? )

My prediction, Thompson drops out after Florida due to lack of interest, while Tax Hike Mike and Rudolf the Red-Nosed Mayor surrender after "Super Tuesday". Warhawk McCain and Romney the Socialized Medicine Man battle to a draw.

Ron Paul stays in for the long haul, picking off delegates and harnessing a sizeable minority of votes which prevents either from gaining a decisive majority.

Just my $0.02.

More Bumper Sticker Wisdom

2008-01-22T09:41:00.000-05:00

I found this website selling liberty oriented bumperstickers. Here are some of the cooler ones:

HA! Love it!

Enjoy.

And Yet Another Candidate Matching Survey

2008-01-21T23:44:00.000-05:00

I can't help it. I love these things.

Vote Help.Org

No surprise, I'm a Ron Paul supporter.

Government Schooling is Welfare

2008-01-21T14:09:00.000-05:00

I wonder if I’ll ever get to a point where I’m no longer burdened with trying to convince people that government – the State – is force. It is not voluntaryism. It is coercion. It is violence, pure and simple.

For example, if you want to send your kids to a government school, you are asking to have other people – non-parents – threatened with violence if they don’t pay for what should be your responsibility. When you get a bill in the mail from the State, and you ignore it, chances are, men with guns will be knocking your door. If you try resisting their demands, they can use violent force - even lethal force, if necessary - to ensure your compliance.

And don’t give me this, "I pay taxes too!" crap. All things equal, a parent pays less taxes, while consuming more government services.

Let’s say me, a non-parent, and Sally Singlemom both make $40,000 year in income. When tax time comes around, not only does she get to file in a more favorable status – the "Head of Household" designation grants a larger standard deduction than does "Single" (about 7700 vs. about 5300) – but she also gets an extra exemption for her child (another 3300 per child), plus the child tax credit (up to $1000 per kid). And don’t even get me started on the "Earned Income Tax Credit", which is just a wealth transfer mechanism.

The net result is not only that Sally’s taxable income adjusted downward much more than mine, her tax obligation is credited by virtue of the fact that she has a kid. So she is paying less in taxes, while at the same time demanding more of the system we are both forced to pay into.

That’s a pretty sweet deal...for her.

So, for all you parents out there who send your children to government schools, show some respect for those individuals who are being forced to subsidize your lack of personal responsibility. Don’t try to mask your willingness to steal from others by spouting off pious platitudes and false moral arguments about "the greater good", the importance of education, and "the poor".

It’s theft and you know it.

Just be honest.