In Today's article I want to come from the standpoint that the reader is already on-board with the priorities of abolishing the Federal Reserve private banking monopoly on the issuing of currency, a power which the U.S. Congress unconstitutionally delegated to them in 1913 and which they exercise by charging interest and thereby creating debt on each "Federal Reserve Note" (a.k.a. "dollar") which they issue.
(For arguments and explanations on this position, see the two documentaries below which both cover them estensively)
Once we accept the premise that private, monopoly control of our currency should not be happening and should be changed, we are left the question of exactly what the "solution" should be. These are essentially the two schools of thought WITHIN the anti-Fed, sound money movement.
The Money Masters - Covers the whole monetary history in exquisite and fascinating detail, opposes the Gold standard because it makes the currency easy to manipulate and takes the position that a government issued, debt-free currency is the best solution with no fractional reserve banking.
Money, Banking and the Fed Covers some of the same history and information and likewise opposes fractional reserve banking and inflation, but argues for the Gold Standard as a prevention on government inflation.
The best book arguing for a pure Gold Standard is Rothbard's "What Has Government Done to Our Money, available here for free: http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=92
The bottom line is: Commodity backed currency = INHERENT prevention of inflation.
Fiat, government currency = Lack of inflation depends upon wise use by Congress of their delegated Constitutional power, and the People holding them to account for it.
The point of having a commodity currency is you INHERENTLY limit the ability of government to inflate the currency, rather than leaving it in their trust. It is true there have been periods in history where fiat currencies were government issued, and not printed by private cartels with debt attached (like the Fed does now) which is a much better situation than now, but those currencies still tended to be inflated during periods of crisis or war.
I come down somewhere in the middle of these two camps myself. I do fear that a Gold standard leaves our money supply open for manipulation, and that has clearly happened in the past with gold as well as it happens currently with metals markeds. Right now ACTUAL prices of gold and silver are much higher than index prices, and dealers are just flat selling out of both right now. How can the price not be going up if you can't even get it? Gold and silver are good investments as a store of wealth, but as a backing for a currency since those metals can be manipulated now it means that the currency could be manipulated if attached to it.
On the other hand, I don't trust Congress to responsibly issue money, and I don't trust the American people to hold them accountable to doing so right now.
Perhaps at this point the best solution would be opening the market to both forms of competing currency by abolishing the Fed, and then restoring to Congress their Constitutional power to print money and regulate it. The competition with private currencies and bank deposit notes, or gold-backed currencies would be a natural incentive against inflation and the requirement to pay taxes in the government currency would give it a base of value in society. Congress could also Constitutionally mandate that the currency must be accepted for payment of public and private debts, so long as they did not outlaw competing private currencies.
This would also mean if Gold and/or Silver began to be manipulated and made scarce by the international banks who currently manipulate the metals markets, then competing currencies backed by more plentiful commodities could fill the demand.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Intervention, a recipe for disaster.
The best way to ensure that a problem will persist is to empower your government to solve it.
The evidence demonstration the accuracy of the above statement is so manifestly abundant through all levels of government that it hardly needs supporting. Whether it be government programs to alleviate poverty like those contained in Johnson’s Great Society package, local efforts to generate ticket revenues by shortening yellow traffic lights even at the cost of higher accident rates, or foreign government interventions to rid us of whatever today’s new Hitler happens to be, the act of setting government about the business of dealing with a crisis is sure to give us more of that crisis - especially in the long term.
Robert Higgs, in his book “Crisis and Leviathan” examines in extensive detail and with great insight the way that crisis has driven and concentrated government power in American History.
It seems obvious that government has no way of effectively addressing such crises, which can arise from a variety of factors such as changes in supply and demand, shifting of economic opportunity to new industries as technology advances etc. The more complex our world becomes, and the more changeable economic factors become, the less realistic is the prospect that government management can adequately address a crisis in ways that account for these factors.
The real question is; what has happened to those who have been teaching us this principle for so many years? I grew up listening to conservative talk radio. Rush Limbaugh taught me that big-government solutions do not work and they destroy liberty. His popularity has done much to elect and empower Republicans and yet very little to actually help come to pass the principles that he advocates. This is because his rhetoric is constantly fixed on the Democrats whom we already know rely implicitly on big-government solutions. He fails, if not refuses, to direct the gaze of his audience towards the big-government solution mentality within the Republican Party which would keep Republican politicians accountable to the promises that elected them. Furthermore, Limbaugh and his ilk on talk radio, after years of criticizing big government domestic programs, have somehow accepted that when empowered to go abroad and solve international crises that same government takes upon it a magical air of competency and righteousness. This they maintain despite all of the evidence to the contrary supplied by almost a century of Democrats’ schemes of foreign intervention.
All too often we find that the crisis government is being called upon to address today is a direct result of some botched scheme of “relief” and interference to address a prior crisis. This is nowhere made more abundantly clear in examining the history of the United States government’s involvement in foreign policy, and particularly the actions of the C.I.A. – an agency ostensibly created in 1947 as a “clearing house” for intelligence but which has never operated within its legal mandates from the outset.
- They ousted Mossadeq in Iran and installed the Shah
- They installed Saddam Hussein
- They installed Musharraf in Pakistan and built up the notorious ISI in Pakistan. - The ISI, the CIA’s creation, in turn installed the Taliban in Afghanistan.
- They funded and trained the network of Islamic radicals that became known as “Al Qaeda” (A CIA term for the group).
Given this very cursory rundown of the CIA’s resume, we should all be laughing at any politician who wants to keep the CIA in place instead of laughing at one who dares suggest we dissolve it like Ron Paul.
Paul’s “radical” ideology is merely the consistent application of principles that the Republican Party accepts but only within certain spheres of application. If a principle is true, it can be usefully applied to any situation and can only be ignored at great risk.
Perhaps then, this is what Fox News was afraid of when they chose to remove Ron Paul’s answer to the moderator’s question of “Do you have any electability sir” from the re-airing of a recent debate.
When you see a politician being ridiculed and scorned as “extreme” you can be sure that those pointing the finger have much hypocrisy and inconsistency in their own ideology and actions that are at risk of being exposed.
The evidence demonstration the accuracy of the above statement is so manifestly abundant through all levels of government that it hardly needs supporting. Whether it be government programs to alleviate poverty like those contained in Johnson’s Great Society package, local efforts to generate ticket revenues by shortening yellow traffic lights even at the cost of higher accident rates, or foreign government interventions to rid us of whatever today’s new Hitler happens to be, the act of setting government about the business of dealing with a crisis is sure to give us more of that crisis - especially in the long term.
Robert Higgs, in his book “Crisis and Leviathan” examines in extensive detail and with great insight the way that crisis has driven and concentrated government power in American History.
It seems obvious that government has no way of effectively addressing such crises, which can arise from a variety of factors such as changes in supply and demand, shifting of economic opportunity to new industries as technology advances etc. The more complex our world becomes, and the more changeable economic factors become, the less realistic is the prospect that government management can adequately address a crisis in ways that account for these factors.
The real question is; what has happened to those who have been teaching us this principle for so many years? I grew up listening to conservative talk radio. Rush Limbaugh taught me that big-government solutions do not work and they destroy liberty. His popularity has done much to elect and empower Republicans and yet very little to actually help come to pass the principles that he advocates. This is because his rhetoric is constantly fixed on the Democrats whom we already know rely implicitly on big-government solutions. He fails, if not refuses, to direct the gaze of his audience towards the big-government solution mentality within the Republican Party which would keep Republican politicians accountable to the promises that elected them. Furthermore, Limbaugh and his ilk on talk radio, after years of criticizing big government domestic programs, have somehow accepted that when empowered to go abroad and solve international crises that same government takes upon it a magical air of competency and righteousness. This they maintain despite all of the evidence to the contrary supplied by almost a century of Democrats’ schemes of foreign intervention.
All too often we find that the crisis government is being called upon to address today is a direct result of some botched scheme of “relief” and interference to address a prior crisis. This is nowhere made more abundantly clear in examining the history of the United States government’s involvement in foreign policy, and particularly the actions of the C.I.A. – an agency ostensibly created in 1947 as a “clearing house” for intelligence but which has never operated within its legal mandates from the outset.
- They ousted Mossadeq in Iran and installed the Shah
- They installed Saddam Hussein
- They installed Musharraf in Pakistan and built up the notorious ISI in Pakistan. - The ISI, the CIA’s creation, in turn installed the Taliban in Afghanistan.
- They funded and trained the network of Islamic radicals that became known as “Al Qaeda” (A CIA term for the group).
Given this very cursory rundown of the CIA’s resume, we should all be laughing at any politician who wants to keep the CIA in place instead of laughing at one who dares suggest we dissolve it like Ron Paul.
Paul’s “radical” ideology is merely the consistent application of principles that the Republican Party accepts but only within certain spheres of application. If a principle is true, it can be usefully applied to any situation and can only be ignored at great risk.
Perhaps then, this is what Fox News was afraid of when they chose to remove Ron Paul’s answer to the moderator’s question of “Do you have any electability sir” from the re-airing of a recent debate.
When you see a politician being ridiculed and scorned as “extreme” you can be sure that those pointing the finger have much hypocrisy and inconsistency in their own ideology and actions that are at risk of being exposed.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Does the "9/11 Truth Movement" deserve its name?
MySpace user "& Eye" posted a very important blog entry regarding the dedication to actual truth in the "9/11 truth movement" and the way that clinging to false disinformation can discredit the movement in general.
http://blog.myspace.com/andyg666
In it he examines some of the commonly perpetuated, but now discredited information regarding Mohammed Atta. Please take the time to read it, This is really important, people. We can't claim to be about "9/11 Truth", unless we really are about 9/11 truth. That means that when some evidence that 9/11 truthers point to turns out to be false we need to acknowledge it despite whatever benefit it may give the case we are trying to make. There is voluminous evidence against the official story, we only hurt ourselves by hanging on to the falsehoods.
Case in point: The "Fat Bin Laden" video.
It IS Bin Laden, and the appearance is easily explained and the legitimacy of the person in the film is easily demonstrated by simply adjusting for aspect ratio. Follow this link for a good analysis: http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id372.html
Of course, many 9/11 truthers were all so determined to destroy the credibility of this video since it contained Bin Laden's confession, that most have missed the even more telling and important implications of the video which is that:
The video filming was phase 1 of a 2-part sting operation by US intelligence and an unnamed "intermidiary" intelligence agency (most likely Pakistan's ISI or Saudi Arabia) on September 26, 2001. The second phase, or the capture of Bin Laden was called off due to "bad weather" and he was allowed to escape with his top leadership. This means that the US had Bin Laden in our sights BEFORE invading Afghanistan, and allowed him to remain at large. Perhaps so the Afghanistan operation could go forward?
http://www.counterpunch.org/osseiran08212006.html
The common talking point about the "Fat Bin Laden" video has served as a perfect example of distractive disinformation, because by talking about the legitimacy of the confession tape it puts 9/11 truth advocates in the position of:
1) Appearing to "side with" Bin Laden, by accepting his implicit honesty in his earlier statements denying involvement
2) Advocating Bin Laden's non-involvement as a pillar of 9/11 Truth.
Niether of these positions is either wise or necessary to demonstrate the fallaciousness of the official narrative, or to assert complicity by rogue elements within US intelligence agencies. And yet because of people "grabbing on" to an effective talking point, 9/11 truth has become associated with these positions making the attacks from the O'Reilly's and Bonaducci's of "harboring the enemy" that much more credible.
If the "9/11 Truth movement" is to live up to its label, it must manifest no built-in disposition to deny involvement by Islamic radicals, no built-in disposition to blame narrow cadres of idealogues, no affinity for specuative assertions that go beyond available evidence, but only an affinity for truth itself.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Vote for Ron in these polls for the RNC Debate!
http://www.2008horserace.com/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18963731/
http://news.aol.com/elections/presid...05161309990001
http://www.topicify.com/cnnrepublican/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/deb...rd/gop.debate/
http://vote.com/
http://www.freecentury.com/2007/06/05/who-won-the-cnn-debate-on-june-5/
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/debates/060507_gop_debate
http://www.flagforward.com/
Ron Paul at the Republican Debate - (6/5/2007)
Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson June 6th, 2007
Ron Paul on KHOU
Ron Paul Arrives at the Daily Show June 4th, 2007
Ron Paul on the Daily Show - (6/4/2007)
Ron Paul supporters rally at NH Debates
Recent News:
Ron Paul Selected as the Underdog of the Election
Analysis Shows Debate Was Rigged
Ron Paul's One Man Band In Granite State
Support Ron Paul's Health Freedom Protection Act
Can an Internet sensation of a politican become president?
GOP Debate - Ron Paul Quieter, Eloquent
Campaign-approved Flyer, right click and "save picture as". Print and distribute!
Old Media Scrambles to Silence New Candidate
CNN censorship eyed as web site breaks down under traffic supportive of Republican Ron Paul.
PR-Inside.com
June 6, 2007
Fed up of Media Manipulation from CNN? TAKE ACTION!
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form.sound.off.html
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Sean Hannity is more outraged by Ron Paul's foreign policy than by the internment of US Citizens.
Spencer Morgan http://utahconstitutionalist.blogspot.com
I have observed these two distinct types of "disagreement" manifested by Sean Hannity in TV interveiws:
"DISAGREEMENT" TYPE ONE:
Sean Hannity interviews Dr. Ron Paul after the GOP debate and discusses his assertion that our interventionist foreign policy playes a role in inciting hatred and contributing to terrorism...Notice Hannity's demeanor, and total lack of courtesy to even allow Congressman Paul to answer the questions he asked. This is Sean Hannity feeling very threatened, and in a situation of heartfelt (though not rational) disagreement:
"DISAGREEMENT" TYPE TWO:
Here Sean Hannity hosts Michelle Malkin, regarding her book "The Case for Internment" which asserts that the internment of Japanese AMERICAN CITIZENS was the correct course of action during WWII and makes the case for internment of Arab/muslim population, a position which Hannity very cordially and claims to oppose.
Notice the calm demeanor and full uninterrupted time for Malkin to explain herself. Notice and lack of passionate and rude badgering interjections. Hannity says "I just have a hard time with this." before slobbering all over Mankin about her appearance on Rush Limbaugh's show. Sure you have a hard time with it...
By comparing the different demanors in these debates it would be very easy to conclude that Mr. Hannity does not really oppose the idea of internment of U.S. citizens. It would also be easy to conclude that Mr. Hannity has two different modes of disagreement. One which is entirely FAKE in which he is courteous and restrained, and another where his true opinions are obvious through is lack of courtesy and restraint.
What factors determine which type of "disagreement" mode you will encounter with Sean Hannity? Is it how much corporate power you represent, or whether you are in the pocket of the people at Fox News? Or is it whether you represent a viewpoint, as Dr. Paul does by advocating the position of the Founding Fathers, that threatens the Neo-Conservative hold on the Republican party?
Whatever the answer, we can not avoid one startling conclusion. That is, that the assertion that American citizens should be interred unconstituitonally against their will is far less outrageous to Sean Hannity than the assertion that foreign policy plays a role in inciting terrorism... an assertion acknowledged widely by informed experts.
I have observed these two distinct types of "disagreement" manifested by Sean Hannity in TV interveiws:
"DISAGREEMENT" TYPE ONE:
Sean Hannity interviews Dr. Ron Paul after the GOP debate and discusses his assertion that our interventionist foreign policy playes a role in inciting hatred and contributing to terrorism...Notice Hannity's demeanor, and total lack of courtesy to even allow Congressman Paul to answer the questions he asked. This is Sean Hannity feeling very threatened, and in a situation of heartfelt (though not rational) disagreement:
"DISAGREEMENT" TYPE TWO:
Here Sean Hannity hosts Michelle Malkin, regarding her book "The Case for Internment" which asserts that the internment of Japanese AMERICAN CITIZENS was the correct course of action during WWII and makes the case for internment of Arab/muslim population, a position which Hannity very cordially and claims to oppose.
Notice the calm demeanor and full uninterrupted time for Malkin to explain herself. Notice and lack of passionate and rude badgering interjections. Hannity says "I just have a hard time with this." before slobbering all over Mankin about her appearance on Rush Limbaugh's show. Sure you have a hard time with it...
By comparing the different demanors in these debates it would be very easy to conclude that Mr. Hannity does not really oppose the idea of internment of U.S. citizens. It would also be easy to conclude that Mr. Hannity has two different modes of disagreement. One which is entirely FAKE in which he is courteous and restrained, and another where his true opinions are obvious through is lack of courtesy and restraint.
What factors determine which type of "disagreement" mode you will encounter with Sean Hannity? Is it how much corporate power you represent, or whether you are in the pocket of the people at Fox News? Or is it whether you represent a viewpoint, as Dr. Paul does by advocating the position of the Founding Fathers, that threatens the Neo-Conservative hold on the Republican party?
Whatever the answer, we can not avoid one startling conclusion. That is, that the assertion that American citizens should be interred unconstituitonally against their will is far less outrageous to Sean Hannity than the assertion that foreign policy plays a role in inciting terrorism... an assertion acknowledged widely by informed experts.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Media Dodges Rep. Ron Paul's impact in May 3rd G.O.P. debate.
On Thursday night, May 3rd the crowded field of Republican candidates debated on national television (MSNBC). Among these candidates was Republican Ron Paul of Texas. Dr. Paul is a Vietnam Veteran, medical Doctor, and consistently voted against the war in Iraq on Constitutional and sound foreign policy grounds. The video below is edited to inlcude only Dr. Paul's responses.
Full video of the debate with other candidates' responses
The impact of a true Constitutionalist on the Race and the Debate;
Dr. Paul's impact was apparent in the debates as he distinguished himself from the other candidates by strongly opposing the war and calling for withdrawal of troops, advocating limited government and adherence to the Constitution.
At one point in the debate, Dr. Paul contrasted all of the other candidates on a question regarding the propriety of the "National ID card". After both Romney and Giuliani had answered expressing their praise for the national ID card, Dr. Paul spoke vehemently against it as a violation of "everything about a free society".
When Dr. Paul's response was finished, the candidates who responded after him fell all over themselves to agree with his postion. Both Giuliani and Romney clarified their positions in what was either a manifestation of ignorance of an important policy, or outright decpetive maneuvering by saying they wanted ID cards "only for illegals". Of course, the obvious follow-up question that would have been present in anything resembling actual debate is "how do we give ID cards to illegals that by definition don't even come here through a process which can be regulated?". The national ID card, as proposed and opposed by Dr. Paul is for American Citizens and legal residents, not illegals only. In fact illegals, by definition, would be exempt.
This incident was acknowledged in the National Review Online's overview of the debate by Lisa Schiffren who said;
[Dr. Paul] has always been too principled to be effective. But he is quite intelligent and keeps the field pointed to the true libertarian/conservative north, as he did last night on the issue of national ID cards, which everyone seemed to embrace till he began fulminating, at which point Giuliani and the others “clarified” that the cards were only for aliens.
Unexplained Media Silence
Few mainstream media outlets have acknowledged the huge impact of Dr. Paul on the viewing audience which is readily apparent in the polls after the debates. Some media outlets even went so far as to remove Dr. Paul from the available choices as winner of the debate or declare other candidates to have won the polls despite the clear facts. This has been reported and documented by Alex Wallenwein at Op-Ed News.
Representative Paul won the post-debate polls on the MSNBC web site, CSPAN, and ABC when he was finally included in the options for voting. Is this a manifestation of fear on the part of the mainstream media that Dr. Paul might undercut the Democratic candidate with his strong record having opposed the war? Perhaps is it a manifestation of the influence of the neo-conservative establishment on the media to minimzie Dr. Paul's impact and ensure another moderate neo-conservative candidate.
Whatever the motivation, it is beyond evident at this point that Dr. Paul will not get fair shake in the media and it is also becoming evident that it may not matter. Whether he wins the G.O.P. nomination or not, Dr. Paul will impact the race and may pave the way for a strong run as an independent in lieu of the G.O.P. nomination.
Too Principled to be Effective?
"Too principled to be effective" should be a statement that alarms true conservatives coming from the leading conservative talking-point setter, the National Review. It is the impression of myself, and many who remember, that was Reagan's principles (despite his failure to perform on them, especially domestically) that made him popular with the voters! The G.O.P. would be unwise to ignore that fact.
What Happened to Pragmatism?
Republicans who have favored moderation on key issues have in the past called for a "pragmatic" approach and the necessity of finding "a candidate who can win". In light of those priorities, let's take a hard look at the cold reality of the political situation and why Ron Paul should be considered;
1) The war in Iraq is extremely unpopular and is likely only to become more so before the elections.
2) President Bush has a very low approval rating, and is more likely to be a liabilty by association than an asset in the general election.
3) The Democratic nominee will be very likely to be a member of Congress who voted for the 2002 authorization of force and has offered only token and opportunistic opposition since.
Given these considerations, the G.O.P. would be well-served to nominate a candidate who is on record having opposed the war, and who has a strong track record having opposed the Bush administration. Despite this, his record on every conservative issue will prevent him from alienating the base of the party which could happen if he were opposing the war from a "moderate" viewpoint. If political trends continue, Ron Paul may in fact be the only Republican with a chance to win in the general election.
What is the priority for Republicans?
The deciding question is shaping up to be this: "What priority will have the most impact on the Republicans' desision of their candidate?" Will it be the pragmatic desire to maintain the Oval office, loyalty to the neo-conservative agenda or adherence to conservative principles? Two of the three favor Ron Paul.
This may be the last "thread" of a chance to restore a semblance of Constitutional operation to our government and have a resurgence of the understanding and love of liberty in these United States. If you would like to see Dr. Paul elected, please help us by doing the following;
1) Become active in the Republican Party in support of Dr. Paul, as a delegate if possible.. even if you had left the party in disgust (as I did years ago).
2) Make Dr. Paul's name visible (signs, bumper stickers, etc.) including by visibly letting others know about his VOTE in opposition to the war which is very unpopular now.
3) Call in to conservative talk radio shows to remind fellow conservatives what limited government and the Constitution mean, and ask them to support Dr. Paul. Also, remind them that the war is very unpopular as is President Bush and if the G.O.P. wants to be "pragmatic" they should look seriously at a very conservative candidate with a track record opposing both Bush and the war. Nnational shows make this difficult with screening, but local shows it is very easy to do.
4) Talk to your friends and family about Dr. Paul and about his key positions.
5) Send some of the following links to your whole email address book;
Rep. Ron Paul's answers from the Republican Debate May 3rd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo
Rep. Ron Paul's written weekly reports from Congress, outlining his positions on issues:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
FILM: America: Freedom to Fascism by Aaron Russo. This film features interviews with Dr. Paul and covers in a very basic and riveting way the issues that make Dr. Paul's candidacy so critical right now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsZO6G7dfpI
Full video of the debate with other candidates' responses
The impact of a true Constitutionalist on the Race and the Debate;
Dr. Paul's impact was apparent in the debates as he distinguished himself from the other candidates by strongly opposing the war and calling for withdrawal of troops, advocating limited government and adherence to the Constitution.
At one point in the debate, Dr. Paul contrasted all of the other candidates on a question regarding the propriety of the "National ID card". After both Romney and Giuliani had answered expressing their praise for the national ID card, Dr. Paul spoke vehemently against it as a violation of "everything about a free society".
When Dr. Paul's response was finished, the candidates who responded after him fell all over themselves to agree with his postion. Both Giuliani and Romney clarified their positions in what was either a manifestation of ignorance of an important policy, or outright decpetive maneuvering by saying they wanted ID cards "only for illegals". Of course, the obvious follow-up question that would have been present in anything resembling actual debate is "how do we give ID cards to illegals that by definition don't even come here through a process which can be regulated?". The national ID card, as proposed and opposed by Dr. Paul is for American Citizens and legal residents, not illegals only. In fact illegals, by definition, would be exempt.
This incident was acknowledged in the National Review Online's overview of the debate by Lisa Schiffren who said;
[Dr. Paul] has always been too principled to be effective. But he is quite intelligent and keeps the field pointed to the true libertarian/conservative north, as he did last night on the issue of national ID cards, which everyone seemed to embrace till he began fulminating, at which point Giuliani and the others “clarified” that the cards were only for aliens.
Unexplained Media Silence
Few mainstream media outlets have acknowledged the huge impact of Dr. Paul on the viewing audience which is readily apparent in the polls after the debates. Some media outlets even went so far as to remove Dr. Paul from the available choices as winner of the debate or declare other candidates to have won the polls despite the clear facts. This has been reported and documented by Alex Wallenwein at Op-Ed News.
Representative Paul won the post-debate polls on the MSNBC web site, CSPAN, and ABC when he was finally included in the options for voting. Is this a manifestation of fear on the part of the mainstream media that Dr. Paul might undercut the Democratic candidate with his strong record having opposed the war? Perhaps is it a manifestation of the influence of the neo-conservative establishment on the media to minimzie Dr. Paul's impact and ensure another moderate neo-conservative candidate.
Whatever the motivation, it is beyond evident at this point that Dr. Paul will not get fair shake in the media and it is also becoming evident that it may not matter. Whether he wins the G.O.P. nomination or not, Dr. Paul will impact the race and may pave the way for a strong run as an independent in lieu of the G.O.P. nomination.
Too Principled to be Effective?
"Too principled to be effective" should be a statement that alarms true conservatives coming from the leading conservative talking-point setter, the National Review. It is the impression of myself, and many who remember, that was Reagan's principles (despite his failure to perform on them, especially domestically) that made him popular with the voters! The G.O.P. would be unwise to ignore that fact.
What Happened to Pragmatism?
Republicans who have favored moderation on key issues have in the past called for a "pragmatic" approach and the necessity of finding "a candidate who can win". In light of those priorities, let's take a hard look at the cold reality of the political situation and why Ron Paul should be considered;
1) The war in Iraq is extremely unpopular and is likely only to become more so before the elections.
2) President Bush has a very low approval rating, and is more likely to be a liabilty by association than an asset in the general election.
3) The Democratic nominee will be very likely to be a member of Congress who voted for the 2002 authorization of force and has offered only token and opportunistic opposition since.
Given these considerations, the G.O.P. would be well-served to nominate a candidate who is on record having opposed the war, and who has a strong track record having opposed the Bush administration. Despite this, his record on every conservative issue will prevent him from alienating the base of the party which could happen if he were opposing the war from a "moderate" viewpoint. If political trends continue, Ron Paul may in fact be the only Republican with a chance to win in the general election.
What is the priority for Republicans?
The deciding question is shaping up to be this: "What priority will have the most impact on the Republicans' desision of their candidate?" Will it be the pragmatic desire to maintain the Oval office, loyalty to the neo-conservative agenda or adherence to conservative principles? Two of the three favor Ron Paul.
This may be the last "thread" of a chance to restore a semblance of Constitutional operation to our government and have a resurgence of the understanding and love of liberty in these United States. If you would like to see Dr. Paul elected, please help us by doing the following;
1) Become active in the Republican Party in support of Dr. Paul, as a delegate if possible.. even if you had left the party in disgust (as I did years ago).
2) Make Dr. Paul's name visible (signs, bumper stickers, etc.) including by visibly letting others know about his VOTE in opposition to the war which is very unpopular now.
3) Call in to conservative talk radio shows to remind fellow conservatives what limited government and the Constitution mean, and ask them to support Dr. Paul. Also, remind them that the war is very unpopular as is President Bush and if the G.O.P. wants to be "pragmatic" they should look seriously at a very conservative candidate with a track record opposing both Bush and the war. Nnational shows make this difficult with screening, but local shows it is very easy to do.
4) Talk to your friends and family about Dr. Paul and about his key positions.
5) Send some of the following links to your whole email address book;
Rep. Ron Paul's answers from the Republican Debate May 3rd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo
Rep. Ron Paul's written weekly reports from Congress, outlining his positions on issues:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
FILM: America: Freedom to Fascism by Aaron Russo. This film features interviews with Dr. Paul and covers in a very basic and riveting way the issues that make Dr. Paul's candidacy so critical right now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsZO6G7dfpI
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Security in a Free Society
Spencer Morgan http://utahconstitutionalist.blogspot.com
The Failure of the Current Debate
In the wake of the shooting massacre at Virginia Tech, there is a predictable and understandable response to address firearms policy. There is, however, a major flaw in the framing of the debate that threatens to prevent us from effectively addressing the problems at hand.
Freedom and Security are presumed, by almost all involved, to be opposing and incompatible interests between which an ever elusive "balance" must be found.
This characterization and unchallenged presumption also rests upon the other unchallenged presumption that government institutions are the best or only means of providing for security. This second presumption, though deeply held by most Americans, is counter-intuitive to the facts of what happened at Virginia Tech on Monday.
Problems with the Left's Approach.
Those on the left will ignore the fact that the Virginia Tech campus had a no-firearms policy in place, and that a 2006 bill before the Virginia Legislature which would have overturned the policy was opposed by the school's administration and failed to pass. They will also ignore the fact that, because of the recent shooting incident in August, Virginia Tech had virtually every increase in funding and awareness typically sought for AFTER such tragedies as being necessary to improve security, including a new expensive alert system.
Instead they will, as many already are, use the recent tragedy to point out the need for more widespread gun control preventing availability saying the localized policies can't work. We may even see many Republicans taking a "moderate" stance that calls merely for existing policies to be put under Federal control in the wake of the tragedy.
The reason that these individuals will react this way, in spite of the manifest failure of gun control policy at Virginia Tech is because they have an "a priori" (pre-existing) bias against gun ownership. They also place a strong implicit trust in centralized state power. Therefore, security must be addressed in a way that reduces gun ownership and in a way that increases the centralization of regulatory control...even if it amounts to an inevitably vain effort to completely eliminate firearms.
Contradictions in the Republican Position
The founders of the United States' system of government did not share this presumption at all. In fact, they viewed the natural right of self-defense through bearing arms as an essential prerequisite to security.
This sentiment was effectively expressed by Alexander Hamilton, who is considered the most ardent supporter of strong centralized government among the founders when he wrote;
It is manifestly clear from the many writings on the subject that the framers of the government of these United States intended to uphold an unalienable general right to firearms ownership, and that they did so in the interest of security, not at the expense thereof.
It is also a dire mistake, and out of harmony with Constitutional intent, to interpret the 2nd amendment as only applicable to the extent necessary for service in a militia capacity. This would be a mistake since the state militias at the time, and even many state "reserve militias" up do this day, were to be drawn from the general population who would be required to be well-trained and provide their own arms.
Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas M. Cooley articulated the intent of the 2nd amendment very clearly when he wrote;
Before one dismisses this formula for security as unrealistic or too "antiquated" for a modern society, one would be well served to actually look at the history of modern industrialized nations in the 20th century.
According to Rummel in his book "Death by Government", as many as 169 million people were killed by their own governments in the 20th century. This does not include deaths in wars and civil wars among military combatants, but mass murder of civilians and innocent victims with either the approval or planning of governments. The intentional killings of their own subjects and citizens or people under their political control.
The most egregious offenders, namely the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China and Nazi Germany all had provisions banning firearms which enabled such mass killing to take place.
Could the founders have been on to something when they viewed widespread firearms ownership as necessary to security?
The history of the 20th century would certainly indicate so. It definitely does not lend any credence to the presumption that powerful centralized governments are either capable of or disposed to protect their citizens.
As we see tragedies like Virginia Tech and Columbine unfold, we should not blame the 2nd amendment for their occurrence. First and foremost, we should blame the responsible individual and if we feel the need to address policies, let's do so honestly and abandon our pathelogical intent and presumptions that would prevent us from really doing what is best for security.
Let's acknowledge that the policies which were already enacted in the name of security may very well have facilitated the killings by providing a monopoly of deadly force and a fundamentally disadvantaged group of potential victims.
If we need to make changes, especially when presented with manifest failures of gun control policy, let us make sure that we consider changes that take us back in the direction the founders were so certain would make us more safe.
The Failure of the Current Debate
In the wake of the shooting massacre at Virginia Tech, there is a predictable and understandable response to address firearms policy. There is, however, a major flaw in the framing of the debate that threatens to prevent us from effectively addressing the problems at hand.
Freedom and Security are presumed, by almost all involved, to be opposing and incompatible interests between which an ever elusive "balance" must be found.
This characterization and unchallenged presumption also rests upon the other unchallenged presumption that government institutions are the best or only means of providing for security. This second presumption, though deeply held by most Americans, is counter-intuitive to the facts of what happened at Virginia Tech on Monday.
Problems with the Left's Approach.
Those on the left will ignore the fact that the Virginia Tech campus had a no-firearms policy in place, and that a 2006 bill before the Virginia Legislature which would have overturned the policy was opposed by the school's administration and failed to pass. They will also ignore the fact that, because of the recent shooting incident in August, Virginia Tech had virtually every increase in funding and awareness typically sought for AFTER such tragedies as being necessary to improve security, including a new expensive alert system.
Instead they will, as many already are, use the recent tragedy to point out the need for more widespread gun control preventing availability saying the localized policies can't work. We may even see many Republicans taking a "moderate" stance that calls merely for existing policies to be put under Federal control in the wake of the tragedy.
The reason that these individuals will react this way, in spite of the manifest failure of gun control policy at Virginia Tech is because they have an "a priori" (pre-existing) bias against gun ownership. They also place a strong implicit trust in centralized state power. Therefore, security must be addressed in a way that reduces gun ownership and in a way that increases the centralization of regulatory control...even if it amounts to an inevitably vain effort to completely eliminate firearms.
Contradictions in the Republican Position
The Republicans offer no real potential to offer true solutions outside of the accepted presumption that liberty undermines security. First of all, the party's front runner for 2008 is a strong advocate of gun control, and taking a position in support of gun ownership rights would expose this ideological contradiction.
Furthermore, even the most ardent supporters of gun rights in the Republican party risk exposing their total hypocrisy having so thoroughly supported the same underlying justifications in favor of the "war on terror", the Patriot Act and subsequent legislation. All of these called for new limitations on Constitutionally enumerated rights in the interest of security. Having subjected practically every other Constitutional tradition to revision in the name of security, Republicans are now in a poor position to challenge the idea specifically with respect to the 2nd amendment.
Are Security and Liberty Really Incompatible Opposites?The founders of the United States' system of government did not share this presumption at all. In fact, they viewed the natural right of self-defense through bearing arms as an essential prerequisite to security.
This sentiment was effectively expressed by Alexander Hamilton, who is considered the most ardent supporter of strong centralized government among the founders when he wrote;
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Hamilton, The Federalist Papers 184-188James Madison, another author of the Federalist papers and primary author of the Constitution, echoed this sentiment by writing;
"It[The Constitution] preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46He also said;
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country."
It is manifestly clear from the many writings on the subject that the framers of the government of these United States intended to uphold an unalienable general right to firearms ownership, and that they did so in the interest of security, not at the expense thereof.
It is also a dire mistake, and out of harmony with Constitutional intent, to interpret the 2nd amendment as only applicable to the extent necessary for service in a militia capacity. This would be a mistake since the state militias at the time, and even many state "reserve militias" up do this day, were to be drawn from the general population who would be required to be well-trained and provide their own arms.
Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas M. Cooley articulated the intent of the 2nd amendment very clearly when he wrote;
The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under
the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
Before one dismisses this formula for security as unrealistic or too "antiquated" for a modern society, one would be well served to actually look at the history of modern industrialized nations in the 20th century.
According to Rummel in his book "Death by Government", as many as 169 million people were killed by their own governments in the 20th century. This does not include deaths in wars and civil wars among military combatants, but mass murder of civilians and innocent victims with either the approval or planning of governments. The intentional killings of their own subjects and citizens or people under their political control.
The most egregious offenders, namely the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China and Nazi Germany all had provisions banning firearms which enabled such mass killing to take place.
Could the founders have been on to something when they viewed widespread firearms ownership as necessary to security?
The history of the 20th century would certainly indicate so. It definitely does not lend any credence to the presumption that powerful centralized governments are either capable of or disposed to protect their citizens.
As we see tragedies like Virginia Tech and Columbine unfold, we should not blame the 2nd amendment for their occurrence. First and foremost, we should blame the responsible individual and if we feel the need to address policies, let's do so honestly and abandon our pathelogical intent and presumptions that would prevent us from really doing what is best for security.
Let's acknowledge that the policies which were already enacted in the name of security may very well have facilitated the killings by providing a monopoly of deadly force and a fundamentally disadvantaged group of potential victims.
If we need to make changes, especially when presented with manifest failures of gun control policy, let us make sure that we consider changes that take us back in the direction the founders were so certain would make us more safe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
