Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Post Super Tuesday Predictions

It has been a long three months since the Iowa caucuses, and the GOP has been subject to one of the most bloody battles in my lifetime. With four candidates duking it out today for regional, delegate, and potentially total contest dominance, I am left pondering the expected results, the coming contests, and the oddities that I have seen heading into this political milestone.

There are a few things that could make or break these predictions, namely how well Gingrich performs outside of the south, and how well Santorum performs in general against Romney.

Gingrich will win in his home state of Georgia. There is no doubt there. If Gingrich wins any state outside of Georgia, he will stay in the race, gobbling up delegates in the south. Watch for Newt in Tennessee. However, if Newt cannot win in TN, he will not have the momentum going forward into Alabama and Mississippi in one week... save a collapse by Santorum, which could be cause for another Gingrich rise. If he loses, and loses hard, and if Santorum turns around his misfortunes of the past week and a half, I have this feeling that Gingrich drops the bid and endorses......... Ron Paul.

Wait... did I just say Ron Paul?

I did. For two reasons. Watch Gingrich's performance in the last debate. He gave an unusual amount of praise to Paul. Read any article ro listen to any interview with Gingrich of late, and he finds a way to incorporate Paul or Paul's message... this includes Paul's foreign policy. I ignored it at first, but then found it odd that he seemed to be massaging his position to align with Paul. It is a long shot... and as long as Gingrich sees a weakness in Santorum he will stay in... but IF he does drop, I would bet $5 that it is a drop in favor of the non-Santorum anti-Romney candidate.

Santorum... who's numbers are falling, needs to survive Super Tuesday. He does that by a win in Ohio. Romney may have weakened him enough in that state, pummelling him with money. Santorum needs Ohio, he neesd Alaska, he needs Oklahoma and North Dakota. He needs his regional mid-west wins... but more importantly he needs a win in the Rust Belt. If he cannot beat Romney in Ohio, it is my prediction that Santorum begins lobbying Romney for VP or a high ranking cabinet position prior to dropping and endorsing Romney.

Happy Super Tuesday!

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Lurking in the Shadows

After the 20th 2012 GOP Presidential debate it became obviously clear that there was blood in the water. Romney, who has been the consistent “One to Beat” was rather low-energy, but he provided a standard performance that would neither hurt nor help him. Newt Gingrich seemed distant to the contest, and attempted to give another rebirth to his run by focusing on the energy issue (gas prices) – which I must make note of his “Americans will be happy with $2.50 a gallon under my presidency”... Newt, I am not happy with anything over $2.00. 16 short years ago when I started driving, I could get ARCO/AMPM gas for $0.69 a gallon. You’re asking me to be happy with a 250% increase in gas prices because it is better than a 550% increase? I remember the outrage when gas hit $2 a gallon... I want to get THAT wrong corrected first... but I digress. Ron Paul had a great night, where he delivered two points. First, Santorum is a “Go along to Get along” kind of politician, and that Paul’s biggest hurdle has been the misconception that he is not electable when matched with Obama. But Paul is still fighting for a state to pick him, and struggling with the media to get fair attention. This leads to the source of the blood in the water: Rick Santorum, who was the center of attention of the other candidates, yet let the moment pass without a defining example of why or how he is rightly the person to lead this nation. Four candidates making their 20th appearance before the voters; four candidates, none of whom stands poised to gain the required delegates to clinch the nomination.

Just months ago the mere mention of a brokered convention, suggesting that Romney could not clinch the nomination, was tantamount to GOP heresy. Heading into March, however, you are hard pressed to go one day without a new article discussing the looming brokered convention. Journalists and pundits have their delegate scorecards and their calculators in hand, and as each contest comes and goes, the resounding chorus is one raising the speculation of a brokered convention. But what is really making their mouths water is the speculation of who may be lurking in the shadows, waiting to step into the light and unify the party and the nation... the great savior of the 2012 election.

The speculation of the brokered convention comes down to Arizona and Michigan. Romney is in the fight of his political life after losing three states to Santorum, one being the Romney “gimme” state of Colorado. If he loses in Michigan, he could still win the nomination but would be so damaged that he would have no chance to win the general election. Once the results of Michigan and Arizona are read on Tuesday night, after the calculators come out, after the delegate scorecards are updated, we have to look at the facts:
1. Gingrich is still poised to clean up in the South, and will hold on until the bitter end hoping to gain enough delegates to be a force in the party convention. He has been waiting patiently for Super Tuesday, and a run on the southern states. He is at such odds with Romney and Santorum that he will not support one of them. So long as he has a delegate to his name, he will ride on to Tampa.
2. Ron Paul’s strategy has always been to lock up loyal delegates who may not vote with their state’s results, in hopes of being a force at the convention. If Ron Paul gets out of the race before the convention it would only be to do so as a third party candidate, focusing his attention on the general election. Based on the strength of his delegate strategy, however, I feel that Paul could enter Tampa stronger than delegate scorecards would lead you to believe.
3. Romney and Santorum are both Northeastern candidates, but Santorum does not fare as well in that region. He is clearly the favorite in the Midwest and Mountain states, where evangelicals win the day. Santorum may falter heading into the next contests due to his “cover my butt” performance at the debate, but without a chance for Newt to surge, Santorum is going to be at least neck-in-neck with Romney, splitting delegates and emboldening both candidates moving forward to Tampa.
4. If Mitt Romney can hold on in Michigan, he is strong in the west, and could pick up a large number of delegates. If Romney loses in Michigan, he may suspend his campaign. If he loses in Arizona and Michigan he will no longer be the GOP front-runner and may hold on through the convention hoping to at least be a delegate leader heading into Tampa.
If this continues to be a four horse party after Super Tuesday, we can count on a brokered convention. Period. But what is likely to happen leading up to the Convention in Tampa? Chances are slim that we will have our savior waiting in the wings until the convention.

Look for a possible draft movement to arise if Romney loses in Michigan and Arizona. Santorum is off the ballot in enough states, and is not a national contender (see Gingrich in the Southern States). If Santorum can beat Romney but not clinch the nomination, Romney will not be able to beat Obama, leaving a huge source of anxiety for the Republican Party. Look for a stronger one if he wins one or both; the people are looking for the anti-Romney and if Santorum is not that guy they will keep looking.

Who is lurking? Who is waiting? Chris Christie? Sarah Palin? Donald Trump? What about true dark horses, like Luis Fortuno (Gov. Puerto Rico)?

More importantly... What if there is a deadlock? One can assume that Ron Paul’s delegates are 100% loyal, and without his endorsement they will keep voting for him. Gingrich and Santorum delegates are more likely to swing without endorsement – they are not loyal so much as appointed by the state to vote one way or another. Romney has an army, though less loyal than Ron Paul’s... but would they be inclined to support a dark horse nominated from the floor?

There are 48 more contests (including territories and districts)... How the delegates are selected is key to how a brokered convention may play out. How Romney fares in Michigan and Arizona is key to the potential for a brokered convention. The strength of the remaining four heading into Super Tuesday is key to determining if there is an open door for a late-comer to step in and save the GOP from itself in 2012.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

McCain's "Bloodletting"

John McCain is attempting to step up the game of the United States' role in Syria, petitioning the federal government for the authority to provide arms and munitions to the Syrian Rebels involved in the Syrian Civil Conflict. He reportedly made the request, saying "the bloodletting has got to stop".

Unfortunately for McCain and the continual US War Machine, the bloodletting will not stop by arming the rebels... in fact, it is impossible to say WHAT will happen in the short term or long term by shipping arms to a conflict zone. However, let's take a look at some examples and try to see the brilliance behind McCain's idiocy:

In a proxy war with the Soviets, the United States provide arms, munitions, and training to the Taliban in a remote landlocked nation called Afghanistan. The move to invade Afghanistan was Soviet aggression in spreading Socialism in the region, and true to the nature of the Cold War the US was there to confront them. The training of the Taliban, an aggressive nationalistic group of Muslim fundamentalists who otherwise were powerless, led to the eventual battle hardiness of the group as they fended off a world super-power. The arms and training provided by the United States were eventually used to destroy the country, implementing fundamentalist Islamic rule, destroying centuries old religious relics, and gave rise to a Mr Osama Bin Laden. The US won this proxy war in the short game, but there are more than three innings in this ballgame, folks. Bin Laden used his training and skills to create a rogue organization of Islamic Criminals, arguably starting World War III. The United States has been fighting a war against the Taliban for over ten years... the same Taliban to whom we once provided arms and munitions.

The story is the same in Iraq. We provided arms and munitions in support of Saddam Hussein. The US backed the Iraqis in another proxy war with the Soviets, where they backed Iran. The two countries fought brutal wars for many years at the hands of the two world super powers providing arms and munitions to both sides. The US entered into the country, waging one of the most controversial wars of US history to topple the regime that it helped build.

In Libya, the United States intervened, assisting the Libyan Rebels without any knowledge of 'who' these rebels actually were. As the Libyan conflict continued, it became more clear that the secular regime was being over-run by the Islamic fundamentalist enemy to the United States, Al-Qaieda. Thanks to the support of the US forces, the very organization responsible for attacking the United States in 2001 has now been given a country, an army, nasty munitions, and legitimacy.

In Egypt, the US backed regime who was responsible for an extended era of peace with Israel in the region, the 'Arab Spring' saw the overthrow of the secular regime in favor of a Muslim Fundamentalist Oligarchy. Though the military is technically still in control of the country, it is apparent that the nation has been over-run by Islamic fundamentalists. Burkas are now common, beaches are now segregated by sex, violent crime is rampant, and Christians are under extensive attack. The US President did not provide arms, but he did provide the full faith and allegiance of the United States, turning his back on the once allied Egyptian Government.

And not to be left out, the 1990's provided us with Kosovo, in which Bill Clinton armed and encouraged the Ethnic Albanians (Muslim) to declare independence, leading to a horrific armed conflict and eventual genocide of Albanians in the region.

Case after case the United States has intervened in these conflicts, and time and again the impact has been MORE loss of life, MORE war, MORE bloodletting, followed by LESS freedom, LESS religious liberty, and LESS stability.

Mr McCain, Neo-Cons, and War Democrats... hear me. Giving guns to the radical elements of this Islamic Arab Spring is not just a bad idea, it is historically immoral! It may seem popular or a means to an end to try and topple these regimes - but you're replacing secular nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism. I will take a small proud nation over a religious fundamentalist nation ANY DAY. War is not the answer. Arming the radical Islamic elements in these struggles is not the answer. It is about damned time that the United States (and her glorious leaders) shut the hell up and let these people fend for themselves.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Republicans Should Embrace Libertarianism

Republicans in the 2012 election cycle are overwhelmingly rejecting Libertarian ideas, going so far as to side with the media in declaring them 'outside of the mainstream'. By and large, the buzz words of the new era of the GOP are "Conservative" and "Tea Party". A simple look into the usage of these terms better illustrates how the GOP has strayed so far from its principles, and why the GOP needs to embrace what it once was.

The 'TEA Party' was a movement started out of the libertarian ideas of sound monetary policy, focusing on ending or auditing the federal reserve and reducing or eliminating the income tax. The Tax Day Tea Parties held in April of 2009, where the TEA Party was birthed, the acronym 'TEA' was used for 'Taxed Enough Already'. The name Tea Party was then created as an historical reference to the revolutionaries of the late 18th century in the American colonies. As such, the Tea Party founding was one of fiscal libertarianism. However, the growth in popularity of the TEA Party and the usage of the Tea Party by the GOP as the crutch to get it out of the 2008 slump muddied the message and the Tea Party became nothing more than an active wing of the GOP establishment. Nothing more.

So the focus needs to be placed on the other buzz word - Conservative. When discussing 'Conservative Candidates', the media and the GOP as a whole is talking about Social Conservatism. Social Conservatism is the deeply held belief in the traditional structure of social issues; Marriage is between one man and one woman; Abortions are immoral; Religion is a key tenant in moral character. To be a Social Conservative is one thing, but to legislate as a Social Conservative takes on another beast all its own... and THIS is why the GOP is distancing itself from Libertarianism.

A Social Conservative will believe in a traditional marriage as an important piece to social structure, child rearing, etc. This is a great belief to have. It can be argued that it is morally upright to follow the Judeo/Christian norms and to embrace the traditional family structure. However, Conservatism begins to conflict with Liberty when Morals are Dictated or Legislated.

The Libertarian may believe the same as the Social Conservative, but voting and leading as a Libertarian they will ensure that the government and the multitude of people do not impede the Natural Right for a person to peaceably pursue happiness. They may not agree with the lifestyle, but they will defend the right for the same-sex couple to live an alternate belief from the Social Conservative crowd.

The power struggle between the left and the right has largely become about legislating morality and less about what is right under the Constitution and the Natural Inalienable Rights endowed by our creator.

The Republican Party used to be the party of smaller government, less intrusion, less taxation. The New Republican Party, instead, dictates morality, forcing a way of life (Social Conservatism) onto a people who simply do not share the same beliefs. It is this constant thumping that has caused the important message of the GOP to be lost in the fray - Less taxes, less government, less spending, strength of nation. The Republicans should embrace their Libertarian roots and stop trying to legislate morality, lest they desire to remain the lesser extreme of the Democratic Party.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

How the Elephants Died - an Essay on the Broken Republican Party

In 2008, after eight years of George W. Bush, after having lost the House and the Senate, after having lost many State houses and Governorships, the Republican Party teetered on the edge of becoming a long term minority party in the United States. It was not because the Democratic Party had necessarily done anything special to change themselves, nor had they damaged the GOP in some manner as to deal a death blow. Quite the opposite, actually. It was the Republican Party that had been faltering from within.

After the crushing losses of 2008 the pundits began to ask the question, “What now for the GOP?” What they were asking had less to do with strategy and more to do with message. What did the GOP stand for? Who were the GOP leaders? The horrible primary set-up a GOP ticket which fronted a liberal Arizona Senator and a half-term unknown Governor from the 3rd least populated State. The GOP was deeply divided after the primary, and there was a large lack of enthusiasm for McCain as the leader of the party, or the nation. During the election, the GOP ticket seemed to be splitting as well, with the Governor of Alaska “Going Rogue” in defiance of the leadership of the Arizona Senator. After the election the depth and breadth of the divide was so obvious that to ask the question about the future of the GOP was not uncalled for.

The state of the Party at that time was one where the party leader and outgoing President, backed by the Party itself, had drastically veered from the “small government/limited government” doctrine which defined its surging success in recent years. No, the Party had lurched so far to the left that figure heads within the party defended the constant erosion of liberties and the perpetual borrowing and bail-outs as staples to the values of the party itself. Perpetual war, Patriot Act, wireless taps, bail-outs, federal healthcare/prescription drugs, No Child Left Behind. The party of limited government was responsible for the largest growth of the (non-essential) government in the history of the United States. After losing power in the executive and legislative branches, the party was at war with itself for what it had done, suffering from a crisis of identity.

During this crisis, however, there was a splinter group within the party which had laid the groundwork for the coming election cycle. The energetic and overly enthusiastic supporters of Ron Paul in 2008 had effected a tone within the party discussion, raising the issue of liberty. The big government GOP leaders were so put off by this message that Paul and his supporters were actually blocked from the national GOP convention. This group of the small Libertarian wing of the ‘Big Tent Party’ splintered from the GOP, holding their own Liberty Convention, where they put in place a long term strategy to retake the Republican Party.

As the Republican establishment selected new leadership and tried to scrape together a message, there was a movement already underfoot, planning Liberty Rallies on Tax day. The general message of the rallies was Liberty, low taxes, and a change to the monetary system. It was the Tea Party. The newly elected left was so afraid of the quick organization and the multitude of rallies across the nation that they immediately went into panic mode, claiming that the Liberty minded rallies were racist or terrorist in nature. The GOP establishment was so disconnected that they did not claim affiliation with the organizations spreading their message across America on Tax Day. This “radical element” was the organization of the Libertarian movement, the Campaign for Liberty. The success of the ‘Tax Day Tea Parties’ did not belong to the established GOP, however, after the movement began to swell in numbers the GOP began to approach the rag-tag leadership with an offer to take the Liberty movement under the wing of the Republican Establishment. As such, the GOP rested its momentum heading into the 2010 elections on the Tea Party. The strength of the Tea Party was brought into question on primary election day, and overwhelmingly the GOP establishment candidates were ousted in favor of the Libertarian Tea Party Conservatives. The narrative of 2010 was, then, that the GOP was now being led by the Tea Party, and as such the Republican Party could only retain the established leadership under the banner of this liberty movement.

After the unprecedented resurgence of the once dead GOP in 2010, the strategy of the established Republican leadership was to retain the talking points of the movement while dismantling the structure and ability of the Tea Party to splinter from the ‘Big Tent’. It was, after all, floated as an idea that the Tea Party itself could actually become a formidable third party, challenging the Republicans for top-tier status against a unified Democratic Party. Such a move, of course, would have ensured Democratic majority in 2012 and beyond. So the GOP establishment took the Tea Party congressmen and senators into their fold, and moved quickly to marginalize the Tea Party movement itself. By mid-2011 it was clear that the Tea Party had been so over-run by the mainstream GOP that the movement was dead under the moniker “Tea Party”. What began as a liberty movement quickly became a social conservative movement with no clear message of opposition. The message of small government, lower taxes, and individual liberty which defined the Tea Party became talking points for established moderate Republicans. The waters were so muddied that the mention of the Tea Party no longer represents a sect of the GOP, rather some ambiguous affiliation from within the Republican Party. You no longer hear about Tea Party candidates heading into the 2012 election cycle, rather you hear about whether voters identify with the Tea party. But I ask you, what does it mean to identify with the Tea Party in 2012? What is the party’s message? You are unable to answer because the GOP successfully dismantled the movement while simultaneously absorbing their talking points. The movement was no longer deemed a threat.

The fractures of 2008 began to reappear in the GOP during the selection of the presidential candidates in 2011. As the party began the process of identifying the next generation of leadership, so returned the animosity of the 2008 election cycle. The media scrambled to identify the leader of the Tea Party movement while the GOP establishment held their breath hoping none would arise. Sarah Palin was the media darling, mostly because of her atypical moves after losing the election in 2008. Michelle Bachmann was a very vocal member of the Tea Party, but lacked the excitement of Sarah Palin, and who could not get her endorsement for the ‘female amongst the males’ spot in the 2012 run. Other first term names were favored by the media, such as Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. It was becoming clear that the incorporation of the Tea party into the GOP had so diluted the movement that when the time came for the Tea Party to front their leader as a challenger to the GOP establishment candidate, the movement found it had been so love-struck with the recognition of the GOP that it was no longer a movement unto itself. It had no leadership. It had no message.

Seeing a sign of weakness from the Tea Party movement, who had developed into an active staging ground for the social conservative wing of the GOP and less of a true liberty movement, the Conservatives began their quest to identify and run a “True Conservative” candidate. Large bands of Conservative Republicans attempted grassroots draft campaigns for Governors from Indiana, Texas, New Jersey, as well as a fleet of Senators and Congressmen. Each draft campaign attempted to sway opinion in favor of their candidate as the Truest “True Conservative”. As the field winnowed, however, even the definition of a “True Conservative” was sullied, tarnished by conservative talking points that do not actually resemble the left-moderate actions which they were being used to describe. The Conservatives, as well, had been marginalized.

Then there are the 2008 hold-overs. Most notably Mitt Romney, who made a calculated decision to yield the 2008 race to McCain after South Carolina, and go directly into 2012 campaign mode. Mitt Romney, who maintained the campaign presence in the early voting states, was identified as one of those who was expected to run and was identified as an early front-runner. His campaign represents the ideas of the moderate-left lurch of the established GOP, and a continuation of those ideals of the ‘Neo Conservative’ era of the Republican Party.

The second hold-over is Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the Libertarian who was blacklisted from the GOP in 2008. Paul’s brand of Republicanism is the Goldwater/Jeffersonian Libertarianism. His strategy was much the same as Romney’s: stay in the early voting states and build a movement with which to roll through them in 2012. He was hated by GOP establishment and feared by the media. His followers were branded, as he was, as being out of touch. But then came the economic collapse. Then came the continued wars under Obama. Then came the financial disasters of the fiat currency system. And the media turned to the one man who had not only predicted the downfall, but was actively building a movement of educating the public to the extent of the failings. His movement, the Campaign for Liberty, gave life to the Tea Party and the GOP wins in 2010. Paul’s decision to enter the Presidential race gave the Liberty Movement a validated and tested leader, and this put fear back into the heart of the GOP. Paul’s early numbers and successes were dismissed as ‘Paul-bot anomalies’, and he was written off as a candidate out-of-touch (again) and unelectable. He was targeted by the media for blacklisting, and painted as outside of the party norm by the GOP. But Paul’s numbers continue to grow, his Campaign for Liberty continues to reach the voting bloc in charge of the future of the party – the youth vote. Where the Tea party movement failed, the original campaign for liberty strategy devised by Paul in 2008 had succeeded, and the Libertarian’s have a movement underway within the GOP.

We turned the calendar to 2012, the election year. We are under the thumb of an unpopular President, a Democrat who is easily beaten should an organized opposition show itself. Herein lies the rub. The fractures made visible in 2008 were never truly fixed, and now we see a Republican party so broken that it is becoming ever impossible to repair, re-establish, and retake the battlefield. The GOP is not organized. It has no leadership. The Tea Party has failed, and the message marginalized. The Social Conservative movement has failed, and the message marginalized. So what is left is a bloody power struggle between the Neo-Conservative elements of the establishment, both sides fighting so viciously to implement their brand of moderate leftism under the brand “Republican”. We see a Republican battle in which the majority has been fooled by the talking points, by the stolen message of the Liberty movement and the Conservative movement. The leaders of the GOP promote a continued growing of the government, increased erosion of liberties (such as the NDAA, SOPA, etc), increased spending, and perpetual war while at the same time using talking points about increasing liberty, reducing debt, cutting spending, and securing Americans by not backing down from saber rattling. The message is unorganized, it does not make sense. The Republican brand has somehow become no different from the Democratic brand, save a few minor means to the ends – but in both cases the end is the same.

When Republicans act like Republicans we win. When we act like Democrats, they win.

As the infighting intensifies, all eyes are on Ron Paul and his growing Campaign for Liberty. There is daily talk about Paul’s brand of Libertarianism splintering from the GOP. With it, Paul will take a national 10-15% of the GOP – those who learned the lesson from his movement and those who are simply tired of the heated divide in the Party. A Ron Paul third party run is the Tea Party splinter nightmare held by the GOP after the 2010 groundswell. But this time the GOP has no control. The movement has a leader. The leader has a brand. The brand has a following that transcends party lines, drawing support from the fiscal right and the anti-war left as well as liberty minded independents. The big story of the 2012 election is going to be the political landscape left behind by the Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty and the lasting effects of a movement within the GOP or established as a third party.

The GOP cannot contain the core of this movement, the Libertarians.The atmosphere is ripe for a fracture of the party. The stress of an undefined party to define itself, a party who is historically on the conservative-right but who has recently lurched moderate-left, a party who has largely gone without a notable figurehead, without any true leadership for too long is the stress that continue to fracture the party from within. The squelching of the conservative right and the ignoring of the libertarian movement threaten a party so divided against itself that it will not beat this sitting President nor will it retain control of the either chamber of congress, no matter which Moderate-Leftist you prop up on Election Day. What we are witnessing may be the end of the ‘Big Tent’ GOP, where libertarians and social conservatives need not apply, where they are catered to during elections but ignored while in power. The minority blocs of the GOP are growing wise to the new Republican brand. They are growing less patient with the lurch and less tolerant of the lip-service. The Party has moved past the crossroads and is heading full-speed toward the political cliff. This may very well be the narrative on how the mighty elephant died.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

State of the Union

(Obama delivered his last State of the Union speech of his Presidency tonight. It was what we all expected. I offer, just for fun, what my first State of the Union speech would resemble - just to keep the fire going in my belly.)

My fellow Americans, Tonight I stand before you to fulfill a promise made 223 years ago, that once a year We the People of this Great Nation will stand together in truth and continued open dialogue to discuss the State of our Union. As your elected leader, as your President, it is my burden to report the failings of our government. You elected me, and I stand fully accountable for the shortcomings of these chambers and the hardships they have put upon you, my brothers and sisters of these United States. However, as your President, it is also with great enthusiasm that I get to share with you the triumphs which, together, we have and will soon achieve. Ladies and Gentlemen, because we share this dialogue, because we are free to do so, because we continue to choose the rule of law set forth in our Constitution, because we so deeply burn with the passion for true liberty, because we come together time and again as a great people to protect our Republic, because in the face of adversity we refuse to give up, we refuse to surrender, I declare before you today that the state of our Union is strong!

However strong this union, it saddens me to report that your elected leaders, those in whom you have given the full faith and credit of our nation, continue to perpetuate the erosion of our liberties. There are some amongst us today who would see a great change in our nation; a great divergence from the solid foundation given to us upon principle. There are some amongst us who would have us believe that this is not a government by the people or for the people, rather a government over the people. I am here to tell you tonight that they are wrong. There are some amongst us who would have us believe that the providence which shaped this great nation was somehow misguided in the protection of the people from their government. I am here to tell you tonight that they are wrong. There are some amongst us tonight who would have you believe that some are more equal than others, more deserving, above the rule of consent. I am here to tell you tonight that they are wrong. Those who would tell you that the erosion of our liberties, that the unjust corruption at all levels of this nation are sufferable for the sake of security or perceived prosperity are the real threat to the strength of this union. It is they who continue to drive the divide in this nation. It is under their watchful eye that our Republic will cease to exist.
That is why I am here, as your President, to outline a renewed contract with the American People. This is not a new idea; rather it is a return to the ideals that allowed this nation to grow from shoreline to shoreline. It is a return to the ideals that put this nation in front of all other nations in this world with ingenuity and innovation. It is my belief that this nation can return to the best version of herself only when the people are free from an overbearing government. Free to try; Free to succeed; and as this government so often forgets, free to fail. No longer will we steal from the coffers to pick winners when industry giants are failing. No longer will we blindly endorse failed strategies in the economic sector. No longer will we commit ourselves to conflicts which cause us to further depend on foreign nations for our continued way of life. We are better than that. We are more resolute than that.

We will build, in America, an infrastructure for the next generation. Our investment will be one in the homeland, strengthening and modernizing our roads, dams, bridges, and borders. We will invest in our military, and re-build the American based bases closed during our foreign expansion, ending our foreign subsidies and bringing the military home. We build the infrastructure necessary to ensure energy independence through free market competition and milestone awards for certain sustainable technologies. We will invest our dollars in America’s future, right here at home.

Our economy is in shambles. There is no easy way to put it. This is not an issue that can be put off any more, and cutting pennies on the dollar is not the fix we need. This is a serious problem, now. Not a problem to be left to another administration or another generation. We will create a system of tax fairness, eliminating loopholes allowing the wealthiest to pay lower percentages than our hard working middle class, and demanding that our lowest class take the pride in paying their fair share in our society. We will strengthen the middle class by creating an environment of equality in responsibility. I will propose a tax plan that phases out the personal income tax over the course of my two terms, followed by a constitutional repeal of the 16th Amendment, with taxation to be directly levied onto the states, apportioned according to population. It will be up to the states to collect taxes from the people. The Federal Government will no longer be in the business of directly taxing the people. Fixing the tax system is only half the battle. To correct the problem, the Federal Government must stop spending! That is why I am using the authorities of the Presidency to eliminate wasteful departments and transition the responsibilities of these departments back to the states. The 10th amendment made this very clear, and I intend to return this nation to the Constitutional Republic that it was intended to be!

The American people deserve better than what the government has become. As a citizen of this nation, I demand more from my government. I demand that they do more by doing less. I demand that my government level the playing field, end the crony corporatism, dismantle the monetary stranglehold that devalues our currency, and put an end to the corruption at the highest levels. We need to ensure a just rule of law that punishes those who prey on our investors and consumers. We need to ensure a just rule of law that protects the investment marketplace, protects the savings of our families, and encourages savings and investment in our future by We the People. I demand, and so should you, that our government close these criminal loopholes and enforce the laws that protect the investments of not just the middle class but of all Americans! I demand a return of the American brand, a return of Main Street. This can only be done by strengthening and enforcing our laws and protecting our investing class!

We are at a crossroads in this great experiment. We have allowed our government to grow beyond their constitutional limits. We have allowed the government to erode our individual liberties. We have given up personal responsibility in favor of government safety nets. It did not happen overnight, and it cannot be fixed overnight. There is a lot that needs to be done in order to right so many wrongs that have left our nation on the brink. Look around the dinner table tonight and ask yourself, ask your family, what kind of America do you want to live in tomorrow? What do you want the state of this union to be for your children and grandchildren? I challenge you, America, to support this alignment; to put the government on notice; to return America to the people. We are the generation of innovation, of ingenuity. We have the courage to fix this, we have the means to fix this. And I’m putting my government on notice too, letting you all know that We the People have the resolve to fix these wrongs and ensure a strong union for another two hundred years!

God Bless you, and May God continue to bless these United States!

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Why "They" Are Scared of Libertarians

Ron Paul stated in his New Hampshire speech, "They're scared of us because we're dangerous to the status-quo." Who are 'they' and what was Ron Paul, the figure head for the Libertarian movement within the GOP, talking about?

Libertarianism is a political philosophy aimed at making decisions based on a simple principle - personal responsibility and limited government intervention. It is greatly misunderstood and misconstrued by pundits, stirring the sheep into a frenzy, but when asked one-on-one you will find that a majority of Americans are actually Libertarian minded. The political right brands Libertarians as "pro-drug, anti-war lefties". The political left brands Libertarians as "ultra-right-wing extremists bent on taking away government handouts." The brilliance of these labels is that they are both right, and THIS is what the political dividers fear.

We are in a political circus where the change in leadership does nothing to adjust the course of this nation. We are marching steadily to the beat of a drummer taking us into a fiery pit. The GOP and the Dems have done little in the past fifty plus years to correct our course, rather we continue the same game of political wife swapping.

Both political parties, backed by their super-wealthy donors (media and banking elites), have the same agenda: American Imperialism and Absolute Government Control. Even Obama's 'Hope and Change' was no match for the momentum of the true powers of this nation (and the world). His continuation and escalation of foreign wars was a direct continuation of the Bush foreign policy of Nation Building and preemptive warfare, which was the direct continuation of Clinton's foreign policy of Nation Building and World Policing, which was a direct continuation of Bush Sr's foreign policy of Nation Building and World Policing, which was a direct continuation of Reagan's foreign policy of foreign interventionism and World Policing against the Soviets, which was a continuation of Carter's much weaker but still present foreign policy of foreign interventionism and World Policing, which was a direct continuation of Ford's foreign policy... You get the point? Since the dawn of this nation the US has been involved in foreign wars and colonialism. At first it was "Manifest Destiny" that drove the Americans westward, causing mass devastation to a population of natives already settled in the land. After the continental empire was complete, the US became heavily involved in the far east in the later half of the 19th century, directly influencing the events building up to the two World Wars. Post WWII the US military industrial complex was so grand that even Gen. and President Eisenhower warned the US about in his farewell address in 1961. Most recently, over the last ten years, the US population has seen a drastic erosion of the basic civil liberties and a perversion of power by the ruling elite - both parties blaming the other, but neither doing anything to actually stop it. Economically and Socially, both parties are power-hungry leviathans with no real interest in healing the nation or taking up the cause of liberty. They are the status-quo.

Ron Paul said it best, "We do need change in this country - but not something new, something that already existed." What he means is that the cause of Libertarianism is not one of fundamental changes in America, rather a return to liberties that were defined at our founding.

The powers that be, the political parties, fear the idea of Libertarianism because the government has grown "too large to fail".

For the GOP, any Libertarian talk of reducing the size of the US overseas presence, ending foreign wars, and putting an end to Nation Building is seen as a threat to the NeoConservative movement that has become the GOP. Drastically cutting spending, ending power grabs and the Patriot Act... all seen as 'threats to national security' by the GOP security/war hawks. How can we ever be safe if the government doesn't regulate and police our every move? This is the GOP. These are the things they do not want to give up.

For the Democrats, any Libertarian talk of reducing government handouts, eliminating unconstitutional departments at the Federal level, and scaling back government intervention into private business and affairs is seen as a threat to the Socialist/Populist movement that has become the Democratic Party. Cutting trillions in spending, phasing out the hand-outs, and returning responsibility to the individual is seen as a threat to the "New Deal Society" aimed at providing a safety net and retirement check for every US citizen (and now world citizen, it appears). How can we ever survive if the government is not there to feed and clothe us? These are the Democrats. These are the things they do not want to give up.

And so they dance their little dances, make their backroom deals, and at every turn each multimillionaire in power becomes a little richer and a little more power hungry. They live by their own set of rules and governances whilst we are subject to their dominion. They are two sides of the same turd... and you all know the old idiom about polishing a turd.

And so they fear the idea that we may have to repay our debts. They fear the concept of increased liberty and personal responsibility. They spread fear and lies of chaos without their "protection" or their "safety net".

They are afraid of letting go of their power. And so they fear the people standing up for the cause of liberty.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

What Would a Paul Presidency Look Like?

Ron Paul earned a solid 22% third place victory in Iowa on January 3rd, but the headlines went directly to a Santorum surge that has arguably been a "no-show" one week later in New Hampshire, where Paul is finishing 7% better than his polling average. Paul finished a very strong second tonight in the Granite State, but already the headlines are reading like a Huntsman/Romney head-to-head heat. Huntsman, of course, is finishing about 22% behind Romney and about 8% behind Ron Paul. And yet the media black-out continues. In fact, when watching the results on FoxNews, any mention of Ron Paul was met with "who will not be the nominee". Romney has had an array of "Not Romney" contenders, but no one has consistently finished stronger than Paul, and no one has the organization and momentum that Paul has after the first two contests. Arguably, after Iowa and New Hampshire it is clear that the true contender to take on Romney is and has been Ron Paul.

Ron Paul polls favorably against Obama in a head-to-head contest. Paul has the youth and Libertarian votes locked up. Paul is a true anti-war candidate, which would make Obama the war-candidate, locking up leftist anti-war support in a general election. Paul is the one candidate who speaks across the spectrum. He fits into no political mold. He is the true Libertarian. In a time when the electorate are so fed up with the status-quo, Ron Paul is the most dangerous man running for the American Presidency - because he will annihilate the status-quo.

Assuming a Paul victory in November, what would America look like on January 21, 2013 and for the first 100 days of his presidency? What about beyond?

Moments after being sworn into office, Ron Paul would issue an executive order repealing the Patriot Act. He would follow that immediately with starting to roll out his Plan to Restore America, his $1 Trillion budget cut, by ordering the systematic closure of several of the Executive Departments of the Federal Government. The restructure of the government would be done in such a way that State Governments and Private Business would be required to immediately step up to take the rolls of those efforts necessary enough to survive the transition - that is right - the free market will eliminate the waste. Within weeks, several US military bases overseas will be targeted for closure as part of a first wave, followed quickly by other waves of foreign base closures. Energy prices would dive, as Paul's America First energy initiative would stop the export of US energy, aiming the US onto a track of self sufficiency, thus putting an end to our dependency on foreign oil, and the need for defense of Middle Eastern oil.

The military would be strengthened by consolidating our currently overstretched resources. The closure of foreign bases and the immediate end to decades long unconstitutional regional wars would free up resources to focus on American infrastructure and defense. The military industrial complex would be slowed to a grinding halt as US involvement in missions like Tomahawk Bombing Libya and Drone attacking civilians in Pakistan would immediately cease. Our global mission would truly go from one of aggression to humanitarianism. Where governments ask us to leave, we would respectfully exit and allow them to handle their own affairs. We would cease to be the police, and once again lead by a strong example of civility and liberty.

The Native Tribes would be cut loose from the racist policies of the Dept. of the Interior, as it would be eliminated. In accordance with Article 1 section 6, treaties made with the native Tribes would finally be upheld, and the Supreme Court ruling of 1982 regarding the Lakotah Sioux would have a chance to be realized. The US would have to face the issue of Reservations and Native land once and for all.

The US monetary system would be transitioned back under the control of the Dept. of the Treasury, thus ending the privately owned National Banking System known as the Federal Reserve. The US dollars would become real money, and our debt would be painfully real - eliminating the annoying ability of Congress to pay off debt with borrowing fake fiat money. The US would experience deflation over time, and the value of the US Dollar (not the Federal Reserve Note) would increase on the strength of our growing economy.

We would see the US debt being paid down. We would see the end to banker-owned Congresses and the era of Bail-outs. In fact, I'm almost willing to bet that Paul goes after the companies who took taxpayer monies with the expectation of collecting those debts and returning the monies. We would see the tax system completely revamped, eliminating loopholes and reducing overall taxes. We would see a bare-boned Federal Government and a rise in the importance of state and regional governments.

A Paul Presidency would be dangerous to the status-quo, which is why paul is feared amongst those in power. It would be a transition toward a smaller federal government and lower regulation of personal affairs (like taking off your shoes to board an airplane). It would be a return to Constitutional sanity... to checks and balances.

It would be the best chance America has to survive another hundred years. It would be the best chance we have to remove the burden of debt from our future generations. It would be an era of a quieter and more competitive America, a renewed era of American Exceptionalism... one of American peace and prosperity... one where America returns as the shiny city on the hill for all the right reasons... one where we are followed out of respect, not followed out of fear.

Am I being overly optimistic? Sure. As a realist I understand that there would be push back from war-hawks in Congress, lobbyists, big labor, etc. The system that has grown too large to fail would fight so very hard to keep the pork barrel full, even if this fat hog was eating the citizens out of house and home.

So the honest answer is that there would be struggle. There would be news stories of doom and gloom as the fat cats began getting isolated and eliminated. There would be a period of struggle and strife as we shake off the dirt and get to work on truly restoring our country. There would be work, transition, and a whole lot of personal responsibility - a broom in every hand to clean up this country!

We just may, through all of this, find ourselves the leaders of the next great generation of Americans.

Of course, this is all only a possibility if Ron Paul is given the fair shake he deserves as a true front runner and presidential contender. A Ron Paul America... can you imagine?

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

False Flags and the "Cause" for War with Iran

It took me 1.25 seconds to see through the smoke and mirrors of the news headline of the day: Iran has been tied to a broken plot to launch a terror attack against the United States. The report states that Iran was linked with an attempt to detonate bombs to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the US, and attack the Israeli embassy in D.C.

The United States has a history of using false flags as a psychological tool to coax the general population into a war frenzy... remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction argument for war with Iraq, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident? The US has been looking for a reason to take offensive action against Iran. News stories like this, the "would have/could have" busted terror plots, etc... they are merely adding to the public mind-set that "We are at war with Iran. We have always been at war with Iran."

The purpose behind this report? Here are my theories:

1. A slumping president heading into an election. A fresh war sends the "don't change horses mid-stream" message. Very effective for presidential elections.
2. Eric Holder is under fire for the Fast and Furious situation. Diversion, diversion, diversion.
3. Justification for continued government infractions into Civil Liberties... afterall, if we can't show success the people will grow restless and start taking away some of our Patriot Act powers.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Why Rick Perry Scares the Hell out of Me

The United States, as a nation, is in total ruin. We have a federal government that is not only morbidly obese but corrupt beyond measure and so completely impotent to address any real problems that they simply continue to compound. At the Executive level we have Barry Obama, who has been the main player in crippling this nation beyond repair. We have a legislative branch so deeply out of touch that they cannot comprehend the calamity that is truly underway (not to mention they are seeking a pay raise!) And we have a Judicial branch that is infected with political ideologues and party cronies. The state of this union is not good. There are fundamental failures and loopholes at the highest level that, left immediately unfixed, will irreversibly damage what is left to salvage from this Union of States. To fix these problems at the federal level requires vision, leadership, and sound principles. More importantly the nominee to face off with Obama must be capable. It can be argued that Obama had the three traits listed above, but his general ineptitude is what put this nation full speed ahead into a field of icebergs.

Enter the 2012 GOP Presidential Contenders, and focusing on arguably the top 5 candidates (or predicted candidates): Perry, Romney, Paul, Bachmann, Palin. Of those five names, four have declared candidacy. Of those four candidates, three are basing their core support on the religious right. Of those three, two have either strongly endorsed extremely leftist candidates or passed extremely liberal state legislation regarding healthcare.

Rick Perry, more than all the others combined, scares the hell out of me. As a Republican, but more importantly as an American, I am very afraid of the potential for a Perry presidency. Perry is the Pat Robertson of 2012. Perry was propelled into the spotlight with his 'prayer for rain', and is of the general belief that the world is in the apocalyptic end times. Setting aside his controversial anti-liberty stance on forced HPV vaccinations in Texas, tax increases, or his questionable relations to extreme liberals over the years, Rick Perry is the American Ahmadinejad. Perry has even states that the US will be "guided by Christian leaders following Christian values." Which Christian values are going to guide this nation? The same values that guided Europe into the Inquisition? The same values that led to the slaughter of the Mayan and Aztecs? The same values that lead some to believe that everyone but them is doomed to an eternity in hell? What variation of Christianity will this nation bend to? This is exactly why Religion has a place in man's heart, but it does not belong in politics. That Rick Perry believes we are in the end times, and as a dutiful Christian he will choose God over country, could one not deduce that he would use the full force of the military to bring about the Messiah? The same logic used by Ahmadinejad in Iran.

I will not and cannot support Rick Perry in the Primary or General election. I have always been skeptical of leaders who rely on religion as their running mate. The solution to America's problems are not solved by Perry's brand of politics, for the same reason that Pat Robertson's lunacy continues to solve nothing. Religion has no place in political discourse, other than to state that one man's belief or understanding of God should not be forcefully put upon another man. Any time that it is elevated beyond this I am not only skeptical, but I am terrified of the outcome.