The Death of the Libertarian Party

This article was originally posted in americanchronicle.com on May 27th, 2008

Over the Memorial Day weekend the Libertarian Party picked a candidate to run for president. In doing so, it managed to rid itself of any significance it had ever had. The presidential candidate it picked was a conservative named Bob Barr, a former Republican whose voting record on issues of personal freedom is horrendous. His running mate, one Mr. Wayne Allen Root, is an even worse choice when it comes to one who believes in the principles of liberty and non initiation of force. Of all the candidates running, the Libertarian Party managed to pick perhaps the least libertarian of all the candidates, and they managed to do so at a time when the American people are just starting to understand the true meaning of freedom and liberty and are starting to yearn for people of honesty and principle to lead them once again. Now it seems the Libertarian Party has sold itself out to a couple of power lusting politicians in the hopes of gaining a few new members and some more money. It has now taken a sharp right turn and disenfranchised all the honest, hard working people who made the party one embracing freedom for a few dollars more.

Now admittedly my involvement with the Libertarian Party is quite limited, but my interest in the party spans many years. Back in the mid eighties I was introduced to the Libertarian Party and the principles of liberty by a neighbor of mine. At first I thought their ideas were too radical, but then I began to realize that forcing people to conform to your beliefs as government has a tendency to do is not only wrong, it’s anti-American. I began to understand that this nation was set up in an effort to protect the principles of libertarianism, the principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, non-intervention, and non-initiation of force, so that these principles could grow and flourish. I realized that instead a sort of stealthy collectivism had been creeping into our society for decades, a “my side’s right and your side’s wrong” mentality had pervaded our culture and pitted one group against another. Libertarianism bridged gaps on both sides with its uncompromising philosophies of right and wrong. At that time the Libertarian Party encompassed and embraced those principles and fielded political candidates that did the same. They gave the voter someone and something he could vote for rather than someone he could vote against or something considered the lesser of two evils.

As the independent voter I have always been I give myself greater latitude to vote not for a candidate based on party loyalties and platforms, but one who has proven themselves to be honest and principled and who cares for the people they represent instead of the corporate entities and special interests that woo them with campaign contributions. It is of vital importance to me that a candidate understand that the United States Constitution recognizes individual rights and puts great emphasis on the state not infringing upon those rights, it does not recognize group rights and indeed our founding fathers seemed to realize that the superseding of group rights over individual rights would lead to a very dangerous tyranny, the tyranny of the majority. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats ever seemed to get that right, as they always wanted to tread on someone’s rights in one way or another. I would often look to the Libertarian Party to present me with a candidate I could vote for.

In the 1998 Illinois gubernatorial race that changed. As an Illinoisan I had the choice between the criminal George Ryan and the socialist Glenn Poshard, neither of which I wanted to vote for, or the Libertarian candidate. I had my mind made up long before the election who I was going to vote for, but just a few weeks before the election, if memory serves me, the Libertarian Party decided to pull its candidate for governor and endorsed Poshard. I was angry. As I recall, I actually took the time to write a letter to the party expressing my anger. I felt they had abandoned me and left me no one to vote for. I ended up voting for Lawrence Redmond, the Reform Party candidate who I knew little about, but I absolutely refused to vote for other of the two major party candidates who I knew were unprincipled. At that point the Libertarian Party was on life support for me, as I realized they had compromised their principles in an effort to play politics and gain power rather than remaining significant by maintaining its hold as the party that honored the principles that made this nation great.

During the 2000 presidential elections the Libertarian Party nominated Harry Browne and in 2004 they nominated Michael Badnarik. Both these men were principled admirable candidates who I voted for. Their candidacies made it possible for me to forgive the Libertarian Party for their earlier faux pas in Illinois. But now they have selected a ticket I cannot possibly support and I don’t see how any principled libertarian could. By doing so they have cast aside their own principles, the philosophies that gave them any significance whatsoever, in favor of accepting more unprincipled people into their fold in a lustful bid to gain more money and power. They have torn the heart out of their party, and nothing survives long without a heart.

The Libertarians could have nominated the likes of Mary Ruwart or Steve Kubby or any of a number of other candidates who embody the spirit of freedom better than Bob Barr or Wayne Allen Root. Bob Barr abandoned his own party rather than trying to change it from the inside as he should have, what makes anyone think he won’t abandon the Libertarian Party if things don’t go his way? The freedom movement has now lost a powerful ally. It would have been nice if there had been a true libertarian to vote for alongside of Republican candidate Ron Paul to give us a choice between the greater of two goods. Instead, it looks like the way things are shaping up for the 2008 presidential election we’re going to have to pick between the lesser of three evils, not just two. It looks like freedom lovers are going to have to go it on their own for now, but we always have and we remain resilient. We know better than anyone that in order to remain free one must fend for oneself. To me, at least, the Libertarian Party is dead. May it rest in peace.

The Presumptive Republican Nominee and That Other Guy.

This article was originally published in americanchronicle.com on May 28th, 2008

I’ve noticed lately that the media has taken to calling John McCain the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. It’s a strange sort of twist considering that a couple months ago they seemed so certain that McCain was the Republican presidential nominee. It wasn’t so long ago that the media was crowing that all other Republican candidates had dropped out. Yet today we suddenly hear again and again that McCain is the presumptive nominee. Why the change of heart? Why is the language suddenly so blatantly changed? Why do we need to “presume” McCain is the nominee when supposedly no one else is running? Perhaps it is time for the media to stop presuming and to start reporting on the reality of the situation.

There is another guy running to become the Republican nominee for president. The mass media seems almost frightened to speak his name. It’s like, to them, the man is Voldemort. His name must not be spoken for fear of what might happen. And yet why be so frightened of a name? Why not report on this mystery candidate who makes it necessary for them to presume McCain to be the Republican candidate for president rather than know it as a certainty?

Perhaps we can glean an answer by looking at the way the mass media reports on the Democrats who are still running for president. I think it would be fair to say that Barack Obama could be called the presumptive Democrat Party nominee. He has nearly enough delegates to take the primary. Instead, they keep harping on the battle between him and Hillary Clinton. They praise her for her tenacity or chastise her for splitting the party. They report that Hillary made a gaff when she spoke about this or that someone Barack Obama knows is spouting hateful remarks. They speak about nothing of any substance. The issues have a tendency to be put into the background. Mostly they report on personality traits. They dwell on Obama’s “flowery rhetoric” or Clinton’s extensive experience, none of which matters as we march in lock step toward bigger government, socialism and a complete loss of freedom.

It seems to me that Hillary and Obama more or less want to implement the same policies. They are both in favor of socialized medicine. They both want to take the power of medical decisions out of your hands and put it in the hands of the state. They both want to regulate the decisions doctors can make on your behalf. This seems to be their main issue. Neither one seems to have real solutions to the financial crisis we are undergoing. They both seem to want to raise taxes, albeit only on the rich. They both are trying to buy the votes of the poor by promising to increase the welfare state and institute government sanctioned wealth redistribution schemes. Both seem to think that government solutions are the only solutions and that we common folk would be unable to straighten things out on our own and so they don’t want to give us the chance.

Both Democrats are supported by corporate lobbyists and special interests. That is where most of their money in the form of campaign contributions comes from. It seems to me that when one has to depend on someone for their political survival, one has a tendency to cater to that someone. The mass media reports on Obama’s commercialized claim that he represents change as if that’s fact. In his speeches he praises himself as a bringer of change and unification. Yet the only changes he advocates are those that are contrary to the principles of freedom and liberty that made our nation great and prosperous. The only unification he offers is that of thoughtless, virulent personality worship that could lead to the persecution of those who would disagree with his programs.

John McCain really isn’t too different from Hillary and Obama. Issue for issue Mr. McCain almost seems as much a Democrat as either of the two presidential candidates still running for that party. The only issue on which he really differs much is the war issue. On that issue, Mr. McCain has chosen the losing side. The American public has grown weary of spending our children’s lives and our nation’s treasure on a regrettable war that seems to have only benefited those with political clout. Combine that with his admitted lack of knowledge in economics and you have a recipe for disaster for the Republican Party in November.

Once again with McCain it seems the mass media is reporting more on his personality traits than on anything of any real substance. The bulk of his campaign contributions come mainly from special interest groups and corporate backers just like his rivals in the Democrat Party. Some of these same entities have major investments in the mass media. It seems as if the powers that be don’t want any serious discussion of real solutions to our nation’s problems taking place where the majority of the public has easiest access to them. It appears that they wish the presidential elections to be a popularity contest between two corporate bought and paid for candidates rather than a platform where ideologies can be discussed and ideas for how to better the circumstances of all Americans can be presented. And so they have picked McCain to be the presidential representative from the Republican Party and they continue to hide another Republican who is still in the race by refusing to even mention his name.

Who is this other candidate? Who is this man who causes McCain to be referred to as the presumptive Republican nominee? Who is this man whose ideas have proven in the past to be the path to prosperity? Who is this man who dares to speak of freedom and personal responsibility rather than of government regulations and entitlements? Who is this man of principle who has never given up on the idea of smaller federal government? Who is this candidate who wishes to do away with the income tax? Who is this candidate who wishes to give money back to the people by doing away with the Federal Reserve and thus the hidden inflation tax, or at least bring sensibility beck to our monetary system by allowing competing currencies to exist? In case you haven’t guessed, this man is Dr. Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas who never withdrew from the Republican Party’s presidential nomination process. His popularity continues to grow despite the mass media’s attempts to marginalize and ignore him. His popularity continues to grow despite that the media does not report he is a war hero, or a polished orator, or a politician with a great many years of experience. His popularity continues to grow even though the media continuously has painted him as an unelectable candidate. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps there is more to Ron Paul than meets the eye. Or perhaps it’s his ideas that are popular. Perhaps the people of this country are growing tired of the same old same old and want to try something different for a change, something that hasn’t been tried in this country for decades. Or, as Dr. Ron Paul would say, perhaps it’s because freedom is popular. The time has come for the people of this nation to start electing people of substance to lead instead of personalities. The time has come for the people of this nation to start looking seriously at that other guy, the one the media does not want you to notice.

Gay Marriage, Socialism and Freedom

This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on May 18th, 2008

Recently California’s Supreme Court ruled that gay people could marry each other. Personally, I don’t see what the big deal is. Why do you need to ask permission from the government to live with someone in a manner you both see fit? I lived with the same woman for nineteen years without asking permission from the government, or from anyone else but her for that matter. We raised five children together, without the permission of the authorities. We even had *gasp* sex together without permission from the government control freaks. When we broke up it was quite amicable and once again we involved no government agencies and therefore avoided handing our power over to others. My situation is proof that two reasonable people can live together as a couple for many, many years and then split up without government involvement.

Just for the record, I couldn’t care less about gay marriage. To me it is a non-issue. If two men or two women want to shack up together, share expenses, hold and kiss each other and snuggle together, have sex with each other, and share the burdens and joys of day to day life together, that’s their business and nobody else’s. Even if they want to raise children together it shouldn’t matter to anyone else so long as they provide a loving, caring home. What difference does that make to anyone else? They are not hurting others. They are not forcing others to bend to their wills. They are not destroying or stealing someone else’s private property. There is no crime taking place and what goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults should only concern those who are engaging in the activities. If two people, gay or otherwise, want to contract with each other in terms of living arrangements, that is up to them. If they want to do so with God or some other supernatural entity as their witness, that is up to them and their church. Government has no business getting involved in marriages or in people’s private lives in general.

I don’t believe all this hype about gay marriage ruining family values. People have been gay for millennia. Many gay people have said they were born that way and I’ve no reason to disbelieve them. The thought of kissing a man, of falling in love with him deeply and passionately as I would a woman, disgusts me. I can’t come to grips with the concept in my head. You see, I was born a heterosexual. I remember thinking about pretty girls in that manner when I was very young, long before I reached puberty. You could never have “taught” me to be gay. I helped keep my family together and raised my children because of the person I am, not because of my sexuality. I don’t see why the same couldn’t be true for someone who’s gay. No, it’s not gay marriage or gay anything that’s ruining family values in America. If anything, it’s government involvement in the institution of marriage and the politicians’ lust for control and power over people’s private lives that is.

I considered myself married for nineteen years. I was faithful to my wife and did everything a husband would be expected to do. I did so without a “license” from the state. I suppose I’m lucky I never got caught by the authorities, else I might have gotten a ticket for being married without a license. You might think I’m being sarcastic about that last statement. You might think the government would never ticket anyone for living with another without a license, but you never know what kind of silliness these legislators might come up with next. You never know what kind of laws they might come up with, what kind of fees and fines they might force upon an unsuspecting public just to keep their ship of state afloat.

It seems fitting that Massachusetts and California, two of the most socialist states in the Union, should be the first two to recognize gay marriage. That’s what socialism is about, control. They want you to have no choice in what you do, in either your private or business life. They want to make sure they get their cut no matter what the business is, where it takes place, or how the money is exchanged. Licensing is just another way for them to make money and they’ll happily grant one to anyone willing to jump through their hoops and pay their fees. And they hold a monopoly on granting licenses, so they can refuse to grant licenses to anyone they want for any reason they want. In any case, I never needed permission from the state to conduct my personal affairs. I needed no one to tell me who I could cohabitate or have children with. I just did what nature has meant for people to do since the dawn of time. That’s what free people do.

I always figured if anyone knew about tyranny, gay people did. I figured that if anyone had any idea of what freedom truly meant, it would be gay people, for they’ve had to endure social ostracism and the tyranny of the majority for thousands of years. Why they would suddenly start begging the state to give them permission to enter into personal agreements together is beyond me. Why they would cry to the state to “recognize” their unions instead of just living their lives as they see fit confounds me. If it’s so they can get their piece of the socialist pie and receive money that’s been stolen from others than they are just accessories to a crime and guilty of helping to give extortionists legitimacy. They are actually helping to perpetuate the same tyranny that has been oppressing them for ages. If you act like a slave, you will be treated like one. If you act like a child asking a parent for permission, then the government will happily act like the parent.

It’s time for all of us, gay or straight, Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, or Native peoples, male or female, to start acting like free individuals. Only then will we be treated like free individuals. Only then will government remove their fingers from our private lives and remove the mandates they have set before us. We need the government out of the marriage business. If you want licensing, then have churches, private doctors or psychiatrists handle them, not the cold, faceless bureaucracy that has a monopoly on it right now. Let the marketplace determine the demand for such services. Of course, free people will soon begin to understand that they need no one’s permission to live freely and so demand for such services might soon disappear. It’s no big deal. After all, people were engaging in sexual relationships long before the first government formed and will continue to engage in such relationships long after the last government folds.

Ron “Speed Racer” Paul

This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on May 18th, 2008

When I was a child, my friends and I used to rush home from school to watch the next installment of the cartoon “Speed Racer.” It was my favorite cartoon. For whatever reason, I was always anxious to see how Speed would get out of the trouble he was in at the end of the last episode and what new problems awaited him. I remember these as happy times. I was spending time with my friends. After the program, we would often go outside and run around like kids do, but for that half hour we were totally engrossed with Speed Racer’s world. This is why I was both excited and apprehensive when I found out Hollywood was making a movie about Speed Racer. I was excited because of the childhood memories I had that I hoped the movie would live up to. I was apprehensive because I know Hollywood can often times take such childhood memories and create huge disappointments.

I’m about to discuss the plot of the movie “Speed Racer” and give away the ending, so if you plan on seeing it and you don’t wish to know these things yet, I suggest you stop reading now.

I took my kids to see the movie “Speed Racer” last weekend. I thought it was very well done. My kids, aged sixteen and fourteen, also liked it, telling me as we walked out of the theater that it was much better than they thought it was going to be. Of course, I guess they thought it was going to be some kind of hokey, lame, cartoonish movie with no substance. Admittedly, it could have been so, just some action movie about some race car driver trying to win races just for the glory of it. Surprisingly, it was the plot and depth of character which made this movie such a gem. I could relate to the principles the characters were trying to adhere to and the temptation presented to get them to forsake their principles.

As a child, speed falls in love with the sport of racing because his family is so involved with the sport. He sees it as an honorable competition where certain rules of conduct are adhered to and certain principles maintained. He grows up to become a talented racer, like his brother was. As such, a manufacturer of automobile parts tries to recruit him to his team. Having a winning racing team is good for business. Speed refuses explaining that he prefers to stay independent. It becomes obvious that he believes that racing is a sport where fair play still prevails. It is at this point he discovers that the sport of racing is phony, that a system was set up where all winners for years had been determined before the race was run. Speed returns home depressed and dejected, feeling helpless.

The rest of the movie details how Speed Racer battles the evil liars, cheaters and scum that have infiltrated the racing industry. He does this in a principled manner using only tricks that are defensive in nature and counteract the offensive, aggressive cheats the dirtier racers use. During the course of this movie, he even exposes the cheaters for all the world to see. He shows the world that it isn’t only winning that’s important, but that integrity, fairness and honesty are as important.

In the end, Speed Racer wins despite the odds stacked against him. He does so with an independent spirit and without compromising his principles. The audience cheers as the underdog takes the trophy. It leaves the viewer with a good feeling and believing that a man of principle, no matter how naive he may seem, can still come out on top without selling himself out. Perhaps this isn’t the easiest way to make it in today’s world, but it’s still quite possibly the best if at the end of the day you want to go to bed feeling good about yourself.

This movie reminded me of Ron Paul and his candidacy. The establishment seems to have done everything in their power to keep Ron Paul from winning. They have marginalized him to the best of their ability and still he continues to hang in and refuses to quit no matter the odds against him. There are a couple of obvious differences between Ron Paul and Speed Racer, however. Of course there is the fact that Speed Racer was destined to win his races because that’s how the writers wrote the script. Those who are writing the script in the presidential race did not plan on having Dr. Paul stick around for so long. They wanted their guy to have sealed the victory by now. They are now scrambling to rewrite the rules they have previously lived by to further assure their man’s ultimate victory. Those who are writing the script for the presidential race are the cheaters and they want the man who has sold himself out to the powers that be to win. In the movie Speed Racer, the media covering the races he was in were fair and impartial. They helped Speed Racer expose the corruption and cheating. In the presidential race, the media is on the side of those in power and seek to stifle and minimize any exposure of corruption and cheating that may surface. The odds are most certainly stacked against Ron Paul.

Americans certainly seem to love an underdog when it comes to the movies. They applaud and appreciate it when someone like Speed Racer beats the odds and wins. If only it could be like that in the presidential race. Here is a true to life underdog they can rally around. If only Americans would appreciate more the man of principle, integrity, honesty and honor. If only they would embrace the man who has proven himself to be the champion of the Constitution and a true advocate of smaller government. His supporters have done an excellent job of following his example, but they need support also. Perhaps there is a way something can be done to at least restore the integrity of the Republican Party, but even that seems unlikely. Still, it would be nice to see Ron Paul accomplish more than just becoming an also ran. It would be nice to see an underdog actually win something in real life, just like in the movies. If such a thing is to be accomplished, then his supporters must not give up. They must maintain that fighting spirit and remain faithful to the cause of freedom. Hopefully, there are still some surprises in store for us before this race comes to an end.

We Won the War, Time to Get Our People Home Revisited

This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on May 17th, 2008

I heard John McCain say that if he was elected president he felt the war in Iraq could be won by the time his first term ended. He also made the claim that most of our troops would be out of Iraq by then. This from the man who not too long ago crowed that he felt fine about keeping our troops in Iraq for a hundred years. This from a man who was heard singing about bombing Iran. Now we’re supposed to believe that Mr. McCain has had a change of heart? I believe that John McCain has shown his support for war and would use any power he could to keep our troops in harms way for just as long as he felt he could get away with it. It seems to me that Mr. McCain is obsessed with winning. Perhaps I’m wrong, but if I’m not than perhaps Mr. McCain would show his concern for our soldiers and bring them home if he had a change in perception.

I’m tired of hearing that if we left Iraq now we’d lose the war in Iraq. We already won the war in Iraq. It’s just a matter of the politicians admitting it. We wiped out the Iraqi army in next to no time. We removed Saddam Hussein from power. He was tried for crimes against humanity and hung. His children were killed in a firefight. We found no weapons of mass destruction. Our people have been there for over five years and there’s still no sign of these alleged weapons. Democracy reigns in Iraq and elections have been held. All the goals that were given as reasons for going into Iraq have been met. The war is over. We were victorious. It’s now just a matter of getting our people home.

Whatever is going on in Iraq it is certainly not a war. I’d call it an occupation. Throughout history, occupations have always gone badly. Certainly empires who have occupied foreign lands for long periods of time have reveled in glory, but it has always been bloody glory. It seems the occupiers in such situations take an almost perverse, sadistic joy in subjugating a once proud, independent people. The occupiers enjoy an orgy of barbaric acts that would be unacceptable in civilized society and remain unaccountable for such actions. For the occupied, the brutality is unmerciful, and in many cases unforgivable. History as taught in schools, recorded for the most part by the victors, has a tendency to gloss over the brutal nature of such occupations and glorify the achievements and the “good” that has come out of empires. Yet even from ancient times stories of the evil that empires create against humanity lead out and remain in the human consciousness.

Take the Roman Empire, for instance. It’s the empire most of us are familiar with. For hundreds of years they occupied most of the lands surrounding the Mediterranean Sea and much of Western Europe. History teaches us that the Romans brought “civilization” to the multitudes. They created advances in roads, water supply, sanitation, record keeping, architecture, etc. But they were also vicious oppressors to those they ruled over. And who’s to say that these advances in technology wouldn’t have come along anyway, perhaps through trade and cooperation, if the Roman people had been more peaceful and friendly and less lustful for conquest and power over others? Who’s to say how many geniuses from other cultures the Romans killed that may have given mankind even better technologies? We will never know. Things happened as they did and we can never be certain of the what ifs. We can only know for certain what history records, and that is that the Roman Empire eventually fell. Despite its power, despite its dominion over so many, despite its technological superiority, despite its good intentions and its vastness, it fell to the hordes that it sought to subjugate and lost control of all the lands it sought to occupy. Such is the fate of all brutal empires.

Yet John McCain promises us he will continue a policy that has failed historically and will continue to fail. He promises to have only most American troops out of Iraq by the end of his first term, not all, and he promises to win something that is not winnable without the grotesque and morally objectionable genocide of the Iraqi people. This occupation has already lasted far too long. I ask, why is it that sixty three years ago we could win a war against two far more powerful enemies in less than four years? Why should it take so much longer, another four years at least if Mr. McCain is elected, to bring our troops home from a small desert country with such a weaker enemy? The answer could be that in World War II we were fighting against the occupiers. We had the peoples of occupied countries on our side, treating us as liberators. That was how it was to be for Iraq also, or so we were told. And perhaps in the beginning some in Iraq did treat the Americans as liberators, but it is different now. We have over stayed our welcome and it is time we left and let the Iraqis deal with their own affairs.

We won the Iraq war. It was a glorious, unequivocal victory. We squandered what could have been another great moment in United States history by attempting a heavy handed, oppressive occupation. At the end of World War II we were able to occupy our enemies’ lands because they accepted their defeat and were able to accept the hand of friendship that America offered to help them rebuild their countries and their lives. It is obvious the people of Iraq do not accept our presence in their country. They want us out. They will continue to kill our troops so long as we continue to maintain an occupation force inside their borders. They will continue to try to drive out the American troops even if it takes hundreds of years. We should leave willingly. We no longer need to play the role of occupier. We should let them build their future on their own. Hopefully as the years pass and we continue to trade and practice fair commerce with the people of Iraq, we will become fast friends and great trade partners. After all, America has a great history of diplomacy also. We should heed Thomas Jefferson’s advice and practice free trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

The True Cost of Debt

This article was originally posted at americanchronicle.com on May 12th, 2008

've heard that in 1913, before the Federal Reserve was created, eighty percent of homes owned by Americans were owned outright. Could you imagine that? Eighty percent of the families living in single family homes didn't have to pay a mortgage. They had all that extra money to spend on other things. They could save for retirement. They could afford to buy upgrades. They didn't have to worry about losing their homes if the economy turned sour. They were more or less assured that their families would at the very least always have a roof over their heads. They didn't have to worry about some bank or mortgage company foreclosing on their home and taking everything they'd worked so hard to build, leaving them destitute. I imagine that helped make the people back then quite independent and self reliant. I heard that today only three percent of families living in single family homes own their home outright. Quite a difference a century makes.

Now, I don't usually go throwing numbers around in the articles I write. There is good reason for this. First off, I really don't have the time to go double checking on all these statistics and making sure I'm being accurate. Second off, numbers and statistics often times lie, or at the very least they mislead. There is almost always some kind of agenda behind statistics, some individual or group or political entity trying to get you to believe something in order to gain money or power. Statistics can be manipulated in order to make a situation sound better or worse than it really is, and often times they are so manipulated and convoluted that it becomes hard to know what to believe. I find this particular statistic very interesting, however, not because of its accuracy or whether it's been manipulated, but because of what it says about how far we as a society have fallen. It shows just how much we've become dependent upon huge, cold, uncaring bureaucracies, and how we've lost our independent spirit that at one time defined what it meant to be American.

Even if the eighty percent and three percent figures aren't entirely accurate, even if its more like seventy five percent and five percent, or as low as sixty percent and as high as ten percent, it is still not hard to believe that a huge percentage more people owned their own homes before the creation of the Federal Reserve than do now. Back then, money was based on gold and silver, as provided for in the constitution, and there was hardly any inflation. One didn't have to worry so much about the value of the dollar falling, so it was much easier to save for a big purchase. Many people built their own homes, starting them out small and adding on as they needed. They didn't have to worry about the extra costs foisted upon them by government regulations. They made their own decisions about safety. Today, all you have to do is look around you. No one I know owns their house outright. Even my friends and family who I consider well to do don't own their homes. The banks more or less own just about everything, and they just let you live on their properties. To make matters worse, governments can come along and take any land they want for any reason. Even the Supreme Court has ruled recently that a local government could take a property and then give it over to a private entity, proving once again that they are not concerned with American ideals such as individual rights, property rights or the pursuit of happiness. Remember, the Supreme Court of the United States of America once ruled that a human being could be the property of another human being. The Supreme Court has shown historically that it cannot or will not protect individuals from the power of certain elite individuals, institutions or groups, let alone the power of the state.

So it is that in today's world we are hearing about the housing crisis. People took out loans based on possible future earnings and rosy economic forecasts that simply did not pan out. And yet wasn't this situation inevitable? At some point in time we have to face up to our responsibilities and pay the piper, so to speak. There are no guarantees in this world and none that growth could be maintained permanently. Like a balloon inflating, sooner or later the air has to be let out or the balloon will pop. So it is with the economy. The inevitable cannot be stopped, only postponed.

Yet this does not have to be how the world works. Consider that for millennia economies operated just fine without the help of central banks. People did business with each other in exchange for precious metals or other goods or services. When business is done in this manner, no one is indebted to anyone else. It is only when one borrows and another lends that one man can lay claim to another's labor or possessions. In modern society, going into default can lead to loss of possessions. But there's more to it than that. Our money, printed at will and based on debt, is losing value, but those who lend it out, those who print it, have nothing to worry about. It is only those on the bottom of the pyramid, those who support the system on their backs, who will pay the most.

Consider for a moment that in today's world, it would be nearly impossible for the vast majority of people to buy a house without a bank loan. And since there is little possibility of saving enough to buy a house outright and renting nets one nothing, taking out a loan seems to be the best alternative. As many of you may know, the true price of a house goes up quite a bit when a loan is used. By the time a thirty year mortgage has been paid off, the original selling price of the house has been covered three times or more. Even if the house was to have tripled in value when you sell it, you will only be making back the money you put into it, and that's not including any upgrades, repairs or additions you may have made to it. Where has all that money gone? It's gone from those at the base of the pyramid to those at the top.

And yet there's still more than just money involved here. The true cost of debt could very well be our real wealth. As more people lose their homes, more wealth is taken out of the hands of the general populace and put into the hands of the banking elite. As more people lose their wealth, less people will be able to afford to spend on the goods and services offered by others in this country. As this happens, businesses begin to shut down, more people lose their jobs, more people lose their wealth, and a downward spiral continues. Those at the top of the pyramid will likely horde the wealth and keep it out of circulation. In desperation, the populace will likely turn to the government for help, perhaps demanding that government force the elite to relinquish their hold on real wealth. The government, only too happy to help, will in this way make the populace dependent upon their ability to use force. This is where the true cost of debt becomes evident. Debt could well cost the masses their independence. For a few crusts of bread, many may sell out their freedoms.

I hope this situation can be avoided. I hope that those experts who claim we are well on the way to such a scenario are wrong, as I'm sure they do to. Yet I can't help thinking that all this could have been avoided by simply adhering to the dictates of the constitution and the advice of some of the founding fathers. Even if we do end up in such a hopeless situation as some suggest we will, we can help ease suffering by accepting currencies other than Federal Reserve notes, by accepting any kind of barter another may offer in a voluntary transaction. And even if we do somehow manage to save this floundering economy, even if we do right the ship and bail it out, one could wonder if we will continue to make the same mistakes. Those who can should do their best to become debt free. A debt free society makes for a more independent, wealthier society. And as the future unfolds and we begin to recognize the mistakes made and the fraudulent practices that have been allowed, we need to demand sounder currency based on something other than debt. In this way we can move forward with an eye to keeping our economy stable rather than trying to force it to grow. When this happens, perhaps debt will not be so costly.

Ron Paul Is Not Done Yet

This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on April 28th, 2008

Reports of Ron Paul´s early demise were greatly exaggerated. Above all else, he still survives. He is still in the running for the presidential nomination. Like a baseball team going into the bottom of the ninth down ten to nothing, there is still hope, though perhaps not as much hope as we would like. But then, anyone who has supported Ron Paul should have always known it would be an uphill battle. They should have realized that it would take more than unprecedented contribution numbers, unrivaled grassroots support and innovative campaigning to win. Ron Paul was and is up against more than just his fellow Republican candidates, he is up against an established elite that has built up a system of dual political hegemony and has created rules and laws to insure the failure of any challenge to that hegemony. He´s up against banking and other corporate interests, a military industrial complex. They certainly would not want the masses to be honestly informed. They wouldn´t want the message of freedom to get out. That would weaken their grip on the control they enjoy. Unfortunately, the vast majority of our fellow citizens remain fooled by the left right paradigm created to provide the illusion of choice, or at the very least they remain silent and complicit. The powers that be do not want a Ron Paul presidency. It is no wonder all the grassroots efforts undertaken so far seem so ineffective, and yet Ron Paul remains in the race, however tenuously.

This in and of itself is an amazing achievement, particularly considering that from the beginning of his candidacy we have been told by the mass media that Ron Paul is "unelectable." I wonder why the talking heads working for corporate television and political pundits writing for establishment newspapers and magazines would say such a thing. Just what is it that makes a candidate unelectable?

Could it be that Ron Paul is unelectable because he is too honest? I know I have often told people who have suggested that I run for office that I am too honest to be involved in politics. I guess that is because I am too honest to participate in election fraud or other such chicanery. If I knew what was going on I would report it regardless of who was engaging in such activities. I would not simply tell people that I didn´t want to know what was going on so I could maintain plausible deniability. I also would not take money from special interest groups who would expect me to vote for some law just to make them money or protect their business. Because of this, I´m fairly certain my name would not get out to the general public and not enough people would know my positions on issues to elect me. Goodness knows we can´t have an honest man in the highest political office, not in this country. The fact that someone as honest as Ron Paul has made it to the position he has is another great accomplishment and a feather in Ron Paul´s hat.

Could it be that it´s because Ron Paul is too principled? He does, after all, take seriously his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. His voting record proves this. In the debates he took part in, he often times referred to the constitution when talking about his positions on issues. He speaks of constitutional money. He speaks of the constitutional power of the congress (not the president) to declare war. He speaks of the unconstitutional nature or the "war on drugs." He references the Constitution so much that one would think he actually read it and understands it. How very unusual for a politician in his position. It would be nice to hear other politicians talk about the constitution with such reverence. It would be nice to see them voting against unconstitutional laws. It would be nice if more of our congressmen took seriously their oaths of office. But to be that principled just must not be what the citizens of the United States of America want to see in a president. It must be a fatal flaw that makes him unelectable.

Could it be that Ron Paul knows too much about the monetary system in this country? He often times speaks of the economy like he knows what he´s talking about. Perhaps that´s because he´s actually taken the time to study and get to know economics. He understands why we´re experiencing the economic travails we´ve been experiencing lately. He understands how the economy´s been manipulated and how to stop such manipulations. Heaven knows we wouldn´t want a leader who understands economics. Heaven knows we shouldn´t have competition in banking or sound constitutional money. Heaven knows we don´t want anyone in the highest office who would stand up to the Federal Reserve and has a history of doing so. Such a brave, intelligent individual is most certainly unelectable. The American people hardly deserve such a leader.

Could it be that Ron Paul has far too much integrity? He´s been married to the same woman for fifty years. He does not flip-flop on any issue, choosing instead to always vote no on any legislation that is not covered by the constitutional mandate. One knows where Ron Paul stands on a given issue and he will not change. He always sides with the idea of freedom. He always champions the constitution. Judging from his voting history, one knows he will keep any campaign promise he makes, if indeed he would make any promises. Of course, everyone knows that only flip-floppers and those who make promises they can´t possibly keep are the only electable candidates. Everyone knows that only candidates surrounded by controversy and scandal in their professional and personal lives are electable. Why would the people want otherwise?

Could it be that Ron Paul is unelectable because he´s against war? He´s not just against the Iraq war, he´s against all war. He wants to bring all our troops home and stop policing the world and maintaining a costly empire. He abides by the axiom that we should stay out of foreign entanglements, that we should have free trade with all and entangling alliances with none as Thomas Jefferson advised. Such an humanitarian stance could most certainly make one unelectable. After all, why would we want a world where the American military is not responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians in their own countries? Why would we want a world where civilizations much older than our own are allowed to run their own business? Why would we want to peacefully coexist with others? And most of all, why would we want to save all that money and spend it here at home on infrastructure and other public necessities? Anyone taking such a silly stance is certainly unelectable, even when considering that a majority of voters are against the Iraq war and would like to see our soldiers brought home.

Ron Paul is unelectable because the establishment says he is. If one believes that he is unelectable because of any of the reasons I gave above, then that person either believes the brainwashing talking heads and pundits in the mass media or perhaps they benefit from one of the situations that are antithetical to freedom and liberty. He is unelectable because many people fail to completely understand politics and vote strictly for the politician that the party tells them to vote for regardless of where that person stands on the issues. He is unelectable because somehow he has been painted as crazy or an extremist for believing in the principles that made this country great. When did believing in freedom become extreme? When did speaking about and supporting principles of liberty become a symptom of insanity? The collectivists have so thoroughly penetrated the government and brainwashed the public that they have forgotten the ideas of individual freedom and personal responsibility.

Ron Paul is unelectable because many people don´t want freedom. They want to be taken care of by the government. They want to be told what to do. They want to be told how to live their lives, what to put in their bodies, and they want the security blanket and protection that mommy government offers them. They are afraid to take responsibility for their own lives. They are frightened at the prospect of thinking for themselves and making their own decisions. They believe that somehow civil society will break down should the free market be allowed to operate without regulation. And these people want to use government to force me and other freedom lovers to give up the same cherished liberties that they have given up. After all, these are the people who have voted for establishment politicians who demand total control of everyone, everywhere, all the time.

Yet Ron Paul is likely one of the most electable candidates that this corrupted, unfair two party system has given us in a long time. With a little time, a little explaining, and a little thought many people would agree with the stances that Ron Paul has taken. If the Republican party were to present him to the public as their candidate, they would bring such a variety of new people into their fold that it would overwhelm the opposition. Democrats, third party people and folks who have given up hope on the political process and no longer vote would flock to the party once the message of freedom was given to them and hope for their future was restored to them. The Republican party may yet realize that they have a golden opportunity here to restore the republic. But this, of course, would mean that the establishment would have to relinquish much of its control to individuals, something they are most likely not willing to do. It is for this reason that some may think Ron Paul is crazy for hanging in there. Perhaps he is, but maybe he´s crazy like a fox.