INTERMEX POWER

2012-01-28T09:55:00.002-07:00

GOP preparing for 1964-style ‘politicide’?

Internecine warring could hand the victory to Obama

By Terry Michael

Illustration by John Camejo for The Washington Times

It’s seven months before their convention in Tampa, a lifetime in today’s five-minute-news-cycle politics. But the split decisions in the first three primaries and the personal attacks in the televised debates beg the question: Are Republicans divided into so many parts they are about to engage in 1964-style “politicide”? As a teenage Democratic political junkie, I watched TV with partisan glee as Goldwaterites booed Nelson Rockefeller at the Cow Palace in San Francisco in 1964. That was two decades before Jeane J. Kirkpatrick labeled those who nominated Walter Mondale “the San Francisco Democrats,” a year when my party, obsessed with identity politics and disconnected from the middle-class center, suffered a defeat as bad as Barry Goldwater‘s.

Fleeced by the Fed

By James A. Bacon

Illustration by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times

The Federal Reserve Board announced plans last Tuesday to keep short-term interest rates at near zero for another three years and said it might embark upon another bond-buying program to drive down long-term interest rates. The stock market rallied and President Obama’s supporters hailed the rising stock market as a sign of his brilliance as a manager of the economy.

His vote for Carter’s Department of Education was an early sign

By Ambassador Gerald P. Carmen

Illustration by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times

Because the Gipper is not here to say, “There you go again!” to Mr. Gingrich, and because the choice of a new president is so critical to the nation today, it falls on us who served with Reagan and are still around to tell America the truth about Mr. Gingrich and his repeated attempts to thwart Reagan’s cornerstone achievement: the defeat of global tyranny in the form of the Soviet Union and the final rejection of communism as a failed experiment.

2012-01-28T09:41:00.003-07:00

Obama’s crony capitalism

Friends of the president are given billions in government largesse

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A worker leaves with a moving box Wednesday at Solyndra in Fremont, Calif. The solar-panel manufacturer, which received a $535 million loan from the U.S. government, has announced layoffs of 1,100 workers and plans to file for bankruptcy. A weak economy and strong overseas competition have proved insurmountable. (Associated Press)

Proposed settlement hides payoff to banks worth hundreds of billions

By Rebel A. Cole

Illustration by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times

On Jan. 23, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun L.S. Donovan met in Chicago with several Democratic state attorneys general (AGs) in an attempt to strong-arm them into signing up for an administration-backed agreement to settle the “robo-signing” scandal. Wall Street would pay what sounds like a large fine ($25 billion), and in exchange, the state AGs would relieve the bankers of all legal liabilities related to the fraudulent mortgage-lending practices that led directly to the 2008 financial meltdown and a 30 percent drop in U.S. home prices.

Capital-gains tax misses the opportunity to spur the economy

By Emily Miller

Illustration: Warren Buffett by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times

Each presidential candidate’s position on investment tax rates is a critical issue. The current rates, set by President George W. Bush, will expire at the end of this year, so whoever sits behind the desk in the Oval Office next January will have the power to stop the capital-gains tax rate from jumping to 20 percent and qualified dividends rising to 39.6 percent.

Panetta cites key intelligence on bin Laden raid. By Robert Burns

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is acknowledging publicly for the first time that a Pakistani doctor provided key information to the U.S. in advance of the successful Navy SEAL assault on Osama bin Laden’s compound last May.

Soaring rhetoric won't fix the economy.

Steven Greenhut |

Now, a return to the American values of fair play and sharedresponsibility will help protect our people and our economy. But itshould also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest inour future.—President Barack Obama, State of the Union, January 24,2012

President Barack Obama’s State of the Unionaddress Tuesday night was the latest reminder that the state ofpolitical discourse in America is shockingly low. I’m not singlingout Obama for special condemnation, given that these addressesalways are a potpourri of banalities, regardless of which presidentis offering them. Yet Tuesday’s address was a vivid reminder of theshoddy thinking so common at the highest level of the federal andstate governments and why we are—in the more precise, but lesslofty words of a former president—in deep doo doo.

2012-01-28T09:22:00.002-07:00

Obama's Bogus Case for Tax Fairness Calling something just does not make it so. Sheldon Richman

In his State of the Union speech Tuesday night President Obama playedthe fairness card in calling for higher taxes on upper-incomepeople. He said:

[W]e need to change our tax code so that people like me, and anawful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share oftaxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make morethan $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent intaxes. [Emphasis added.]

And:

When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fairshare of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’sbecause they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need andthe country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, orsomebody else has to make up the difference. . . . [Emphasisadded.]

Is it unfair to compare the Obama and Reagan economic recoveries? No

By James Pethokoukis

Ronald Reagan inherited a Long Recession. The economy declined 0.3 percent in 1980, grew at a subpar 2.5 percent in 1981, and then plunged 1.9 percent in 1982. The lengthy downturn was really the culmination of more than a decade of bad economic policy. But the Reagan Recovery was stunning. GDP rose 4.5 percent in 1983 and 7.2 percent in 1984. It was Morning in America, and Reagan won reelection by a landslide.

How to Think about Private Equity

By Steve Kaplan

If the overall pattern is so positive—for investors, companies, and even employment—why is private equity so controversial?

Interest in the private equity business has exploded with the intense scrutiny of Mitt Romney’s experience as a private equity investor. Some of the discussion has been confused and confusing. In what follows, I briefly describe how private equity works and what the results have been. When all is said and done, the evidence from empirical research is that private equity funds have delivered strong returns to their investors, improved the operating performance of their companies, and had surprisingly small net effects on employment.

The Problem with Bambi-nomics

By Robert McHenry

On Mitt Romney, Bain Capital, and modern political discourse.

Mitt Romney's difficulty with his history at Bain Capital may be our most nearly perfect example of how ignorance and misunderstanding, willful or otherwise, render our political discourse impotent.
Businesses that do what Bain does are sensitive about the common analogy comparing them to scavenger species in nature. In large part this is owing to how we are trained from childhood to think of nature in terms of postcard vistas, pettable furry things with large eyes, and the romantic notion of some sort of sweetly cooperative community of creatures. We tend not to teach children about vultures, fungi, slime molds, or maggots. More importantly, we do not teach them why such things are every bit as important to the ecology as Bambi. Without them, the world would soon be tree-deep in corpses, large and small, and life would become impossible. With them, the soil is constantly enriched with recycled nutrients, and life continues abundant. But this kind of comparison clearly doesn't help Bain's image very much.

Fixing Student Loans: Let’s Give Colleges Some ‘Skin in the Game’

By Alex J. Pollock

What lessons on student loans can be learned from the searing national misadventure with mortgages?

There are provocative parallels between student loans and the mortgages that created the disastrous housing bubble. In both cases, the government promoted plausible goals— higher education and home ownership—to excess, through the overexpansion of debt to levels beyond the repayment ability of a large percentage of borrowers. In both cases, the government guaranteed much of the credit, putting the ultimate risk of bad debts on taxpayers. In both cases, debt expansion drove the price of the object being financed (colleges and houses) to heights sustainable only if debt could always be increasing. In mortgages, it could not, and the subsequent collapse raises the question: will there be a similar outcome with student loans?

Professor Richard Vedder, considering the question of a student loan bubble, recently concluded that the worst idea ever “was the creation of federally subsidized student loans in the first place.” Can any lessons from the searing national misadventure with mortgages be usefully applied to student loans? I believe so.
A principal lesson from mortgages, nearly universally agreed upon, is that those who create the mortgages should retain a material part of the credit risk. Such “skin in the game” obviously aligns the incentives of the originator of the loan with taxpayer guarantors to control excesses in debt expansion. For mortgages, this “skin in the game” concept was adopted by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. More importantly, its advantages are displayed by one of the highest quality mortgage portfolios that exist today: the Mortgage Partnership Finance (MPF) mortgages of the Federal Home Loan Banks. All of these MPF mortgages have credit risk retained by the originator, with excellent results for their credit performance. This program has been operating for more than 14 years.
Let’s apply this mortgage lesson to student loans.

Colleges are the effective originators, the promoters, and the chief financial beneficiaries of student loans.

Who are the most important parties to have “skin in the game” in student loans? The colleges themselves, of course! They are the effective originators, the promoters, and the chief financial beneficiaries of student loans. It is their rising costs which result in ever more debt and more risk of default for student borrowers and for taxpayers.
The federal student loan programs should simply compel colleges which get proceeds from the programs to maintain a 10 percent first-loss share in the credit performance of the loan. This puts a material risk of excessive and un-repayable debt and of high college costs on those who are promoting the loans. The colleges would stand to take losses on bad loans before the taxpayers, as they should—they would, in financial parlance, be subordinated or “junior” to the taxpayers. A highly desirable improvement in financial structure and incentives!
So, just as for the mortgage lenders, let’s give the colleges some “skin in the game.”
Alex J. Pollock is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He led the creation of the MPF program during the 1990s when President and CEO of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago.

Dining with Vultures: Rent-to-Own, the Feds, and the Housing Sector

By Jay Weiser

Distressed asset buyers are either ruthless or go bust, and government entities have no business co-venturing with them.

Rent is suddenly the rage for solving the housing debt crisis—and vulture capital with it. But the ambivalence conjured up by private equity magician Mitt Romney, who has simultaneously restructured himself into the leading Republican presidential candidate and America's most reviled business leader across the ideological spectrum, suggests that the housing crisis requires free and clear, as-is sales, even if they increase short-term losses. The federal government should exit the real estate business and let vulture investors convert busted planned communities into rentals.

2012-01-27T23:42:00.002-07:00

The New Theories of Moral Sentiments

By DALIBOR ROHAC

London
Deirdre McCloskey certainly leaves an impression. With her robust frame, hoarse voice interspersed with an occasional stammer, and extraordinary charisma, she is anything but your typical economic historian.
On a recent trip to England, she gave a talk at Hartwell House in the heart of Buckinghamshire that felt like a good stand-up comedy show, on par with the better performances of Eddie Izzard or George Carlin. But humor and witticisms aside, the talk revealed her conviction that economists should not shy away from the subjects of love, friendship or virtue.

Posted by David Boaz

The New York Times has an interesting graphic, under the heading “Choice Words,” that shows how differently Ron Paul talks about the role of government from all the other candidates. There’s a complete version here, but I’ve excerpted a section. The Times notes that the graphic depicts “selected words used by President Obama in his State of the Union addresses, and by Republican presidential candidates in their debates, television interviews and major speeches since May.”

So what do we see? Ron Paul talks about deficits and debt more than any other candidate. (President Obama seems to have talked about the deficit most in 2009, when it was all Bush’s fault.) He’s virtually the only candidate who talks about war and troops—no doubt in phrases like “bring the troops home” and “troops in 147 countries.” All those folks who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 to end the war may be wondering where the determined young antiwar senator went; now he doesn’t even talk about America’s wars.

CORRUPTION

Where’s the party?

The long arm of the state

How the Communist Party is trying to expand its influence in the private sector

BEIJING

WHEREAS many urbanites devour Chinese editions of Western magazines like Cosmopolitan, GQ, and Vogue, some officials still peruse weightier titles. In December a dozen Communist Party officials gathered in the eastern city of Hangzhou to celebrate the first anniversary of an alluring journal, Party Construction in Non-State-Owned Enterprises. In its inaugural year, said one of them, the magazine had “struck a beautiful pose”. The journal in question, as its title suggests, is engaging with the tricky issue of how the Communist Party can maintain influence within a growing private sector.

Deaf to deficit warnings

By Richard Rahn

“So what?” is the implicit expression of much of the Washington political class when it comes to spending and taxing. The consequences of Washington’s fiscal irresponsibility are not evident to many in the media and electorate - yet. But the pain will come - and it will hit almost every American. Last week, I explained how government deficits are strangling necessary capital formation. The following describes the impact on job creation and growth, and next week, I will present a way out of the mess.

Blocking the Paths Out of Poverty

By John Stossel

Have you noticed how often government takes sides against the little guy?
Street vending has been a path out of poverty for Americans. And like other such paths (say, driving a taxi), this one is increasingly difficult to navigate. Why? Because entrenched interests don't like competition. So they lobby their powerful friends to erect high hurdles to upstarts. It's an old story.

Now, growing local governments are crushing street vendors.
The city of Atlanta, for example, has turned all street vending over to a monopoly contractor. In feudalist fashion, all existing vendors were told they must work for the monopoly or not vend at all.
"Vendors who used to paying $250 a year for their vending site must now hand over $500 to $1,600 every month for the privilege of working for the monopoly," wrote Bob Ewing in The Freeman. Ewing works for the Institute for Justice, the libertarian public-interest law firm that defends victims of anticompetitive regulation.

Ron Paul Waterville, Maine Town Hall 01/27/12

Why Newt Soared but Could Sour

By David Paul Kuhn

It’s no longer a race between Mitt Romney and Not Romney. Newt Gingrich’s resurgence is rooted in the candidate he is, rather than the candidate he is not.
Gingrich has proven able to win with a broader coalition than Romney. That coalition eviscerated Romney’s double-digit lead in national polls. The GOP race is now a dead heat between the two men. Romney remains the favorite. But Gingrich is a serious contender for the nomination. And it’s a mistake to limit Gingrich’s GOP appeal to what Romney is not.

But Gingrich’s primary vulnerabilities are a layer beneath the surface. Republicans’ attachment to Gingrich remains fickle. Gingrich’s appeal to men is significantly offset by his weaknesses with women (see Insider Advantage polling on Sunday and Wednesday). The GOP electorate is still digesting who Gingrich is and, perhaps more consequentially, is not.
Gingrich’s South Carolina victory was the most impressive thus far. But it was also exaggerated. Outlets, such as Bloomberg News, reported that Republican turnout in South Carolina set a new record. Therefore, some pundits concluded, Gingrich is changing the electorate. But not so fast. Turnout is measured against the number of eligible voters. South Carolina’s turnout was a numerical record but not an actual record -- 17.3 percent in 2012 compared to 19.5 percent in 2000 -- according to data compiled by the authority on turnout Curtis Gans.

A Critique of Representative Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity”

Joshua Lipana

Paul Ryan—U.S. Republican representative for Wisconsin’s First District and current chairman of the House Budget Committee—rose to nationwide prominence in April 2011 when he proposed a long-term budget plan called “The Path to Prosperity.” With overwhelming Republican support, Ryan’s plan passed the House on April 15, 2011.1 The Democrat-controlled Senate, however, voted down Ryan’s plan on May 25, 2011.

Economic Elites Strip Away European Sovereignty

Questioning European leadership, 17 elites set to strip away European autonomy, a charade of misdirection, no new Euros printed as of yet, ECB in bed with The Fed, gold and silver the only true value of currency, Greek exit from Euro inevitable.

by Bob Chapman

Even the middle of the road journalists are beginning to question Europe’s elected and appointed leadership. This past Monday the plan for the euro zone was laid out for a final capitulation to world government. The financial crisis has been handled from behind the scenes by the Fed, so that Germany’s Chancellor Merkel and France’s President can concentrate on more important matters, namely the final federalization of the euro zone to be followed by the entrapment of the remainder of the European Union.

by Bob Adelmann

Global elites — many of the 2,500 of them billionaires — are spending a few days in Davos, Switzerland, attending the World Economic Forum (WEF), a group founded in 1971 “committed to improving the state of the world.” The state of the world doesn’t appear too rosy. The recent downgrades of major economies, the clamor over perceived income inequality, the crisis in the eurozone, and other concerns are weighing heavily on the participants. Vikas Oberoi, chairman of India’s second-largest real estate developer, observed, “Many who will be in Davos are the people being blamed for economic inequalities. I hope it’s not just about glamour and people having a big party.” Azim Premji, chairman of India’s third-largest software company, was equally somber: “We have seen in 2011 what ignoring this aspect can result in. If we don’t take cognizance of it and try to solve this problem, it can create a chaotic upheaval globally.”

RON PAUL (is the choice of the troops) MARCH ON THE WHITE HOUSE

(MUST WATCH)Ron Paul Tells The TRUTH about Bush PATRIOT Act,Obama HITLER...

What If They Are Lying to Us about Ron Paul

Ron Paul Best for Defense?

GOP Candidate Ron Paul Makes first Maine Stop in Bangor

Restoring Prosperity: Trust Markets, Not Bailouts

Warren Buffett's Secretary Likely Makes Between $200,000 And $500,000/Year

Warren Buffett’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, served as a stage prop for President Obama’s State of the Union speech. She was the president’s chief display of the alleged unfairness of our tax system – a little person paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss.

Lessons From the Great Expansion

by Henry R. Nau (W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell National Fellow, 2011–12)

In his State of the Union address this week, President Obama said we shouldn't "settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by."
No one would argue with that. But is it an accurate description of our economy? The production of wealth is not a zero-sum game here at home or in the global economy—never has been.
Between 1980 and 2007, the world economy experienced what I call a "Great Expansion" due largely to the free-market polices that President Obama blames for the last recession. Over those three decades, world GDP grew by about 145%, or roughly 3.4% a year, a rate comparable to the 3.5% per year growth during the golden era of 1950-1973.

2012-01-27T10:01:00.001-07:00

The Liberation of the Demons. Mises Daily: Ludwig von Mise

[Planned Chaos (1947)]

The history of mankind is the history of ideas. For it is ideas, theories and doctrines that guide human action, determine the ultimate ends men aim at, and the choice of the means employed for the attainment of these ends. The sensational events which stir the emotions and catch the interest of superficial observers are merely the consummation of ideological changes. There are no such things as abrupt sweeping transformations of human affairs. What is called, in rather misleading terms, a "turning point in history" is the coming on the scene of forces which were already for a long time at work behind the scene. New ideologies, which had already long since superseded the old ones, throw off their last veil and even the dullest people become aware of the changes which they did not notice before.

Freedom and Federalism

[Thomas DiLorenzo will be teaching Freedom and Federalism: The Libertarian States' Rights Tradition, a 4-week online course for the Mises Academy, February 2 – February 29.]

Americans — and much of the rest of the world — have been deprived of one of the most important means of establishing and maintaining a free society, namely, federalism or states' rights. It is not just an accident that states' rights have either been relegated to the memory hole, or denigrated as a tool of racists and other miscreants. The Jeffersonian states'-rights tradition was — and is — the key to understanding why Thomas Jefferson believed that the best government is that which governs least, and that a limited constitutional government was indeed possible.

Mr. Rubenstein, You're No Adam Smith. Mises Daily: by James E. Miller

What is capitalism?
It seems like a simple question, but many who pass as authorities in the court of public opinion are dreadfully wrong on the answer. Ludwig von Mises described capitalism as "essentially a system of mass production for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses." Friedrich Hayek called it "the system of free markets and the private ownership of the means of production," which is an "essential condition of the very survival of mankind."

Paul vs. Gingrich on Patriot Act, Liberty, and Security. by Mac Slavo

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Congressman Ron Paul debate the Patriot Act and its implications for America.

Do we repeal the act, as Ron Paul would prefer, or do we strengthen it to further expand the government’s anti-terrorism capabilities?

Of Bankers and Ship Captains. by Bill Bonner

Will no one rise to the defense of Captain Francesco Schettino? No? Then we will!

The poor man is calumnied as a pusillanimous incompetent. Just because he hit a rock. Heck, anyone with a ship that big could hit a rock. And the rock wasn’t s’posed to be there!

This incompetence charge is completely baseless. He had even tested almost the exact same route under almost the exact same conditions back in August. He sailed through the straits without a scratch. It was perfectly reasonable for him to conclude that the passage was safe. Perhaps someone put the rock there, just to catch him out.

Adelson, Gingrich, and the Selling of America

by Justin Raimondo

If you want to know what’s wrong with our campaign finance laws – and our political system in a more general sense – look at the way Sheldon Adelson is buying the Republican nomination for his sock puppet, Newt Gingrich.
Right now, the anonymous donors to a political action committee, or PAC, can buy ads on behalf of – or against – a candidate, and spend unlimited amounts as long as there is no official connection between the PAC and any candidate. This degree of separation, however, is pure fiction: in reality, “former” aides to the candidate can and do operate these “Super PACs,” which are funded by one Daddy Warbucks or another: no overt coordination is necessary. What’s important here is disclosure, or the lack of it: the PACs don’t have to say who is funding these ads, only that the “Committee for Good Government” or some such semi-fictional entity is paying for it. In this way, Adelson – a casino billionaire, one of the richest people in the country – can drop a cool $10 million into the race (with more in the pipeline) and in effect buy the election, without the average voter knowing who is paying the bills. In short, Adelson can operate in the dark, as far as Joe Voter is concerned – and darkness is what the Adelsonian agenda requires above all.
So what is Adelson’s agenda?

The US Government Is Bankrupt. by Doug Casey

Everyone knows that the US government is bankrupt and has been for many years. But I thought it might be instructive to see what its current cash-flow situation actually is. At least insofar as it's possible to get a clear picture.

As you know, the so-called Super Committee recently tried to come up with a plan to cut the deficit by $1.5 trillion and failed completely. To anyone who understands the nature of the political process, the failure was, of course, as predictable as it was shameful. What's even more shameful, though, is that the sought-after $1.5 trillion cut wasn't meant to apply to the annual budget but to the total budget of the next 10 years – a fact that is rarely mentioned.

Doug Casey on the Collapse of the Euro and the EU Interviewed. by Louis James

L: So Doug, a lot of readers are concerned about what's going on in Europe. Is this the beginning of the proverbial "it?" Or can the Eurozone be saved?

Doug: In brief, the answers are "yes," then "no" – and a "good riddance" to both the Eurozone and the euro. But most people think the old order should be maintained at almost any cost. That would include George Soros, who recently penned an article called Does the Euro Have a Future?

Now, I don't normally look to Soros for economic commentary, despite the fact that he's one of the shrewdest and most successful speculators in the world. He does, however, represent the way the Davos people, Eurocrats, and the ruling classes in general think. But just because he's made a lot of money doesn't make him an expert in economics, any more than financial success is proof that Ted Turner, Bill Gates or Warren Buffett know anything about economics. They're all idiot savants, a bit like Dustin Hoffman's character in Rain Man. But that's another subject.

– by Tibor Machan

Dr. Tibor Machan

On the BBC website an interview was featured recently with the famous orthodox Marxist, Eric Hobsbawm, who promptly denounced capitalism as if he had established definitively its inferiority as a political economic system. Is the BBC such an irresponsible news organization that it will feature Mr. Hobsbawm's characterization of capitalism with no one who champions that system featured responding to him? (If you search, no such balanced presentation can be found on the BBC website.) Or is this happening because, after all, BBC is a state broadcast endeavor and has a big stake in discrediting a system that relies on private initiative?

– by Staff Report

What happens if Ron Paul wins Iowa? ... Paul seems to have a natural ceiling among GOP voters: A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that nearly half of Republican voters feel Paul's foreign policy views are a major reason not to vote for him. Indeed, the primary reason Paul has an opening to win in Iowa is that no consensus candidate has emerged among social conservatives, which dominate the GOP electorate here – a situation that allows Paul to potentially win with less than 30 percent of the vote. Still, a Paul win in Iowa would have significant ramifications. It would go a long way toward pushing his Libertarian views, long dismissed as outside of Republican mainstream, to the center of the conversation. The resultant media coverage would allow Paul to further spread his message – and potentially win a host of new supporters. And if Paul can do well in New Hampshire on January 10, where he is currently tied for second place with Gingrich, Paul could even move to shared front-runner status with Romney, who is now ahead by more than 20 points in New Hampshire. – CBSNews

– by Ron Paul

Dr. Ron Paul

Although Congress was back in session for scarcely more than a day last week, private citizens across the country managed to cause an uproar felt across Capitol Hill. The uproar took the form of hundreds of thousands of phone calls to both Senators and Representatives, urging them to oppose two draconian new bills that threaten the free and unbridled flow of information on the internet.

– by Tibor Machan

Dr. Tibor Machan

Why does the TSA annoy so many of us? Not having the resources to do a survey, I resort here to what might be called educated speculation. I suspect it is because free men and women consider it invasive for government agents to order them around, pat them down, make them endure electronic surveillance, etc. − unless they have given their permission.

– by Anthony Wile

Anthony Wile

Hockey is a game I know – rather well, actually. As a young person I excelled at the sport and even left home when I was 14 to live and play in a city that offered better coaching and a brighter road to the NHL. Yes, like many other young people growing up in Canada, I was highly infected with a burning desire to don my skates whenever possible and hit the ice ... preferably outdoors.

Megaupload's Planned Music Locker - Example of Private Justice?

MegaUpload Is Now Launching a Music Service Called MegaBox ...There's another gigantic wrinkle in the MegaUpload drama. Not only is MegaUpload fighting tooth-and-nail against Universal Music Group, but they're now planning the launch of a cloud-based music locker, download store, and do-it-yourself artist service. It's called MegaBox, and it's already up in beta with listed partners 7digital, Gracenote, Rovi, and Amazon MP3. Actually, this is technically a relaunch of an earlier concept, and a perfect re-stab at major label opponents. "UMG knows that we are going to compete with them via our own music venture called Megabox.com, a site that will soon allow artists to sell their creations directly to consumers while allowing artists to keep 90 percent of earnings," MegaUpload founder Kim 'Dotcom' Schmitz told Torrentfreak this week. – Digital Musical Upload

The Three Biggest Lies the Government Is Telling You. by Charles Goyette

Government lies are legion.

So many are its lies, that narrowing them down to three of the most important is a demanding task. But our current crisis has been chiefly enabled by monetary policy, fiscal policy, and the global military empire. So I have chosen to focus on lies about each: the Federal Reserve, the orchestrator of monetary policy; the U.S. budget, the accounting of government fiscal policy; and a few of the Empire’s war lies. I am sharing just a smattering of this astonishing record of duplicity in these areas, for life is short, or at least far too short to recount all of the state’s lies about each.

Mitt Keeps Missing the Message

If Romney wins Florida, it won't be because he's becoming a more effective candidate.

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Newt Gingrich's South Carolina bump is fading, and polls show Mitt Romney again leading in Florida. A Romney victory in the Sunshine State could sew this up.
It won't be because Mr. Romney has become a better or more effective candidate. Primaries exist to help with that process, to let contenders read signals from the political landscape, to adapt, become stronger. Successful politicians absorb the signals and change up. Not Mr. Romney. If politics were evolution, the governor would still be swimming in the primordial soup.

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

It became clear two minutes after Newt Gingrich won in South Carolina that citizens were about to be treated to a non-stop effort to portray his smashing win as the result of his attack on the media. A victory, we were informed by cable and network commentators, which Mr. Gingrich owed to his cleverness in finding ways to give the press-hating right-wingers in South Carolina the red meat they craved.
He'd won, we heard repeatedly, by insulting a fine reporter, CNN's John King -- pronouncements accompanied by no little handwringing and defense of Mr. King who had only done what any good reporter-moderator would have done in raising the question about the public accusations made by Mr. Gingrich's second wife. Mr. King, it turned out, was far more serene about events than the chorus of commentators mourning his alleged victimization by Mr. Gingrich.
The image of the speaker as a man who owes his current strength mainly to attacks on the press is now a standard tool of his opponents -- a caricature meant to offset certain realities about his rise. The sort of realities recognizable to considerable numbers of people in Iowa where polls had begun running heavily in favor of Mr. Gingrich from late November on in the wake of his debate performance there and elsewhere. Iowans heard, from Mr. Gingrich, not media attacks but bracing expressions of American values electric in their effect. That was why he kept rising in the polls.

Enlarge Image

Getty Images

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich

By NOUR MALAS and BILL SPINDLE

DAMASCUS—In a country roiled by protests and violence, Syria's capital remains an island of determination to go about life as always. But the country's 11-month old uprising now is lapping up against Syria's biggest and most-important city.
Armed clashes in the eastern suburbs of Damascus have jolted many in the capital into acknowledging a conflict that—until last week—had swept through suburbs but otherwise remained as much a YouTube phenomenon for them as for outside observers.

Photos: Conflict Approaches Capital

View Slideshow

Reuters

Syrian soldiers who defected to join the Free Syrian Army posed in Douma Wednesday.

On Thursday, defected troops in two suburbs of eastern Damascus—no farther than four miles from the old city—held their ground for hours after fighting government forces. Activists said the military stormed Douma, another close suburb, after the armed opposition temporarily took over the town last week.
In a hotel lobby, businessmen fielded phone calls appearing to describe a government counteroffensive in Douma after the military had lost control. "Empty words," one of them said, brushing his hand in the air and dismissing the news as a myth.

Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model

Posted by Frontpagemag.com

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich recently made news by referring to Barack Obama as a “Saul Alinsky radical” whose philosophy is destructive of traditional American values. Who was Saul Alinsky? What was his message? How has his radical vision, a key element of the 1960s leftist assault on America, influenced Obama?

Why Are Jews So Powerful?

Why Are Jews So Powerful?

Dr Farrukh Saleem

There are only 14 million Jews in the world; seven million in the Americas , five million in Asia, two million in Europe and 100,000 in Africa . For every single Jew in the world there are 100 Muslims. Yet, Jews are more than a hundred times more powerful than all the Muslims put together. Ever wondered why?

Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish. Albert Einstein, the most influential scientist of all time and TIME magazine's 'Person of the Century', was a Jew. Sigmund Freud -- id, ego, superego -- the father of psychoanalysis was a Jew. So were Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman.

Obama’s crony capitalism. Friends of the president are given billions in government largesse

President Obama said in his State of the Union address that one of the American values that must be reclaimed is “an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” For three years, he and his political allies have been undermining this vision. They see government as a means of rewarding their friends and punishing their enemies. For the Obama circle, rules apply only to other people.
Obamacare is a growing burden to American businesses, but not if you have friends in high places. Mr. Obama’s signature and highly unpopular legislative achievement was sold as a measure that would require shared sacrifice but bring lasting benefits to all Americans. Yet as soon as the law was implemented, hundreds of waivers were issued that allowed the recipients to duck under Obamacare requirements. The vast majority of recipients were labor-union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments with strong Democratic connections. One in 5 waivers issued in April 2011 went to upscale nightclubs, bars and hotels in Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Mr. Obama is not even covered by his own law.

Romney, Gingrich clash over immigration in Florida debate. By Seth McLaughlin

Moderator Wolf Blitzer had to remind the ex-governor that, contrary to his memory, he was running a radio commercial here — which includes in the script “I’m Mitt Romney and I approved this ad” — that highlights how Mr. Gingrich previously called Spanish “the language of the ghetto.”
Mr. Romney stood by the ad, though, asking Mr. Gingrich whether he had said that, and when Mr. Gingrich said it was taken out of context, Mr. Romney responded, “So, you did say it.”
Mr. Romney also came under fire from former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who took him to task for the universal health care plan that he signed into law in Massachusetts.
“Folks, we can’t give this issue away in this election. It is about fundamental freedom, whether the United States government or even a state government” can mandate the purchase of health insurance, Mr. Santorum said, telling Mr. Romney at one point that “your mandate is no different than Barack Obama’s mandate.”
But Mr. Gingrich had the biggest bull’s-eye on his back, putting him on his heels throughout much of the evening.

Posted By Clyde Prestowitz

As it alwaysdoes this time of year, my inbox is filling up with messages of acertain kind. They all begin with: "I'm here in Davos" and then, in anintellectual form of name dropping, proceed to mention key words and phrases suchas Geopolitical Risk, G-Zero World, and Rise of Regions. This, of course,sounds really heavyweight and important. But I am not fooled. Nobody knowswhat those words mean. The only purpose is inform me that the sender is amongthe elect glitterati who get invited to the World Economic Forum's annualmeeting in Davos.

Kazakhstan may not be ripe forrevolution, but the West is making the same mistakes it made in the Arab world.

BY JOANNA LILLIS

Nursultan Nazarbayev, leader of the oil-rich Central Asianstate of Kazakhstan,just did precisely that, while the West -- mindful of Kazakhstan'soil and gas wealth and position astride a supply route to Afghanistan -- barelybatted an eyelid.
To add insult to injury for Kazakhstan's beleagueredopposition, Nazarbayev's ruling Nur Otan (Light Fatherland) party's landslide ina micromanaged election came a month after security forces fired on protesters inthe energy hub of Zhanaozen in western Kazakhstan, killing 17. This wasthe worst unrest in 20 years of independence in Kazakhstan, a country that has alwaysprided itself on political and social stability as factors that win the heartsand minds of its own population -- and woo the foreign investors who have sunkmillions into its energy sector.

Socialism = Bribery = Welfare State [Reader Post]

By: Warren Beatty

Otto Eduard Leopold, Prince of Bismarck, Duke of Lauenburg (1 April 1815 – 30 July 1898), better known as Otto von Bismarck, is credited with being the father of socialism, the modern-day welfare state. He said, “My idea was to bribe the working classes, or shall I say, to win them over, to regard the state as a social institution existing for their sake and interested in their welfare.” Politicians were quick to see the power and simplicity of Bismarck’s concept. Convincing the public that government existed for their sake and their welfare enabled politicians to expand into areas previously considered off-limits. The US, constrained by its Constitution and a predisposition toward liberty, held out longer than Europe, but tradition and law were eventually brushed aside and/or ignored.

2012-01-24T13:22:00.002-07:00

So What if SOPA Passes?. Posted by Kevin Carson

In a single day of glory, January 18, a major portion of the Web went dark as a warning that we will no longer tolerate the Copyright Nazis’ infringements on our speech.
The next day, with the FBI’s takedown of MegaUpload, they showed us the law doesn’t even matter to them — that they never needed SOPA in the first place. And they really didn’t. For the past few years, the FBI has seized the domain names of alleged “intellectual property infringers” through in rem actions and civil forfeiture. SOPA was just a legal fig leaf. As Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) Media Coordinator Tom Knapp argues, regardless of whether SOPA passes, its substance will still be implemented piecemeal through executive action.

But Mitt, What Will You Do If The Free Marketers Take Over?. Posted by Kevin Carson

Whatever his other shortcomings, I get plenty of entertainment from watching Mitt Romney on the news. His personality type — privileged white boy, executive-type hair, born with a silver foot in his mouth — reminds me of how much I miss Dan Quayle. And he — and his defenders — have certainly provided entertainment value the past few days.
Romney’s primary opponents have been jumping on him for his record at Bain Capital — referring to it, variously, as a “chop shop” or “vulture capitalist” operation that buys up enterprises, downsizes their workforces, strips them of assets, loads them up with debt as cash cows, then throws them away.

Club for Growth's Andy Roth Discusses Mitt Romney's Tax Rate on CNN

Chris Chocola Appears on Varney and Company To Discuss The GOP President...

Posted byRicardo Valenzuelaat11:18 AM0comments

Ron Paul - Republican Tea Party Presidential Debate

2012-01-24T10:48:00.001-07:00

Ron Paul after Tampa Debate

2012-01-24T10:48:00.000-07:00

All Ron Paul's Higlights At The NBC Florida GOP Debate

2012-01-23T22:44:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul Highlights - NBC Florida Debate 01/23/12

2012-01-23T22:43:00.000-07:00

"Ron Paul Was The Most Relaxed Most Entertaining Guy One Out There!"

2012-01-23T22:41:00.000-07:00

Rand Paul talks to Sean Hannity about being detained by the TSA

2012-01-23T22:39:00.000-07:00

Rand Paul Says TSA Agents Threatened To A Full Body Pat-Down For Using H...

2012-01-23T22:04:00.000-07:00

The Collapse of America

2012-01-23T20:44:00.000-07:00

The 2012 Election Circus — The Acts, The Players, The Hype

2012-01-23T17:23:00.002-07:00

The 2012 Election Circus — The Acts, The Players, The Hype

The Latest Scandals
Taxes: What does it matter that Gingrich released one year of his tax records? Any candidate can prep them a year in advance. Were I running for office a year or two down the road, and were I cynical, this year I would triple my charitable contributions, cut back on freelance writing to lower my income, and trim my deductions — on the assumption that one transparent year would be proof of thirty out of sight. So to be fair, Gingrich and all the candidates, if we go down this full-disclosure road, should release the last three years of returns. If so, I suggest that Gingrich will have as many tax/income problems as Romney.

Women: The Marianne Gingrich Nightline tell-all was a bust. In theory, we must sympathize with her: 60-ish, without much income, suffering from MS, forced to watch her ex — now soaring, both financially and politically, without her and without apparent acknowledgment of her long support for his career that must now be evident in his success — with insult added to injury as Newt parades around a younger, more attractive third wife as if he were a perpetual honeymooner. But to hear her is almost immediately to wonder, “Hmmm, let’s get this straight: you are mad that Mrs. Gingrich III and Newt did to Mrs. Gingrich II what you and Newt did to Mrs. Gingrich I? If you were sick and penniless when he left you, so was the poor first wife whom you once replaced.”
I wish I could believe (because I want to believe) that fidelity is essential in a leader, but unfortunately history tells me that Charles Lindbergh was a better pilot and inspiration than his more moral rivals, that the wayward George S. Patton saved thousands of lives by his brilliance in a way the more admirable but limited Omar Bradley did not, that the randy Bill Clinton was a better president than the devout Jimmy Carter, and that recklessly promiscuous JFK was no worse and probably more effective than loyal Richard Nixon. But marriage has so many variables (the devout husband can be mentally cruel and indifferent, the noble wife can be a shrew, the publicly supportive spouse can privately forgo sex, the faithful husband can be lazy and a leach), and leadership so many contours (natural brilliance, rhetorical flair, stamina, courage), that fidelity in marriage simply cannot quite trump them all. Was the wonderfully devoted Harry Truman a better president than Dwight D. Eisenhower (who once or twice probably strayed with his chaufferess), and if so, was it because he never looked at other women other than Bess? In short, the ABC interview was a dud. It only confirmed that dragging out a 12-year-old story on the eve of an election told us more about the morality of ABC than of present-day Newt Gingrich.
Romney’s money: Cannot Romney explain that, to be blunt, he does not have, and does not need, a regular day job any more? And therefore he does not pay taxes on income? In other words, cannot Mitt say that he once was so skilled or lucky that he made enough to allow him in retirement to either sell assets yearly, or buy and sell from his ample portfolio and therefore be taxed at the capital gains rate? The same unapologetic defiance should apply to Bain. If one devotes his career to winning the good life from taking over, trimming down, and selling companies, and one is not solely interested in cashing in and others be damned, cannot he in one minute, Newt-style, explain why he is a sort of personal trainer that both profits and does good from beating the out-of-shape into shape, and that when he cannot work with the flabby and unresponsive, he moves on?
The alternative is the sort of well-intentioned stumble in which the viewer sighs, “Come on, Mitt, you can do it. Don’t apologize or don’t gloss over, but explain, your success!”
Newt Gingrich
Why his death/resurrection/death/resurrection candidacy? His so-called checkered past and shoot-from-the-hip binges ensure that, on any given day, something arises from his past (women, book deals, consulting, etc.) or he says something provocative that leads nowhere (dressing down federal judges) which confirms the general take that he is too unstable for executive governance — a charge buttressed by the fact that Gingrich has never run a state or a business. But then, just when the op-ed writers and worried Republican elders write him off, he begins his comeback by questioning, rather than merely critiquing, the entire liberal experiment.
So he attacks the nature of the journalist’s question rather than answers it; he rails at overspending but in an existential way that suggests it is a symptom of a deeper malady; he assesses his rivals in the abstract as well as the personal. That takes gumption and talent.
The effect on primary voters? Gingrich becomes their everyman. He speaks for the beaten-down conservative, sick of reading about D.C. insider politics, race-baiting, crime, media bias, or apologizing abroad, as if to say, “I am your idea guy, your own PhD know-it-all, the good D.C. insider on your side who knows how the bad works, and I’ll out-talk, out-argue, out-think, and out-emote the entire Ivy-League elite Obama technocracy.” (Though I am not so sure he would win a debate with Obama given the exposure he offers through so many claims of multifaceted genius.)
So how long can the wild Gingrich needle graph go up and down, given his uncanny ability to die and be reborn a thousand times? I’d say about a month longer when one of two things will occur. One scenario: He is so thoroughly vetted that no more disclosures can emerge and he stops expounding ad hoc on Newtology in a way that confirms an undisciplined and wacky nature. In that case, he has a 50/50 chance of winning the nomination, regardless of the current status of his funding, organization, and endorsements. Or, we will hear yet a new Newtism (e.g., something like another neo-Marxist take on Bain Capital), or yet another brilliantly unworkable plan that serves as a proverbial last straw on the camel’s back, and the voters collectively sigh that they prefer Romney and pray he is not Dole, Bush Sr., or John McCain, more convinced that Gingrich is a Goldwater albatross rather than a Reagan savior.
Pages: 1 2 3 |

KING OBAMA I

2012-01-23T12:31:00.000-07:00

2012-01-23T12:28:00.002-07:00

CNN Poll Shows Ron Paul Most Likely Beats Obama In November, Newt Does Not

2012-01-23T12:25:00.000-07:00

2012-01-23T12:23:00.003-07:00

Finding Believers in Liberty in the Strangest Places

2012-01-23T12:06:00.001-07:00

Kabul—Most Americans believe in liberty. Even Washington can’t stamp out the commitment to individualism and independence that burns within most people.
On my latest trip to Afghanistan I spent a lot of time with military personnel, NCO and officer alike. Some on the Left believe that the military is filled with authoritarian automatons. Nothing could be further from the truth. Members of the military are just like the rest of us—indeed, every day they see and suffer through the failings of the U.S. government’s biggest and most expensive bureaucracy.

And they think for themselves.
One young enlisted driver declared himself in favor of drug legalization. Having seen the problems created by attempting to stamp out opium production and distribution in Afghanistan, he realized the best response was to take the profit out of the drug trade, and the only way to do that was to stop treating drug use as a crime.
As far as I could tell, he wasn’t a member of the Libertarian Party, devotee of Ayn Rand, or even member of the Campaign for Liberty. He simply made the logical connection between drug prohibition and drug crime. In Afghanistan, opium production funds the Taliban insurgency and government officials alike. Here, as in several Latin American nations, Washington’s “war on drugs” has had catastrophic geopolitical consequences.
At another base I met a retired military man now serving as a civilian consultant helping to train Afghans. The problem, he declared, was their lack of understanding of the importance of liberty. Afghans are fiercely independent, but the allies were supporting creation of a centralized state in Kabul. He hoped American think tanks and organizations friendly to the ideals of liberty could help promote the principles of freedom here. He quoted Charles Murray’s In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government. I don’t remember ever meeting anyone in Washington who quoted Murray’s elegant defense of a free society!
A Marine Corps captain sidled up to me at another stop and said when he heard that I worked at the Cato Institute he wanted to meet me. He was no enthusiast for big, expansive government and saw the consequences of such policies on the ground. Serving in a combat command hundreds of miles from Kabul and thousands of miles from the U.S., he declared that he was a fan of Rep. Ron Paul.
So much for the Neocons’ claim that critics of the warfare state are anti-military and anti-military personnel.
None of this surprised me. My father was career Air Force, so I grew up on military bases around the world. Many other family members and friends serve in or were in the military. Through my policy work I meet a lot of the upper ranks, while excursions like my trip to Afghanistan bring me into contact with members of the enlisted force, the backbone of the U.S. military. I’ve found service personnel to be a uniformly impressive lot, independent thinkers with no illusions about the efficiency of their own institution or the judgment of the politicians who send them off to war.
The fact that members of the military need little prodding to support political freedom should remind us to promote the principles of liberty to everyone everywhere. No one is beyond liberty’s reach. Often those in the most flawed government institutions have the best understanding of the benefits of freedom and failures of bureaucracy. And despite its best efforts, the government has never been able to destroy people’s innate desire for liberty.
Equally important, we should remember that the principles of limited government, including a restrained, defensive foreign policy, are for everyone, including those serving in government bureaucracies. Most people join the military to defend their nation, not to fight unnecessary wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. However, that doesn’t stop politicians from sending personnel into harm’s way for no good reason. Limiting government intervention would benefit all of us, from Americans at home who pay the bills to military personnel abroad who do the fighting (and dying).
Indeed, the latter is one of the main arguments for international restraint. There are a lot of ivory tower hawks in Washington, warrior wannabes prepared to fight to the last volunteer in an attempt to transform the rest of the world. A policy of empire inevitably treats military personnel as dispensable, a replaceable means to one or another glorious end.
Afghanistan is a good example of the sheer madness of American foreign policy. There was a strong argument for targeting al-Qaeda and ousting the Taliban in the aftermath of 9/11. There is a plausible argument today for trying to tailor a speedy withdrawal to maximize the chance, however small, that a liberal, democratic system might evolve in Afghanistan.
But what conceivable argument was there for ever moving from immediate retaliation to long-term nation-building?
In a decade of fighting nearly 2000 Americans and 1000 coalition personnel have died. Thousands more have been wounded, many severely. The U.S. has spent more than $464 billion on the Afghan war. Vast bases have risen out of nothing in nowhere to be filled with runways, offices, fences, barracks, supplies, chow halls, vehicles, guns, and people. Operations consume oceans of fuel and break down equipment. Money flows to train and equip the Afghan security forces. And Americans will continue to pay for the war for decades to come, caring for service personnel who have suffered debilitating injuries.
Not just the fighting is costly. Since counter-insurgency operations are based on winning support from the population, the U.S. government is dedicated to utterly transforming an impoverished rural and tribal society. The Pentagon, not to mention civilian “aid” agencies, is supporting better governance, freer elections, and expanded education of girls; underwriting construction of additional schools, hospitals, roads, electricity projects, paying to train police and “build capacity” in the Afghan government, and even helping to expand cell phone coverage and internet access. Worthy endeavors all, but matters for America’s Department of Defense?
Indeed, “Transition” is all the rage. Allied troops are supposed to come out by 2014, but the respective governments insist that the “international community” must remain involved for as long as necessary. That means more equipment, training, advice, mentoring, and money, lots of money. At least until Afghanistan is able to pay the costs, which essentially means the U.S. and Europeans will be writing checks forever.
This from heavily indebted states running deficits today and facing huge financial challenges tomorrow.
Even if a competent, honest, effective government ultimately arises in Kabul, which today looks to be the stuff of fantasy, Afghanistan should be America’s last nation-building venture. Afghans have faced far more than their share of tragedy after more than three decades at war, but there is little reason to believe that the coalition can deliver permanent peace, prosperity, and modernity no matter how much it spends. America does not have the resources to engage in social engineering in the many other poor, war-torn nations around the globe. It isn’t in the interest of Americans generally. It certainly isn’t in the interest of members of the military.
Liberty is the most important political end. There are other, higher human ends. But liberty allows us to pursue our ultimate purpose. No matter who or where we are.

Andrew Jackson and the Central Bank

2012-01-23T11:51:00.002-07:00

Can you imagine a president taking on the Federal Reserve System today? That’s what Andrew Jackson did in 1832, and it changed America forever.
In the early 19th century, the forerunner to the Federal Reserve was the Bank of the United States. When Jackson became president in 1829, he vowed to curb the Bank’s power over the national economy, calling the institution “a hydra-headed monster… it impaired the morals of our people, corrupted our statesmen, and threatened our liberty. It bought up members of Congress by the Dozen… and sought to destroy our republican institutions.” Today, many free market economists are saying the same thing about the Fed.
The Bank president conspired with friendly members of Congress such as Henry Clay and Daniel Webster to petition for an extension of its 20-year charter in 1832, an election year. They calculated that if Congress approved re-chartering the Bank, Jackson would not risk losing reelection with a veto. They guessed wrong.
In a stern veto, Jackson cited several reasons for refusing to re-charter the Bank:

It was a dangerously centralized financial power
It held an unconstitutional monopoly on finance that only helped the rich get richer
It made the economy vulnerable to foreign and special interests
It held too much influence over federal politicians
It favored the North (where most financial centers were located) over the South and West

All of these arguments could be made today against the Federal Reserve System.
Jackson’s opponents thought that the veto would end his career. Again, they guessed wrong as the people sided with him, and he easily won reelection. Emboldened by his victory, Jackson ordered the Treasury secretary to withdraw federal funds from the Bank, which drained the capital that the Bank needed to dole out favors. Without federal funding, the Bank quietly died within a few years.
Jackson’s victory over the Bank decentralized the economy and led to greater economic prosperity and individual freedom through the 1840s and 1850s. However, his devotion to patronage (i.e., granting jobs to political allies) doubled the size of the federal government during his term, which centralized power in Washington at the people’s expense. This chipped into the prosperity and freedom generated by the end of nationalized banking.
Central banking did not reemerge in America until the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Congress passed a series of laws creating a national banking system. This system was solidified with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.
In the end, the central bank returned in the form of the Fed, and the size of government has increased to record levels, partly thanks to Jackson’s precedent. Thus, individual liberty ultimately lost on both counts.

Drug War Censorship

2012-01-23T11:47:00.000-07:00

It has long been evident that the Drug War is bad for America. Crime in the streets, millions in prison, violations of civil liberties, along with tens of millions of people still using drugs. So where's the benefit?
It turns out that the Drug War also threatens free speech. One of the most important organizations opposing the Drug War is Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, or LEAP. It has started a new blog by a cop who believes he must remain silent, or be fired.
He writes:

As an active duty veteran police officer, I would love to publicly join Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and freely speak out against the drug war. However, I am scared, yes scared, to join LEAP publicly. Although many active duty law enforcers are already speaking out publicly with LEAP and maintaining their careers (more on them later), I believe I would be punished by my department for my advocacy or perhaps even fired.

We saw the same phenomenon with slavery. The only way for Southerners to preserve that horrid institution was to dismantle protected liberties for the entire population--prohibiting advocating the end of slavery, mailing anti-slavery materials, or otherwise agitating against the practice.
We need a full and honest debate on drug prohibition. Including the participation of law enforcement officers able to speak openly without fear of retaliation.

Rand Paul Detained by TSA - Updated

2012-01-23T11:45:00.001-07:00

We've just received word that Senator Rand Paul is currently being detained by the TSA at the Nashville airport for refusing their invasive body pat down after their scanner had an "anomaly."

Reports Politico:

Paul, a Republican, was apparently traveling to Washington, D.C., when he was detained. He noted earlier on his Twitter that he was planning to speak at the March for Life.

Read the rest

Looking back, here's a video from June where Senator Paul challenged TSA Administrator John Pistole on the group's security theater.

Update:

Senator Paul's chief of staff responds to TSA claims that Senator Paul wasn't detained: "'Well, I don’t know what bureaucrat manuals call it, but an innocent American citizen who was offering to cooperate while also attempting to stop an invasive search was not allowed to proceed without complying,' Stafford said in an email to TheDC."

Tides of Darkness

2012-01-23T10:11:00.002-07:00

by Nebojsa Malic

MoreWar in 2012
Last yearwas supposed to be the one of shatteredillusions.From “victories” in Iraq and Afghanistan to thespringtime for jihad – not democracy – in the Arab world,the Empire consistently failed to conjure its virtual reality intoactual being. Yet there is no indication its leadership is preparedto abandon virtual thinking in 2012. It is an election year, afterall.
EmperorObama will no doubt argue that presiding over the killing of Osamabin Laden, ending the Iraq War and “liberating” Libya allqualify him for a second turn at the throne. The logical course for achallenger would be to question the benefit of all that worldwidewarmongering, given the economic collapse at home. However, both theGOP establishment and the media seem desperate not to do that,as they continue the circus of electing “anyone but Paul”as their candidate.

Not happywith delivering North Africa to the Muslim Brotherhood and its ilklast year, the Empire is eager for more “successes.” Syria has been marinating for months, and there are claims aninvasion – disguised as “humanitarian assistance todemocracy,” or some such – is nowin the works.Another potential targetis Iran.There are many compelling arguments against both wars, but one needsto keep in mind that none are likely to sway people convinced thattheyalone decide and create reality, while the rest of the world gets tolook on.
TheBipartisan Consensus
It is asif imperialism has become the bipartisan consensus no one –save the Heretic Paul – dares even question, much less oppose.Questioning it results in the outpourof self-righteous indignationand Nazi comparisons. After all, roars Establishment columnistRichard Cohen:
“Americaremains a mighty nation, capable of doing good in the world. That’sfar different than expanding an empire or making the world safe forMcDonald’s. The intervention in Libya, a NATO operation but anAmerican enterprise, succeeded. So did the ones in Bosnia andKosovo.”
Except,you know, they didn’t.
Where tobegin? Now that Gadhafi is gone, the interventionists are happy toclaim the war was an American enterprise. At the time, however, theytriedto weasel outof even calling it a war! As for the “liberated” Libya,it is presently inchaos,with tribal militias carving out their own fiefdoms. Bosnia is amalfunctioningprotectorate,though it did finally geta governmentlast week (after a year of squabbling) and without any outsidemeddling. “Kosovo” is a self-proclaimed state, reliant onGermanoccupation troopsto enforce the “government’s” writ.
Success,indeed!
The“making the world safe for McDonald’s” is a swipeat another establishment darling, interventionist Thomas Friedman,who wrotein 1999:
“Thehidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist.McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer ofthe F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for SiliconValley’s technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force,Navy and Marine Corps.”
Who knewthat it was all about selling iPhones abroad? But it isn’t, ofcourse. Friedman is a charlatan.
So, forthat matter, is Cohen. Recall that in 2003, he arguedthat “bagging Karadzic” would demonstrate Americanfriendship for Muslims of the world. Well, Karadzic was “bagged” in2008,Ratko Mladic lastyear,the US has created not one but two Islamic states in theBalkans (per TomLantos)…where’s all the gratitude?
Well,there was Frankfurt,NorthCarolina,Sarajevo,FortDix,SaltLake City…
Logic,however, doesn’t enter into it. “Our brave heroes”in the military may need food stamps to feed their children, but whocares – the U.S. can still bomb some country Over There to ruins, andthat’s all that matters, right? Conservative or “progressive,” everyoneis an interventionist now.
TheGod that Failed
Parallelto the open warfare, the Empire continues its cloak-and-daggerefforts to subvert target states through “colorrevolutions.”The latest target is Russia, where questionableclaimsof electoral fraud have been used as a pretext for the “White”revolution– planned, organized and financed by Washington.
Thetroubles with these faux-revolutionsare many. One of the most pernicious, of course, is that theyundermine the very concept of democracy as a system of government byconsent. In the virtual world of the Empire (and its EU extension),only those that serve and obey are “democrats,” regardless of what they actually believe and how many votes they getat the polls. As PhilipCunliffe observedseveral years ago in Serbia, “what counts as democracy is whatthe EU decides is democratic, and the democrats are those whoare anointed by the international community, regardless of whoactually receives the votes.”
It is badenough that the Empire made democracy areligion,and a false one at that. Now it is going around the world subvertingthat very religion, leaving millions of cheated, angry people in itswake. Worse yet, the tendrils of this approach are showingup at home,from street protests to party primaries.
In theBunker
Everythingis connected. It is foolish in the extreme to believe thatunrestricted warfare abroad or reducing democracy to absurditythrough color revolutions will have no falloutat home. Then again, we are talking about a political caste thatprefers living in a virtual world to even acknowledging actualreality.
Democratsand Republicans, conservatives and progressives, neocons and neolibs– whatever label they go by, they share the same underlyingpremise: that they can command the world, move little flags on themap, push buttons, send suitcases of cash, and the world will dotheir bidding. Anyone who tries to argue with this madness is deridedas a heretic or lunatic. It’s a bunkermentality,and sooner or later the reality of it willhit. The only question is how many more people will die before thathappens.

Creating American Terrorists

2012-01-23T10:07:00.003-07:00

by Philip Giraldi

Defenders of the recently passedNational Defense Authorization Act, which declares the entire worldto be a “battlefield” against terrorism and authorizes the U.S. militaryto detain indefinitely anyone suspected of being a terrorism supporter,have claimed that the White House will only use its new power carefullyand with due process. Opponents note that the White House hasnever hesitated to use any new authority, no matter how outrageous,and that the trend of law enforcement and security agencies is to expandon powers granted, not to rein them in or limit them. The trackrecord of the Obama administration on civil liberties is particularlybad, as it has broadened its definition of war powers, reneged onits promise to close Guantanamo Prison, and supported numerous dubiousterrorism prosecutions. It has also become adept at silencing criticsthrough the repeated exploitation of the state-secrets privilege, whicheffectively dismisses any case accusing the government of abuse or malfeasance.

So let us accept that the governmentnow has the power to send a team of military police to anyone’s homein any state in the Union and can demand that that person surrenderwithout any recourse to a lawyer or judicial due process. Themilitary can then detain the individual incommunicado for any lengthof time and can presumably send him to Guantanamo forspecial confinement, claiming that the reason for the detention is support of terrorism, which can be almost anything,including a letter to the editor of the local paper complaining aboutthe goonery of the Transportation Security Administration.Once in detention, the suspect only has such options as are grantedto him by the military. He cannot see a lawyer, cannotinvoke habeas corpus or other constitutional privileges, cannotconfront any witnesses against him, and cannot challenge any informationprejudicial to him even if it is hearsay or fabricated. In otherwords, the accused can be arrested for no reason and held indefinitelywithout any protections that enable him to push back againstbeing detained. Most people would consider a criminal justicesystem that permits such detention ipso facto a police state.
Now let us accept for a moment thatthe White House and Justice Department are well-intentioned and willnot use their newfound authority to detain anyone in a questionablefashion. The expanded powers will only be used to detain foreignterrorists who are caught in flagrante, more or less. Thatwould be fine, perhaps, but for one small problem. Because thedefinition of a terrorism supporter has become enormously elastic, itcan be stretched to include anything. If the whole world has becomea battlefield, speaking out or actingagainst powerful vested interests can be dangerous because those interestscan turn around and exploit the system to label one a terrorist.And once you are labeled a terrorist, your constitutional rights vanishand you might as well sit around and wait for that knock on the door — or, rather, for the door to be kicked in.
That is what House Resolution 3131 is all about. It is titled, in part, “Todirect the secretary of state to submit a report on whether any supportorganization that participated in the planning or execution of the recentGaza flotilla attempt should be designated as a foreign terrorist organization….”The bill then goes on to assert that the two flotillas in 2010 and 2011opposing Israel’s blockade of Gaza were terrorist actions. Butthe only problem is that it relies on information from the Israeli Intelligence and Information Center to do so, meaningthat Congress is deferring to a foreign government organization to makea judgment that directly impacts that selfsame government.And the Israelis are not shy about calling someone a terrorist, if itsuits the narrative they are trying to present. They describea Turkish organization involved in the first flotilla in 2010, knownby its acronym IHH, as linked to al-Qaeda andHamas based on evidence that no one else in the world accepts, apartfrom Congress, that is. The Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara was clearlyaiming to take on the Israeli navy, armed to the teeth with “100 metalrods, 200 knives, 50 wooden clubs, and a telescopic sight for a gun.”In reality, the rods were torn from the ships rails when the heavilyarmed Israeli commandos boarded at night from helicopters. Theknives were pocket knives and utility knives from the vessel’s galley,and the clubswere broken from deck chairs to repel the attackers. I will notspeculate on the telescopic sight, but there was not a real weaponanywhereon board. The Israelis killed nine Turks, shooting several in thehead at close range, including an American citizen. Congress hasyet to express its outrage at the Israeli action — quite the contrary —and Hillary Clinton’s State Department has been silent, apart fromwarning the subsequent 2011 flotilla that the American embassywould do nothing to protect U.S. citizens aboard.
Regarding the second flotilla ofJuly 2011, HR 3131 goes on to state that “Greek authorities boardedships and took into custody several individuals, including Captain JohnKlusmire of the ship Audacity of Hope as it violated Greek Coast Guardorders by setting sail without permission.” Klusmire is a U.S.citizen who was not breaking any American law, it should be noted.He was later released by the Greek authorities.
The bill concludes with its “Senseof Congress,” surely an oxymoron if there ever was one: “the secretaryof state shall submit … a report on whether any support organizationthat participated in the planning or execution of the recent Gazaflotillaattempt should be designated as a foreign terrorist organization … [to]include information on … the sources of any logistical, technical, orfinancial support for the Gaza flotilla ships, including the Audacityof Hope, that were to set sail from Greece on July 1, 2011.”
I personally know a number of organizationsthat provided material or financial support to one or both of the Gazaflotillas. I also personally know that none of those organizationssupport violence against the state of Israel and that the people behindthem believed then and now that they were exercising their constitutionalrights in speaking out and acting nonviolently against what they andmost of the world regard as an illegal and immoral blockade of Gaza.But, if the bill passes in Congress, a bureaucrat in the U.S. Departmentof State will now be able to call those people and their associatedgroups “terrorists,” and Hillary Clinton will be able to confirm that judgmentto Congress. Next step is the MPs at the door.
If people cannot see what a slipperyslope all of this is, they not thinking very clearly.HR 3131 is admittedly still sitting in congressional committee, but ithas some very powerful sponsors, including Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida,who heads the Foreign Affairs Committee and is a rabid supporter ofIsrael. The bill not only indicts whole groups of people exercisingtheir constitutional rights and labels them “terrorists,” it even namesone American who was, at the time, breaking no U.S. law. Klusmire’sonly crime was to “set sail without permission” — in Greece.It was clearly a bogus charge manufactured to suit by a vulnerable Greekgovernment desperately needing international loans and under pressurefrom the United States and Israel.
Klusmire’s real crime was to opposea powerful interest group, the Israel Lobby. To doso these days is to invite a charge of terrorism support with the optionof being arrested by the Pentagon and locked up somewhere at the pleasureof the president of the United States. How low have we sunk, Mr.Obama? You portray yourself as a man of honor and a defender ofconstitutionalism, but you have opened the gates to lawlessness and authoritarianrule. And even if you are as benign as you depict yourself, youhave provided the legal tools for those who might follow you — theGingriches, the Perrys, the Bachmanns, and the Santorums — to possiblydo much, much worse.

Extremism in ‘Defense’ of Israel

2012-01-23T10:05:00.001-07:00

Israel-Firster: "Take Out the President"

by Justin Raimondo

There’s no doubt about it: Andrew B. Adler, the editor of the Atlanta Jewish Times, is a fool. His article advocating the assassination of President Obama has by now been broadcast all over the internet, and brought condemnation from every quarter down on his head. His tearful apologies, his denials that he actually meant to call for Obama’s death, and the swiftness with which major Jewish organizations distanced themselves from his crazed call are, perhaps, punishment enough for the poor man: I can’t help feeling sorry for him.

The Atlanta Jewish Times is not exactly the Forward: with a circulation of around 3,000, it is an obscure publication that carries news of the local Jewish community and is seemingly typical of the dozens of similar niche newspapers throughout the country – except, of course, for the views of its editor, which are by no means typical of the Jewish community. That being said, this incident underscores a phenomenon that has been largely overlooked until recently, and that is the extremism of a certain segment of the pro-Israel community. That this element is present in the Jewish community was acknowledged by none other than my old friend Abe Foxman, of the Anti-Defamation League, in his statement condemning Adler’s piece:
“There is absolutely noexcuse, no justification, no rationalization for this kind of rhetoric.It doesn’t even belong in fiction. These are irresponsible andextremist words. It is outrageous and beyond the pale. Anapology cannot possibly repair the damage.
“Irresponsible rhetoricmetastasizes into more dangerous rhetoric. The ideas expressedin Mr. Adler’s column reflect some of the extremist rhetoric that unfortunatelyexists – even in some segments of our community – that maliciouslylabels President Obama as an ‘enemy of the Jewish people.’”
Foxman is right: there are indeed extremists among us who could easily be incited to act on Adler’s recommendation – and not all or even most of them are of the Jewish faith. We have millions of Christians in this country who have theological reasons for fanatically supporting the state of Israel, even over and above the interests of their own country – not that they would ever admit the possibility of any “daylight” between the nations. They are, to put it in popular parlance, “Israel-Firsters,” and proudly so.
Adler, for his part, appears to be at least a sympathizer of the Chabad movement, an international ultra-orthodox movement some of whose followers reportedly cheered the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish extremist. I won’t get into their theological justification for such kookiness: suffice to say that Chabad has allied itself with the most extreme elements, including within Israel, with parties and politicians who call for the expulsion of all Arabs. Chabad of Georgia claims Adler is not a member, but this has to be taken with a very large grain of salt: after all, visitors to the web site of his newspaper are greeted by a promotion for the local Chabad organization.
Whether he is an official member, or merely a sympathizer, is a detail, however: the larger picture is that the scenario imagined by Adler in his piece reflects the all-too-familiar narrative put out there by our Israel-Firsters, and by the Netanyahu government, which is that Israel currently faces an “existential” crisis, the inevitable result of which will be a second Holocaust:
“You are Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu. You are responsible for 7 million Israeli citizenswho comprise the state of Israel. You wake up one morning, and the IsraelDefense Forces’ military commander hands you a detailed report regardingwhat to expect during a major conflict with Hezbollah and Syria fiveyears from today.
“The report states thatIsrael will come under fire from 15,000 rockets and missiles, and thatcasualties will be in the thousands. That’s thousands, not hundreds- thousands.
“Simultaneously, anotherIDF military commander strolls over while you are finishing your firstcup of coffee and hands you a report that Iran has reached nuclear launchcapabilities.
“If that’s not enough,an Israeli diplomat informs you that you cannot expect much help fromthe United States due to its newly implemented military budget and theadministrations never ending “Alice in Wonderland” belief that diplomacyis the answer.
“To all the Netanyahus outthere, what do you do?”
Adler has three suggestions:1) “Order a pre-emptive strike against both Hezbollah and Hamas,”2) “Go against Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s wishes that Israeltake a lethal bullet in the name of preserving a healthy, worldwideeconomic climate, and order the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilitiesat all costs”, and 3) “Give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agentsto take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for thecurrent vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate thatthe United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterateits enemies.”
Adler describes these actions as possible “options,” and you’ll note they aren’t mutually exclusive – although carrying out the third option, in tandem with numbers one and two, seems like overkill , if you’ll pardon the expression. Yes, but not to someone so imbued with apocalyptic urgency that he would seriously contemplate the third option. Because, you see, Israel’s very existence is imperiled: it’ faces an “existential threat.” Once you accept this premise, the idea that one could save the lives of millions of Israelis by sacrificing the life of one man – even if he is President of the United States – becomes all too plausible. True believers in the “existential threat” narrative would have every reason to not only entertain the prospect of assassinating a President they thought was anti-Israel – or even a secret Muslim – they would consider it a moral duty, whether they did it for religious reasons or out of a devotion to pure utilitarianism.
In Friday’s column I wrote about the case of the DC Five, the five bloggers for two liberal Washington think tanks who were reprimanded – and, in one case, fired – because they used the term “Israel Firster.” The same organizations – the American Jewish Committee, the ADL, etc. – that pounced on Adler had just finished jumping all over the DC Five for engaging in “toxic” and “classically anti-Semitic” discourse, promoting the “myth” of “dual loyalty” among Jewish-Americans and supporters of Israel more generally. James Kirchick, of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, claims to have traced the etymology of “Israel Firster” back to Willis Carto, the notorious anti-Semite who published The Spotlight newspaper: avid researcher Kirchick doesn’t even bother trying to prove the term originated with Carto (after all, how could one prove such a thing?): it’s enough for him that Carto’s obscure publication used terms like “Israel-Firster” and routinely hurled unfounded accusations of “dual loyalty” to make the entire subject off limits to the rest of us.
In answer to defenders of the DC Five who say their writings are being taken out of context, Kirchick argues they are encouraging “far right” anti-Semitic discourse taken straight from The Spotlight’s repertoire, and adds:
“Asif there were ever a context, other than that of, say, Jonathan Pollard,in which it would be appropriate to label an American Jew an‘Israel-firster’ or ‘dual loyalist.’”
I would ask Kirchick to read Adler’s article, and then revise his sweeping statement. Surely Adler qualifies as a bona fide “Israel-Firster”: he’s no Pollard, and he is very far from being an anomaly. Never mind his Jewishness: there are probably far more alleged Christians immersed in a similarly apocalyptic mindset who are just as likely to draw the same demented conclusions.
The leadersof pro-Israel groups who lined up demanding the purge of the DC Five,are in denial: if they doubt the existence of Israel-Firsters, let themread the words of an American citizen calmly contemplating the assassinationof his own President – in the name of “saving” Israel.
Let them also begin to take some responsibility for Adler’s frame of mind: faithfully echoing the hysterical cries of the Netanyahu government, they have pushed the idea that Israel faces an “existential threat” from Iran against all available evidence. The chief persecutor of the DC Five, one Josh Block – a former AIPAC spokesman and longtime Democratic party operative – told Politico there is “no room” for “political rhetoric that is hostile to Israel, or suggests that Iran has no nuclear weapons program” in “mainstream Democratic party discourse.”
As our policymakers contemplategoing to war with Iran, the Israel-Firsters among us want to stop thedebate before it even begins. They want to police our language so asto make it impossible to even talk about the issue in terms of whatserves America’s national interest.
I am struck by how much the War Party’s case for war with Iran resembles the “ticking time bomb” argument used to justify torture. Torture advocates routinely pose the question in the following terms: suppose you were confronted with the imminent destruction of New York City by a nuclear device, and your choice was either to torture the details of the plot out of a captive terrorist or allow the destruction of the city – which would you choose? This limns the scenario Adler presented to his readers, in which the “ticking time bomb” of a supposedly pending nuclear attack on Israel is prevented by the assassination of the President. Granted, it’s an extreme “solution” – but, hey, only an anti-Semite could possibly object.
The reality is quite different from the impending apocalypse projected by the Israel lobby, which Adler takes to its “logical” and thoroughly nutty conclusion. Bristling with weapons bought and paid for by you and I, its hundreds of nukes aimed straight at Tehran, the Jewish state has easily repelled repeated attempts by its neighbors to enforce the Palestinians’ claimed “right of return”: its military superiority is unquestioned. Our own National Intelligence Estimate informs us Tehran stopped trying to create a nuclear weapons program in 2003, and in spite of a relentless propaganda campaign no new evidence has been uncovered to convincingly show otherwise. Yet to listen to Israel’s leaders, and their amen corner in the US, one would think nuclear-tipped missiles are already hurtling toward Tel Aviv. By manufacturing this phony “existential threat,” the Israel lobby implicitly gave the green light to idiots like Adler, who take their cynical propaganda dead seriously.
Everyone was shocked by Adler’sarticle, but was anyone besides Kirchick, Foxman & Co. really surprised?In the context of the hysterics engaged in by Israel’s most vocal“defenders,” this was likely to happen sooner or later. Let us hopeand pray no one is sufficiently “inspired” by their rhetoricto act out Adler’s prescription for Israel’s continued survival.

What Is War Good For?. by David R. Henderson

2012-01-23T10:03:00.002-07:00

US Envoy Confirms Meeting With Haqqani Network

2012-01-23T10:02:00.000-07:00

Urges Taliban to 'Denounce' Terrorism

by Jason Ditz,

Speaking today at a news conference in Kabul, US Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman announced that he held a single, secret meeting with members of the Haqqani Network.
“I think from the Afghan perspective anyway, this is an inclusive process but we will have to see what turns out,” Grossman added. He provided no details about where or when the Haqqani meeting took place.
Recent reports suggest the administration is desperate to show some sort of progress in Afghanistan, and is willing to talk to virtually anyhow who will listen. Yesterday’s reports of the Karzai government courting the Hezb-e Islami has been followed up by reports that top US officials also met with the group.
The US has made much of the Haqqani faction being a “top” threat in Afghanistan, using them as an excuse for the targeting of North Waziristan with repeated air strikes. Grossman said he hopes that the Taliban and other groups soon decide to publicly “denounce” terrorism.

Ron Paul's achievement. By Charles Krauthammer

2012-01-23T09:53:00.002-07:00

Romneywon a major victory with nearly 40 percent of the vote, 16 points ahead ofNo. 2. The split among his challengers made the outcome even more decisive.Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were diminished by distant, lower-tierfinishes. Rick Perry got less than 1 percent. And Jon Huntsman, who stakedeverything on New Hampshire, came in a weak third with less than half ofRomney’s vote. He practically moved to the state — and then received exactlyone-sixth of the vote in a six-man contest. Wheredoes he go from here?

But thebigger winner was Ron Paul. He got 21 percent in Iowa, 23 in New Hampshire,the only candidate other than Romney to do well with two very differentelectorates, one more evangelical and socially conservative, the other moremoderate and fiscally conservative.

Paul commands a strong,energetic, highly committed following. And he is unlike any of the othercandidates. They’re out to win. He admits he doesn’t see himself in the OvalOffice. They’re one-time self-contained enterprises aiming for the White House.Paul is out there to build a movement that will long outlive this campaign.

	RECEIVE LIBERTY LOVING COLUMNISTS IN YOUR INBOX … FOR FREE!
	Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

There are two stories comingout of New Hampshire. The big story is Mitt Romney. The bigger one is Ron Paul.

Paul is less a candidate thana “cause,” to cite hiselection-night New Hampshire speech. Which is why that speech was the onlyone by a losing candidate that was sincerely, almost giddily joyous. The othercandidates had to pretend they were happy with their results.

Paul was genuinely delightedwith his, because, after a quarter-century in the wilderness, he’s within reachof putting his cherished cause on the map. Libertarianism will have gone fromthe fringes — those hopeless, pathetic third-party runs — to a position ofprominence in a major party.

Look at him now. He’s gettingprime-time air, interviews everywhere and, most important, respect fordefeating every Republican candidate but one. His goal is to make himselfleader of the opposition — within the Republican Party.

He is Jesse Jackson of the1980s, who represented a solid, African American, liberal-activist constituencyto which, he insisted, attention had to be paid by the Democratic Party. Or PatBuchanan (briefly) in 1992, who demanded — and gained — on behalf of socialconservatives a significant role at a convention that was supposed to be asimple coronation of the moderate George H.W. Bush.

No one remembers Bush’s 1992acceptance speech. Everyone remembers Buchanan’s fiery and disastrousculture-war address.

At the Democraticconventions, Jackson’s platform demands and speechesdrew massive attention, often overshadowing his party’s blander nominees.

Paul won’t quit before theRepublican convention in Tampa. He probably will not do well in South Carolinaor Florida, but with volunteers even in the more neglected caucusstates, he will be relentlessly collecting delegates until Tampa. His goalis to have the second-most delegates, a position of leverage from which toinfluence the platform and demand a prime-time speaking slot — before deigningto support the nominee at the end. The early days of the convention, otherwisedevoid of drama, could very well be all about Paul.

The Democratic conventionwill be a tightly scripted TV extravaganza extolling the Prince and his wiseand kindly rule. The Republican convention could conceivably feature a majoraddress by Paul calling for the abolition of the Fed, FEMA and the CIA;American withdrawal from everywhere; acquiescence to the Iranian bomb — andperhaps even Paul’s opposition to a border fence lest it be used to keepAmericans in. Not exactly the steady, measured, reassuring message aRepublican convention might wish to convey. For libertarianism, however, itwould be a historic moment: mainstream recognition at last.

Put aside your own view oflibertarianism or of Paul himself. I see libertarianism as an importantcritique of the Leviathan state, not a governing philosophy. As for Paulhimself, I find him a principled, somewhat wacky, highly engaging eccentric.But regardless of my feelings or yours, the plain fact is that Paul isnurturing his movement toward visibility and legitimacy.

Paul is 76. He knows he’llnever enter the promised land. But he’s clearing the path for son Rand, hisbetter placed (Senate vs. House), more moderate, more articulate successor.

And it matters not whetheryou find amusement in libertarians practicing dynastic succession. What Paulhas already wrought is a signal achievement, the biggest story yet of thispresidential campaign.

The Distortion Lobe

2012-01-22T23:11:00.001-07:00

The Distortion Lobe, by Kevin Jackson

Scientists could gain keen insights into the brains of psychotics, through an analysis of Obama’s first campaign commercial, where the claim is made that Obama’s green energy policy has created 2.7M jobs.
Facts are not reality in the Liberal brain, as the Liberal brain has an inner lobe, called “The Distortion Lobe.” Conservatives have shortened this to the “WTF” area—the part of the Liberal brain that replaces cold hard facts with feel-good emotions. This part of the brain shuts down the ability to reason or hear with clarity. Further studies show that this part of the brain produces a chemical called “vitriol” in abundance, particularly when bombarded with facts.
I have to hand it to the Liberals for distorting the facts head on. It’s as if they are thinking, “Let’s make the lie so big, that it’s unbelievable, thus making it…truth!” It takes some gall to tell American taxpayers that the billions of wasted money behind Solyndra, Beacon, and “other green energy players to be named later” have actually created jobs. To quote the antagonist at the end of every Scoobey Doo episode:

“And I would have gotten away with it, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!”

Naive Obama, the non-capitalist who doesn’t consider Solyndra or Beacon and the like failures. It is we taxpaying Conservatives who have it twisted. Failure is the definition of success for Liberals. Obama evaluates success as, “At least Solyndra tried!”
Obama’s commercial is clever in that it doesn’t divulge the nagging fact that under Obama America has lost nearly 2M jobs. Don’t let that get in the way of Liberals’ feel-good spin from the Distortion Lobe. We are supposed to realize how lucky America is to have such greatness at the helm of our cruise ship. The ship may be sinking from losing 2M jobs, but the captain is black, so it’s all good!
Saying he created 2.7M jobs is Obama taking dingy safety. He is overseeing the damage. For Liberals, Obama abandoning the sinking ship shows courage under fire, leadership. How else would Obama get the “full view” of the “mess he inherited” had he not abandoned the ship for the “wider view?” In the wider view, Obama can see that 2M jobs lost is the equivalent of 2.7M jobs created, thus a net of 700,000 jobs! This is why unemployment is not dipping, if you can follow the logic.
What Right-side Rambo will face...

SEXY BRILLIANCE

by KEVIN JACKSON

“Sexy Brilliance brings levity to the political discourse in this country. I put a comedic spin on what's happening in America, and showcases the ironies and hypocrisies of politics in America.”

Preview this book at FastPencil.com

the barrage of Barrack? Not sure yet.Republican {clear throat} gladiators compete in primaries and caucuses around the country to vie for the chance to battle Barrack. Republican {clear throat} warriors continue to be carried from the arena, Bachmann, Huntsman, the most recent victim Rick Perry, who died from bacterial infections of self-inflicted wounds. Soon there will be more carnage, leaving only one man standing.
Despite what the media reports, it is incredulous to believe that Obama has any chance whatsoever. Save Ron Paul (go ahead and send hate emails), I’m convinced that whoever is selected should have NO trouble beating Obama. In case you’ve missed my earlier point: Obama is advertising failed policies for Goodness sake!
In an economy ravaged by unemployment, where Obama recently celebrated the fact that unemployment went down because 300,000 more Americans quit looking for jobs, Obama is touting his failed green jobs policy. That’s like the police chief holding a press conference at a murder scene to tout the reduction in crime.
2.7M green energy jobs? Obama must be counting the people screwing in those new carcinogenic light bulbs. If you believe for a minute that Obama’s green energy debacle has created 2.7M jobs, then you should be drug tested. This is not just lying; this is pathological, blatant, “have you no shame” lying par excellente, that Democrats deem fair play. The Democrats have two strategies in this re-election campaign—lying and cheating. Their strategy leads to Obama’s two chances of being re-elected—slim and none.
The only thing Obama can possibly run on is excuses.
How many people start a new job and complain about the previous guy on the job? You take over a role not to point back at the so-called failure you replaced. Can you imagine a job interview, where you say, “Now keep in mind that it may take me time to be successful, because of the failures of the guy I’m replacing.”
Spend your way out of debt? Obama has tried. Obama will soon be $6.2T in, and he hasn’t quite hit the g-spot on spending. “Just gimme four mo years,” he says. Welfare is stimulus, giving America back $1.85 for every $1 spent. Sure, and cobras make good house pets.
When Liberals espouse their policy ideas, you get a glimpse of what LSD does to one’s mind. The Distortion Lobe might work well in music, Jimi Hendrix, but it’s a real hindrance when you are running with the world’s largest economy.
That’s my rant!

INTERMEX POWER

Internecine warring could hand the victory to Obama

His vote for Carter’s Department of Education was an early sign

Friends of the president are given billions in government largesse

Proposed settlement hides payoff to banks worth hundreds of billions

Capital-gains tax misses the opportunity to spur the economy

Soaring rhetoric won't fix the economy.

By DALIBOR ROHAC

Posted by David Boaz

The long arm of the state

How the Communist Party is trying to expand its influence in the private sector

Deaf to deficit warnings

– by Tibor Machan

– by Staff Report

– by Ron Paul

– by Tibor Machan

– by Anthony Wile

Megaupload's Planned Music Locker - Example of Private Justice?

Mitt Keeps Missing the Message

If Romney wins Florida, it won't be because he's becoming a more effective candidate.

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

By NOUR MALAS and BILL SPINDLE

Photos: Conflict Approaches Capital

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model

Posted By Clyde Prestowitz

Kazakhstan may not be ripe forrevolution, but the West is making the same mistakes it made in the Arab world.

BY JOANNA LILLIS

Socialism = Bribery = Welfare State [Reader Post]

Ron Paul - Republican Tea Party Presidential Debate

Ron Paul after Tampa Debate

All Ron Paul's Higlights At The NBC Florida GOP Debate

Ron Paul Highlights - NBC Florida Debate 01/23/12

"Ron Paul Was The Most Relaxed Most Entertaining Guy One Out There!"

Rand Paul talks to Sean Hannity about being detained by the TSA

Rand Paul Says TSA Agents Threatened To A Full Body Pat-Down For Using H...

The Collapse of America

The 2012 Election Circus — The Acts, The Players, The Hype

KING OBAMA I

CNN Poll Shows Ron Paul Most Likely Beats Obama In November, Newt Does Not

Finding Believers in Liberty in the Strangest Places

Andrew Jackson and the Central Bank

Drug War Censorship

Rand Paul Detained by TSA - Updated

Tides of Darkness

Creating American Terrorists

Extremism in ‘Defense’ of Israel

What Is War Good For?. by David R. Henderson

US Envoy Confirms Meeting With Haqqani Network

Urges Taliban to 'Denounce' Terrorism

Ron Paul's achievement. By Charles Krauthammer

The Distortion Lobe