My ocean dive.
And beer for our horses.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Top Stories
After browsing Yahoo Financial, I noticed a little section entitled, "Top Stories."
Such phrases were present as:
"Wall Street tumbles..."
"Rapid response to crisis..."
"Bank meltdown..."
"Financial shield..."
These truly are turning into some scary times for everyone.
http://biz.yahoo.com/top.html
Such phrases were present as:
"Wall Street tumbles..."
"Rapid response to crisis..."
"Bank meltdown..."
"Financial shield..."
These truly are turning into some scary times for everyone.
http://biz.yahoo.com/top.html
Sunday, September 21, 2008
3 Percent!!!
"3 percent in the poll said they would support someone else"
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/09/21/news/breaking_news/doc48d5b05a90f91577330741.txt
Must have been no option for the third party voters such as *cough* Bob Barr *cough*.
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/09/21/news/breaking_news/doc48d5b05a90f91577330741.txt
Must have been no option for the third party voters such as *cough* Bob Barr *cough*.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Government take-over
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now under control of the government.
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/09/07/news/breaking_news/doc48c4445632064440291992.txt
After a long day of work, I get home, fire up the internet and read this...
"The Bush administration announced Sunday it was taking control of the two institutions to avert the potential for major financial turmoil."
The first thing that I could think of was...wow we really are on our way to Socialism.
These were two privately owned businesses that are now under complete control of our government. My new career goal is to create a trillion dollar business, do whatever I want and then if I ever make a mistake, the government will step in to help me out! Wow, what a business model.
"Both companies were placed into a government conservatorship that will be run by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the new agency created by Congress this summer to regulate Fannie and Freddie. The executives and board of directors of both institutions are being replaced."
I wonder what other companies will be put under control of our government?
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/09/07/news/breaking_news/doc48c4445632064440291992.txt
After a long day of work, I get home, fire up the internet and read this...
"The Bush administration announced Sunday it was taking control of the two institutions to avert the potential for major financial turmoil."
The first thing that I could think of was...wow we really are on our way to Socialism.
These were two privately owned businesses that are now under complete control of our government. My new career goal is to create a trillion dollar business, do whatever I want and then if I ever make a mistake, the government will step in to help me out! Wow, what a business model.
"Both companies were placed into a government conservatorship that will be run by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the new agency created by Congress this summer to regulate Fannie and Freddie. The executives and board of directors of both institutions are being replaced."
I wonder what other companies will be put under control of our government?
Friday, August 29, 2008
McCain fights inexperience with inexperience
John McCain has announce his VP running mate:
Sarah Palin....
what? who?
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/08/29/news/top_story/doc48b80db69010d962639386.txt
Thoughts?
Sarah Palin....
what? who?
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/08/29/news/top_story/doc48b80db69010d962639386.txt
Thoughts?
Thursday, July 31, 2008
I.O.U.S.A.
As has been widely reported, Congress last week passed H.R. 3221, a "comprehensive" housing bill, with our favorite fiscally irresponsible 4th District representative voting in favor of it. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will cost about $37 billion next year, and it provides $25 billion over the next two years in "relief" for failed semi-governmental institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, the CBO states that the cost of this "bailout" for Fannie and Freddie could be as high as $100 billion. These estimates do not even include the $300 billion that the bill authorizes the Federal Housing Administration to spend on guaranteeing loans through 2011. This bill ultimately could cost as much as $500 billion.
Never mind the considerable cost of the bill and the borrowing it will entail at a time when the Administration projects the budget deficit next year to be near $500 billion. Or the fact that, by allowing Fannie and Freddie to purchase mortgages as high as $625,000 and giving borrowers and lenders alike a free ride, the bill will do absolutely nothing to address the problems in our mortgage markets and our financial markets in general. The real shame about this horrendous piece of legislation is a provision that has absolutely nothing to do with mortgages at all, but does have everything to do with the most pressing economic issue we face. The bill increases the public debt ceiling, which is the amount of debt that the government can "legally" have, to $10.6 trillion.
This limit has had no real meaning historically, as Congress has increased it periodically from $43 billion in 1940 to now $10.6 trillion. This trend over time reflects an absolute lack of willingness of our representatives in Washington to stop increasing spending at such a blinding rate and to make the hard decisions necessary to reduce the debt and prevent the economic collapse it will bring if left unchecked. In addition to the economic issue at hand, the debt and the conscious increasing of its limit by our representatives is a moral issue. In pushing more and more of the costs of their excesses on to future generations, our representatives, including David Price, show themselves to be individuals of truly repugnant moral character.
But while our representatives are to blame for their behavior, we the people are to blame for electing them and not holding them accountable for their behavior. Much of this is likely due to what appears to be a genuine lack of concern for the debt, as a recent Pew Research Poll finds that deficits rank behind the economy, education, jobs, health care, energy, Social Security and Iraq. What many voters fail to realize is that most of these issues are directly tied to the deficit and our future fiscal outlook, particularly the health of the economy. It is absolutely essential that voters learn about deficits, debt, our long-term imbalances, and their horrifying consequences, so that we may elect responsible representatives who will take action to resolve what has truly become a crisis.
Thankfully, we have a golden opportunity before us to educate voters on the issues. Documentary films have shown to have tremendous impact in raising awareness and public profiles of issues, and a new documentary about the debt will be released in August. The film is appropriately titled I.O.U.S.A. and will be debuting on August 22. There will be a special screening the night before on August 21, which will be accompanied by a live discussion featuring former Comptroller of the Currency David Walker, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffet, and Blackstone Group Chairman and former Commerce Secretary Peter Peterson. As the trailer states, "You can't afford to miss this film."
Never mind the considerable cost of the bill and the borrowing it will entail at a time when the Administration projects the budget deficit next year to be near $500 billion. Or the fact that, by allowing Fannie and Freddie to purchase mortgages as high as $625,000 and giving borrowers and lenders alike a free ride, the bill will do absolutely nothing to address the problems in our mortgage markets and our financial markets in general. The real shame about this horrendous piece of legislation is a provision that has absolutely nothing to do with mortgages at all, but does have everything to do with the most pressing economic issue we face. The bill increases the public debt ceiling, which is the amount of debt that the government can "legally" have, to $10.6 trillion.
This limit has had no real meaning historically, as Congress has increased it periodically from $43 billion in 1940 to now $10.6 trillion. This trend over time reflects an absolute lack of willingness of our representatives in Washington to stop increasing spending at such a blinding rate and to make the hard decisions necessary to reduce the debt and prevent the economic collapse it will bring if left unchecked. In addition to the economic issue at hand, the debt and the conscious increasing of its limit by our representatives is a moral issue. In pushing more and more of the costs of their excesses on to future generations, our representatives, including David Price, show themselves to be individuals of truly repugnant moral character.
But while our representatives are to blame for their behavior, we the people are to blame for electing them and not holding them accountable for their behavior. Much of this is likely due to what appears to be a genuine lack of concern for the debt, as a recent Pew Research Poll finds that deficits rank behind the economy, education, jobs, health care, energy, Social Security and Iraq. What many voters fail to realize is that most of these issues are directly tied to the deficit and our future fiscal outlook, particularly the health of the economy. It is absolutely essential that voters learn about deficits, debt, our long-term imbalances, and their horrifying consequences, so that we may elect responsible representatives who will take action to resolve what has truly become a crisis.
Thankfully, we have a golden opportunity before us to educate voters on the issues. Documentary films have shown to have tremendous impact in raising awareness and public profiles of issues, and a new documentary about the debt will be released in August. The film is appropriately titled I.O.U.S.A. and will be debuting on August 22. There will be a special screening the night before on August 21, which will be accompanied by a live discussion featuring former Comptroller of the Currency David Walker, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffet, and Blackstone Group Chairman and former Commerce Secretary Peter Peterson. As the trailer states, "You can't afford to miss this film."
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
America: A nation of debt
Yesterday, newspapers and wire services across the country reported that the U.S. government's deficit is expected to surge to an astounding half-trillion dollars next year. Here's the kicker. That figure doesn't include billions more dollars that will likely, nay most definitely, be spent on the Iraq War. And if the economy doesn't pick up, that figure will undoubtedly grow even bigger as Washington officials try to correct our economic woes by pumping artificial money into the hands of unsuspecting Americans.
Folks, this is big. We are facing the largest deficit in terms of dollar amounts in U.S. history and no one seems to care -- at least our presidential candidates don't seemed shaken by the bleak news.
Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain are proposing any budget cuts. Rather, Obama is promising to expand social programs, health care and education initiatives. McCain is promising tax cuts across the board and will keep troops in Iraq. Without budget cuts in other sectors, both candidates' campaign platforms are a recipe for disaster.
Officials reported yesterday that the record high deficit is being driven by the economic downturn and the government's attempt to boost the economy by providing 130 million households with stimulus checks. What the mainstream media has failed to mention is some of the other reasons why the Land of the Free is up to her ears in debt.
Who do you think is bailing out all those mortgagors hit hard by the tumbling housing market? What about the failing banks? The corporations who made bad investments?
Well, obviously it's the government bailing these people out. Wrong. You are bailing those people out! Yes, that's right. You, the taxpayer. Your tax dollars, my friends, are going to pay for the mistakes, irresponsibility and misjudgment of others.
When will the madness stop? Will the government soon start footing the bills for compulsive shoppers who are months behind on their credit card payments? This sounds absolutely absurd of course and rightfully so.
Our politicians need to realize that there is no "quick fix" to this economic recession. Printing more money doesn't solve our financial problems. While it may create more physical money, it decreases the purchasing power of what's in our wallets.
Spending billions of dollars that we don't have is only going to worsen our predicament, not aid it. You don't have to be an economist to figure that out.
Folks, this is big. We are facing the largest deficit in terms of dollar amounts in U.S. history and no one seems to care -- at least our presidential candidates don't seemed shaken by the bleak news.
Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain are proposing any budget cuts. Rather, Obama is promising to expand social programs, health care and education initiatives. McCain is promising tax cuts across the board and will keep troops in Iraq. Without budget cuts in other sectors, both candidates' campaign platforms are a recipe for disaster.
Officials reported yesterday that the record high deficit is being driven by the economic downturn and the government's attempt to boost the economy by providing 130 million households with stimulus checks. What the mainstream media has failed to mention is some of the other reasons why the Land of the Free is up to her ears in debt.
Who do you think is bailing out all those mortgagors hit hard by the tumbling housing market? What about the failing banks? The corporations who made bad investments?
Well, obviously it's the government bailing these people out. Wrong. You are bailing those people out! Yes, that's right. You, the taxpayer. Your tax dollars, my friends, are going to pay for the mistakes, irresponsibility and misjudgment of others.
When will the madness stop? Will the government soon start footing the bills for compulsive shoppers who are months behind on their credit card payments? This sounds absolutely absurd of course and rightfully so.
Our politicians need to realize that there is no "quick fix" to this economic recession. Printing more money doesn't solve our financial problems. While it may create more physical money, it decreases the purchasing power of what's in our wallets.
Spending billions of dollars that we don't have is only going to worsen our predicament, not aid it. You don't have to be an economist to figure that out.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Help the President with Law Enforcement! Stop the Feds from Criminalizing Everything
I have an old metal sign, framed and hung on my office wall.
It says: Help the President with Law Enforcement! Repeal the 18th Amendment....for Prosperity!
Lots of stuff is illegal just because it happens to be against the law. Or to paraphrase the old gun slogan: If everything is criminalized, then all citizens will be criminals.
Interesting conference at Heritage; MP3 here.
Thanks to William G. Atwell, Prison Fellowship Ministries, for sending it along.
But...I have to ask: Ed Meese? Ed MEESE? I accept that big Ed has it right on the federalism (return police power to the states) issue. But yikes.
By itself the pure "return power to the states" perspective is only a half measure, or quarter measure. Here is my view.....
The ideal is self-ownership, and self-responsibility. I drink too much, I have an accident, I owe very large restitution, and since I committed violence, I go to jail. I have violated, egregiously, my promise not to initiate violence against others.
In most matters, I would like for the "policy" choices (say, do we smoke marijuana?) to be "local." Meaning, I decide for me, and you decide for you. My mind decides for my body. That's local control.
Once politics gets into it, then I start deciding for you, and you start deciding for me. Not good, but less is better. Better if these choices are local, made at the small town level than at the county level. Better at the county level than the state level. And better at the state level than the federal level. And better at the federal level than at the North American Union level. (EEK!)
So, sure, moving from the fed level down to the states is a small improvement (although the states abused that right in Jim Crow, and resisted basic human rights for blacks for decades).
But the real problems is criminalizing everything. It's not FEDERAL criminalizing everything, it's making crimes of consensual behavior at ANY level. Moving from fed to state control simply makes it easier to get some states to do the right thing, the opposite of Madison's argument in Federalist #10.
I don't see that it matters that much if you are in fed prison, or a city jail. In both cases, you might as well free your mind, 'cause your ass ain't goin' nowhere.*
Help the President, the Governor, the Mayor, and the traffic cop with law enforcement. Get rid of a bunch of laws.
(*Plagiarized from Jon Stewart)
It says: Help the President with Law Enforcement! Repeal the 18th Amendment....for Prosperity!
Lots of stuff is illegal just because it happens to be against the law. Or to paraphrase the old gun slogan: If everything is criminalized, then all citizens will be criminals.
Interesting conference at Heritage; MP3 here.
Thanks to William G. Atwell, Prison Fellowship Ministries, for sending it along.
But...I have to ask: Ed Meese? Ed MEESE? I accept that big Ed has it right on the federalism (return police power to the states) issue. But yikes.
By itself the pure "return power to the states" perspective is only a half measure, or quarter measure. Here is my view.....
The ideal is self-ownership, and self-responsibility. I drink too much, I have an accident, I owe very large restitution, and since I committed violence, I go to jail. I have violated, egregiously, my promise not to initiate violence against others.
In most matters, I would like for the "policy" choices (say, do we smoke marijuana?) to be "local." Meaning, I decide for me, and you decide for you. My mind decides for my body. That's local control.
Once politics gets into it, then I start deciding for you, and you start deciding for me. Not good, but less is better. Better if these choices are local, made at the small town level than at the county level. Better at the county level than the state level. And better at the state level than the federal level. And better at the federal level than at the North American Union level. (EEK!)
So, sure, moving from the fed level down to the states is a small improvement (although the states abused that right in Jim Crow, and resisted basic human rights for blacks for decades).
But the real problems is criminalizing everything. It's not FEDERAL criminalizing everything, it's making crimes of consensual behavior at ANY level. Moving from fed to state control simply makes it easier to get some states to do the right thing, the opposite of Madison's argument in Federalist #10.
I don't see that it matters that much if you are in fed prison, or a city jail. In both cases, you might as well free your mind, 'cause your ass ain't goin' nowhere.*
Help the President, the Governor, the Mayor, and the traffic cop with law enforcement. Get rid of a bunch of laws.
(*Plagiarized from Jon Stewart)
Sunday, July 27, 2008
John McCain: Cold Warrior?
Ellen Goodman thinks McCain is stuck on Vietnam. While I think she has a good point, I think he's just stuck in an overall Cold War state of mind. He is constantly agitating towards Russia, even suggesting we kick them out of the G8, as if the Bush administration hasn't done enough of that by placing a missile defense system on their doorstep. This hasn't produced the best results - Russia recently declared its right to strike preemptively, Russian planes are making more regular and provocative flights near US ships, and there are rumors that Russia is going to start basing nuclear bombers in Cuba again. In addition to all that, the so-called foreign policy expert has shown that he might not really be as on top of things in the Middle East as he'd like us to think he is. For example, he completely botched the timeline of the Sunni Awakening and the Surge (after he'd already shown us that he doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites). He also seems to have forgotten his geography - he stated that there was an "Iraq-Pakistan border" in an interview recently (possibly a Freudian slip illustrating his plans to erase Iran?). And finally, he has shown disdain for the troops by opposing Senator Webb's GI Bill and advocating unequal and inadequate care for veterans depending on where they served.
McCain says he would only ever consider reinstating slavery in the case of World War III. You be the judge as to whether he might just be crazy enough (or senile enough) to start it.
UPDATE: Charley Reese has a good article on LRC today about McCain being unfit to be President. Lew posts this addendum from the blog as well.
McCain says he would only ever consider reinstating slavery in the case of World War III. You be the judge as to whether he might just be crazy enough (or senile enough) to start it.
UPDATE: Charley Reese has a good article on LRC today about McCain being unfit to be President. Lew posts this addendum from the blog as well.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Seriously, Rudy
Rudy Giuliani was featured today on one of the morning talk shows criticizing Barack Obama in an attempt to suck up to John McCain. Giuliani, seemingly eyeing up the vice presidency, praised McCain's position on his support for the surge of troops in Iraq. Rudy went on to say that if it were not for the surge there would probably be a civil war in Iraq. Hmm, does Rudy know what's been going on in Iraq the past few years? It looks pretty much like a civil war to me.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board
Here is an interesting letter I received today about my previous campaign:
"The attached documents were sent into the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board as they did not contain a "paid for by" attribution statement as required by Iowa Code section 68A.405.
At this point I would appreciate your written response to the following:
1. Did you pay for the costs of these materials?
2. If not, do you know the name and address of who did?
3. Is there any other response you would like to make to help resolve this matter?
...here is where it gets interesting...
At this point you are under no obligation to provide a response. If you prefer, I can seek a subpoena to obtain testimony or documents. If you do choose to respond, please be aware that the Board will review any such response when making determinations concerning this matter. I would appreciate your response or a statement that you prefer I seek a subpoena on or before August 7, 2008."
---------------
Apparently someone paid for a mailing in my name that was sent to Cedar Falls, Iowa voters. I did have a pamphlet that I had made with the help of campaign donations, it had the "appropriate insignia" on it.
Apparently people aren't allowed to practice the freedom of expression..."to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used."
Now granted I knew about the campaign disclosure laws, and had followed them. I am just kind of mad that some independent citizen or organization spent there hard earned money on dispensing a message, their message to fellow citizens.
If I know who it was I am supposed to cry foul to the state government.
Bah hum bug.
"The attached documents were sent into the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board as they did not contain a "paid for by" attribution statement as required by Iowa Code section 68A.405.
At this point I would appreciate your written response to the following:
1. Did you pay for the costs of these materials?
2. If not, do you know the name and address of who did?
3. Is there any other response you would like to make to help resolve this matter?
...here is where it gets interesting...
At this point you are under no obligation to provide a response. If you prefer, I can seek a subpoena to obtain testimony or documents. If you do choose to respond, please be aware that the Board will review any such response when making determinations concerning this matter. I would appreciate your response or a statement that you prefer I seek a subpoena on or before August 7, 2008."
---------------
Apparently someone paid for a mailing in my name that was sent to Cedar Falls, Iowa voters. I did have a pamphlet that I had made with the help of campaign donations, it had the "appropriate insignia" on it.
Apparently people aren't allowed to practice the freedom of expression..."to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used."
Now granted I knew about the campaign disclosure laws, and had followed them. I am just kind of mad that some independent citizen or organization spent there hard earned money on dispensing a message, their message to fellow citizens.
If I know who it was I am supposed to cry foul to the state government.
Bah hum bug.
Indoctrinate U
Check out this eye opening documentary film about the lack of diversity in opinion and politics in our American colleges and universities:
http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/welcome.html
The film even includes a few interview snippets from Michael Munger. Sign up and get this film screened in your college hometown!
http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/welcome.html
The film even includes a few interview snippets from Michael Munger. Sign up and get this film screened in your college hometown!
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Not a Dime's Worth of Difference
In case it wasn't hard enough to distinguish the policy differences between McCain and Obama, President Bush is doing all he can to neutralize the few foreign policy differences that exist between the two candidates. By accelerating the withdrawal of forces from Iraq and contemplating intervention in Darfur, President Bush may just be able to sever the MoveOn crowd from Obama (their relationship is already on the rocks because of Obama's sell-out on FISA). Given that the "Far Left" was Obama's foundation of support during the primaries, losing them may make McCain's life a lot easier. Just goes to show that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, and they'll do anything to stay in power.
Welcome, Emily!
Emily is a Journalism and Political Science Major at Ohio. She is currently interning at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. She's got a fantastic blog running, which I've added to my blog roll. I'm very excited to have her on board, as she is a talented and insightful writer.
About that New Yorker cover...
I blog post I wrote this week: http://emilylmullin.blogspot.com/2008/07/about-that-new-yorker-cover.html.
Comments welcome.
Comments welcome.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Say goodbye to your civil liberties...
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/7-jbs-news-feed/1979-senate-violates-constitutional-rights-passes-wiretap-bill
Wake upAmerica
Wake up
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Yes, smoking is bad but....
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/07/02/news/breaking_news/doc486bfe337a625547896984.txt
Recently, Iowa lawmakers passed a state-wide smoking ban....well not really state-wide. Casinos are somehow excluded from this ban. The smoking ban was signed April 15 and was only put into place just yesterday, July 1st.
Iowa law makers have decided it is there duty to control private businesses and control the morality of its people.
Fortunately, the group, Iowa Bar Owners Coalition have filed a petition for the court to reconsider the constitutionality of the law.
It will be interesting to hear what the state of Iowa has to say about trampling on civil liberties yet again.
Recently, Iowa lawmakers passed a state-wide smoking ban....well not really state-wide. Casinos are somehow excluded from this ban. The smoking ban was signed April 15 and was only put into place just yesterday, July 1st.
Iowa law makers have decided it is there duty to control private businesses and control the morality of its people.
Fortunately, the group, Iowa Bar Owners Coalition have filed a petition for the court to reconsider the constitutionality of the law.
It will be interesting to hear what the state of Iowa has to say about trampling on civil liberties yet again.
A Favor to Ask
Dear Friends:
As you know, I have been working to run for Governor of North Carolina, as a Libertarian, for the past two years. Well, we got the 105,000 signatures, and we got on the ballot.
But then things got…weird. I was invited to the final debate, in October, at Queens College in Charlotte. But then that debate got cancelled, and ANOTHER debate, only without the Libertarians in it, got scheduled instead.
The state of NC is really dragging its feet in getting out new forms, so Libertarians can register. The state Board of Elections will barely meet with us, and the county Boards of Elections won't accept checks for filing fees for our candidates. I put up more than $1,000 worth of yard signs, and the state took them all down, because (get this) there is "no election going on at this time"! Ouch.
The only thing that can change this is participation at the grassroots.
And the only kind of participation that matters is….small contributions, from lots of folks!
That's why we are running a small money bomb tomorrow. It's so small, it's really just a money grenade.
Won't you join the Munger "Grenade Brigade"? Here's what you do, ANYTIME ON JULY 3 or JULY 4. Yes, ANYTIME:
1. Go to http://www.munger08.com
2. Click on "contribute"
3. Give $25, or less (the amount doesn't matter as much as the fact you show your support for democracy and free choice in politics!)
That's it. That's all I need.
Please help! Even if you have already given, PLEASE just give something. It isn't the money, as much as it is the message that lots of folks care.
Mike Munger
http://www.munger08.com
munger4ncgov@gmail.com
As you know, I have been working to run for Governor of North Carolina, as a Libertarian, for the past two years. Well, we got the 105,000 signatures, and we got on the ballot.
But then things got…weird. I was invited to the final debate, in October, at Queens College in Charlotte. But then that debate got cancelled, and ANOTHER debate, only without the Libertarians in it, got scheduled instead.
The state of NC is really dragging its feet in getting out new forms, so Libertarians can register. The state Board of Elections will barely meet with us, and the county Boards of Elections won't accept checks for filing fees for our candidates. I put up more than $1,000 worth of yard signs, and the state took them all down, because (get this) there is "no election going on at this time"! Ouch.
The only thing that can change this is participation at the grassroots.
And the only kind of participation that matters is….small contributions, from lots of folks!
That's why we are running a small money bomb tomorrow. It's so small, it's really just a money grenade.
Won't you join the Munger "Grenade Brigade"? Here's what you do, ANYTIME ON JULY 3 or JULY 4. Yes, ANYTIME:
1. Go to http://www.munger08.com
2. Click on "contribute"
3. Give $25, or less (the amount doesn't matter as much as the fact you show your support for democracy and free choice in politics!)
That's it. That's all I need.
Please help! Even if you have already given, PLEASE just give something. It isn't the money, as much as it is the message that lots of folks care.
Mike Munger
http://www.munger08.com
munger4ncgov@gmail.com
Friday, June 27, 2008
Lady Jade says: DONATE to B.J. Lawson on June 29!
First, Daily Paul picks up on this story. Then, Campaign for Liberty gets wind, followed very soon thereafter by LRC blog. Now, the absolutely undisputed #1 source for the hottest (literally!) news and developments in liberty has given her seal of approval! Rachel Mills (aka ladyjade3 on YouTube), something of a celebrity in Ron Paul circles for work such as this, has just added to her list of hits with a cordial request for Ron Paul supporters and liberty lovers everyone to donate to B.J. Lawson- a "sterling" Ron Paul Republican Congressional Candidate in North Carolina's Fourth District, the words of blogger Daniel McCarthy- on June 29, which is Sunday. (Tomorrow, as of the time of this update.)
Remember, everyone: pledge to donate to B.J. Lawson tomorrow, June 29, at http://lawsonlibertyfund.com. Or just go ahead and donate. The goal of the money bomb is to generate $80,000, which would give B.J. quite a nice financial result to report for the 2nd Quarter. Digg bomb forthcoming at 5:00 PM.
Remember, everyone: pledge to donate to B.J. Lawson tomorrow, June 29, at http://lawsonlibertyfund.com. Or just go ahead and donate. The goal of the money bomb is to generate $80,000, which would give B.J. quite a nice financial result to report for the 2nd Quarter. Digg bomb forthcoming at 5:00 PM.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
SCOTUS does its job.
And by its job, I mean to correctly interpret the Constitution and defend it against legal transgressions. Today, it ruled that- as the 2nd Amendment clearly states- individuals have a clear right to bear arms, and the fascist D.C. handgun ban was overturned.
It is quite troubling that the decision came down by a vote of 5-4. It just boggles my mind that any Supreme Court justice could possibly disagree with the sentiment that an individual does indeed have a Constitutionally-protected right to own a gun and that outright bans on guns violate this right. The decision can be summed up by the phrase, "Same old party lines," with the Right- Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito- voting for the decision, and the Left- Wicked Witch of the West (aka, Ginsburg), Breyer, and Stevens- voting against it. Kennedy, who is probably the most non-partisan judge on the court, thankfully sided with the right on this one. I'm disappointed, though, in Souter, who is also a very non-ideological member of the court who judges each case as an individual case. I would have thought that this would be an issue where he would side with the right.
The troubling part of this decision is its implication for the future. With the likelihood of McCain or Obama being the next President, there is a lot to be afraid of regarding their possible picks of justices. While most potential retirements in the near future- Stevens, Witch, Breyer- are on the left, Scalia is also up there in age. The prospect of a McCain or Obama judge replacing him with a "moderate" judge could lead to a hard reversal of this decision. Here's to hoping that Scalia holds on to that seat for the next 8 years.
For some ludicrous arguments by the likes of Breyer and Stevens, take a look at the article.
It is quite troubling that the decision came down by a vote of 5-4. It just boggles my mind that any Supreme Court justice could possibly disagree with the sentiment that an individual does indeed have a Constitutionally-protected right to own a gun and that outright bans on guns violate this right. The decision can be summed up by the phrase, "Same old party lines," with the Right- Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito- voting for the decision, and the Left- Wicked Witch of the West (aka, Ginsburg), Breyer, and Stevens- voting against it. Kennedy, who is probably the most non-partisan judge on the court, thankfully sided with the right on this one. I'm disappointed, though, in Souter, who is also a very non-ideological member of the court who judges each case as an individual case. I would have thought that this would be an issue where he would side with the right.
The troubling part of this decision is its implication for the future. With the likelihood of McCain or Obama being the next President, there is a lot to be afraid of regarding their possible picks of justices. While most potential retirements in the near future- Stevens, Witch, Breyer- are on the left, Scalia is also up there in age. The prospect of a McCain or Obama judge replacing him with a "moderate" judge could lead to a hard reversal of this decision. Here's to hoping that Scalia holds on to that seat for the next 8 years.
For some ludicrous arguments by the likes of Breyer and Stevens, take a look at the article.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Bob Barr updates.
1. Here's a terrific interview he just gave with MobLogic.tv. Oh, and the interviewers is SMOKING hot!
2. He'll be on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Also in that post, it states that he's been invited to appear at the Coke Zero 400 NASCAR race at Daytona on July 5th. As a NASCAR fan, this really excites me. It's also a great opportunity for him to tap into a conservative segment of Republican voters.
3. Barr's statement on the latest FISA sham compromise letting telecomms off the hook.
4. Liberty Maven has audio of the recent interview Bob did with Dennis Miller. He also has audio from a terrific interview with Alan Colmes.
5. Here's a video with the Washington Post.
2. He'll be on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Also in that post, it states that he's been invited to appear at the Coke Zero 400 NASCAR race at Daytona on July 5th. As a NASCAR fan, this really excites me. It's also a great opportunity for him to tap into a conservative segment of Republican voters.
3. Barr's statement on the latest FISA sham compromise letting telecomms off the hook.
4. Liberty Maven has audio of the recent interview Bob did with Dennis Miller. He also has audio from a terrific interview with Alan Colmes.
5. Here's a video with the Washington Post.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
B.J. Lawson vs. David Price: Round 1
You guys decide who won the first match. My verdict: Dr. Lawson. Kinda makes you want to donate to B.J. on June 29, doesn't it?
Monday, June 23, 2008
$300 million prize for innovation?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_energy;_ylt=AkZ4iFfc3UdBGCKQJgCWQDCs0NUE
Senator McCain proposes providing a prize of $300 million dollars to whoever can come up with a zero-emission car battery.
As any good citizen should do in contemplating such a decision, the first thing I do is wonder who is going to pay for it?
"I could pay for it by canceling three pork-barrel projects that are unnecessary and unwanted."
So instead of saving money by canceling "pork-barrel projects" we would continue spending money on other, more "worthy" projects?
I am all for having a zero-emission car but I'm not too sure how I feel about spending $300 million dollars to benefit a few.
Lets leave it up to the automobile makers, they know a strong demand will begin to grow for zero-emission vehicles (if it already hasn't). A strong demand for their product would be enough of an incentive. We don't need our government giving favors to a few.
Senator McCain proposes providing a prize of $300 million dollars to whoever can come up with a zero-emission car battery.
As any good citizen should do in contemplating such a decision, the first thing I do is wonder who is going to pay for it?
"I could pay for it by canceling three pork-barrel projects that are unnecessary and unwanted."
So instead of saving money by canceling "pork-barrel projects" we would continue spending money on other, more "worthy" projects?
I am all for having a zero-emission car but I'm not too sure how I feel about spending $300 million dollars to benefit a few.
Lets leave it up to the automobile makers, they know a strong demand will begin to grow for zero-emission vehicles (if it already hasn't). A strong demand for their product would be enough of an incentive. We don't need our government giving favors to a few.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Bob Barr as a "cautionary tale"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080622/ap_on_el_pr/bob_barr
I love how the Associated Press is already comparing Barr to Nader in 2000, but I guess any press is good press. Maybe this will force the Neocon brain trust to re-think some of their platform issues, lest they lose a big chunk of votes.
I love how the Associated Press is already comparing Barr to Nader in 2000, but I guess any press is good press. Maybe this will force the Neocon brain trust to re-think some of their platform issues, lest they lose a big chunk of votes.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
This is simply pathetic on Obama's part.
He's pre-empting racial tactics by Republicans by criticizing them for using racial tactics... before they even use them. If, as Senator Obama says, race should not be an issue in this campaign, as it absolutely SHOULD NOT be, then why is he, without prompt, bringing it up in the media? This is straight from the play book of Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. This is victimization before he's even a victim. It's very calculated and politically motivated, and it is VERY cynical.
This as well as his constant use of collectivist themes ("The rich suck," "We need UNITY, but under my plans, and the rest of you can screw off," "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation," etc.) render him a very poorly-suited vessel for bringing about a post-racial politics. Someone who says something "Republicans can't run on their record," in doing so inferring that every Republican out there supports every policy of the Bush Administration and is complicit in the consequences of them, is someone who is clearly a big supporter of using group identity to define people and clearly not interested in the value of people as individuals. Only destroying the very idea of collectivism and embracing the idea that we are all unique individuals with the same inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness can defeat racism. A part of this process means voting for Bob Barr instead of Senator Barack Obama.
This as well as his constant use of collectivist themes ("The rich suck," "We need UNITY, but under my plans, and the rest of you can screw off," "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation," etc.) render him a very poorly-suited vessel for bringing about a post-racial politics. Someone who says something "Republicans can't run on their record," in doing so inferring that every Republican out there supports every policy of the Bush Administration and is complicit in the consequences of them, is someone who is clearly a big supporter of using group identity to define people and clearly not interested in the value of people as individuals. Only destroying the very idea of collectivism and embracing the idea that we are all unique individuals with the same inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness can defeat racism. A part of this process means voting for Bob Barr instead of Senator Barack Obama.
Great Lawson Liberty Fund Video
Use this to promote the June 29 money bomb for B.J. Lawson in online forums, blogs, social networks, or wherever.
Friday, June 20, 2008
More catchup on Barr pimpage.
His very passionate and well-written confession of guilt over the War on Drugs.
Obama goes back on one of his biggest promises
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money_analysis
Obviously, he must have been nervous about the presently "close" national polls between he and McCain. Every time Obama made this promise in his speeches, I knew he would never keep it. How many other promises will Obama break before the end of this election? I guess it depends on how much he subscribes to the "win at all costs" motto.
Obviously, he must have been nervous about the presently "close" national polls between he and McCain. Every time Obama made this promise in his speeches, I knew he would never keep it. How many other promises will Obama break before the end of this election? I guess it depends on how much he subscribes to the "win at all costs" motto.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Lawson Liberty Fund Money Bomb
A supporter of B.J. Lawson has set up a Money Bomb for June 29, 2008, which is the 12th wedding anniversary for B.J. and his wife, JoLynn. Make sure you all sign up at http://lawsonlibertyfund.com.
Bombs away!
Bombs away!
Scotland warns of massive stock market crash
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/0
6/18/cnrbs118.xml
"The Royal Bank of Scotland has advised clients to brace for a full-fledged crash in global stock and credit markets over the next three months as inflation paralyses the major central banks.
"A very nasty period is soon to be upon us - be prepared," said Bob Janjuah, the bank's credit strategist."
I know where I'm moving my money...Au!
6/18/cnrbs118.xml"The Royal Bank of Scotland has advised clients to brace for a full-fledged crash in global stock and credit markets over the next three months as inflation paralyses the major central banks.
"A very nasty period is soon to be upon us - be prepared," said Bob Janjuah, the bank's credit strategist."
I know where I'm moving my money...Au!
Monday, June 16, 2008
More intros
Dana Mazer, who has been leading the Republican Liberty Caucus group in North Carolina, has now come on board. Also, another UNC Students for Ron Paul-er, William Harris, has come on board.
Welcome, guys!
Welcome, guys!
Ross Perot is back - and with his charts
Texas billionaire and 1992 presidential campaign stirrer-upper Ross Perot is back - and he's brought his famous charts along with him. Perot has launched PerotCharts.com to document the obscene levels of U.S. government spending and waste. It's an issue that unfortunately is not as cognizant to the average voter as it should be, but will one day come back to haunt us and our children if we don't do something about it.
We may not agree with everything Perot argues, but this site should prove a valuable resource in research and policy presentation.
We may not agree with everything Perot argues, but this site should prove a valuable resource in research and policy presentation.
And yet another introduction...
And a late one, at that.
Welcome aboard, Ian! And thank you for your help in promoting this blog.
Welcome aboard, Ian! And thank you for your help in promoting this blog.
How to promote Liberty Republicans online
Help spread the message for freedom put forward by Liberty Republicans by visiting the following sites and show your support with a vote and/or comment:
Give it a Digg
Have you Reddit yet?
Stumbleupon it.
If you can't find the link to the blog directly to just submit it as a new item.
Others to follow ...
Give it a Digg
Have you Reddit yet?
Stumbleupon it.
If you can't find the link to the blog directly to just submit it as a new item.
Others to follow ...
Announing another new writer.
My friend Matt, another UNC Students for Ron Paul man, has come on board. (Tucker) Welcome!
Announcing new writer.
We have a new writer on board, Marshall Shoemaker (Liberty in Iowa). Marshall stuck his neck out earlier this year to run for State Legislature in Iowa as a fresh-faced 22-year old. He's certainly one to look out for in the liberty movement in the future.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The UK's Ron Paul? Britain's True Conservative.
For those of you who do not know, today (Sunday, June 15) is the anniversary of the Magna Carta, the British document that established the tradition of Constitutional law that protects individual liberty in the western world and that serves as the legal inspiration for the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, not many Americans know of this document or appreciate its significance, a by-product of negligence in understanding the importance of our liberties and of maintaining our Constitutional system of government. But while our basic freedoms have been under assault in recent years, so has also been the case in my ancestral homeland, the UK.
This week, the sacred British traditions enshrined in the Magna Carta were dealt a serious blow by Parliament. The Labour Party (the UK's equivalent of the Democratic Party in the U.S.), who currently controls government under the leadership of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, introduced new legislation that would extend the detention period for terror suspects without charge to 42 days. Whereas the mere presence of detention without charge is a clear violation of Habeas Corpis, a hundred years old principle dictated by the Magna Carta, extending the period of detention to 42 days is a simply unacceptable increase in power of the state and is a serious threat to liberty. It is fundamental to the freedom of the individual that he/she must be allowed to live his/her life without coercion by anyone, as long as there is no coercion of others' life and liberty. That a person can be held without charge for a crime completely contradicts a free society and establishes the basis for tyranny. This is the initiation of a trend very damaging to the concept of a free British society. What's to say that in the future, the government won't ask for the period to be extended to 90 days, or six months, or even a year?
Unfortunately, this legislation passed on Wednesday by a very narrow margin of 9 votes. What is encouraging, though (and surprising, from the perspective of an American) is that the Conservative Party- essentially the UK's version of the Republican Party- was opposed to the legislation. The Tories (British nickname for the Conservatives) joined the Liberal Democrats (who would be best compared to the left-wing of the Democratic Party here) in fighting the legislation, while most of Labour pushed for it.
But no Tory, or for that matter any other MP, has offered such spirited opposition to the proposal and gone to such extraordinary lengths to defeat it as David Davis, a Shadow Cabinet minister, who this week resigned from Parliament in protest of the Bill's passage. Mr. Davis, who led the Conservatives' opposition to the measure, has committed to running in a by-election (when a MP resigns, a special election for the seat called a "by-election" is automatically held) from his district on the platform of protecting civil liberties. In doing so, he gave an eloquent and alarming speech laying out the specific anti-freedom actions pursued by the UK government recently- which reads quite similarly to a list of legislation enacted and being promoted in the US- and boldly initiating a new struggle for British civil liberties.
But while Mr. Davis is promoting a stance in line with his Party's, this move was truly one of political courage. For one, he resigned from one of the most power seats in the Conservative Party and, effectively, has surrendered any chance he would have at a cabinet post if, as expected, the Tories win power in the next Parliamentary election. The move, according to The Independent, is also said to have angered Tory leader David Cameron with the perception of instability in the Party that has come in the aftermath of the resignation. Cameron, who has been working hard to build momentum for the Conservative Party, who is set to become the next Prime Minister after the next Parliamentary election. All of this gives every indication that Davis is now permanently out of power and out the running to one day be leader of the Conservative Party, which would position him to one day be Prime Minister if the Conservatives hold Parliament under his leadership. This is not exactly a typical quality for a man who very recently made a strong challenge for the leadership of the Conservative Party when it last came up, which would have set him up to be the next Prime Minister of the UK.
Mr. Davis has also opened himself to great public criticism, particularly by the notoriously harsh, yet substantially influential, British media. He has been accused of making a mere self-promoting publicity stunt, the London Times calling it a "disastrous ego trip." The Sun, a right-leaning publication owned by Rupert Murdoch, accused him of "treachery to David Cameron" in a scathing attack in which they call him a "quitter" and say he has "gone stark raving mad." Even by media that has been positive to Mr. Davis, such as the Daily Telegraph. Many in the media suspect him of attempting to exploit the situation to engineer public momentum behind him to challenge for Conservative leadership, a notion he has roundly and convincingly rejected.
This historic act by David Davis solidifies him firmly as Britain's very own Ron Paul. It is an important and inspirational moment in the international movement for liberty, and this is certainly the case for America. Obviously, an act in specified defense of liberty by a politician this powerful and well-known in the cradle of modern Constitutional law of the world qualifies as such. But it is particularly important in that it re-establishes the notion that conservatism- true conservatism- has as one of its fundamental tenants the staunch defense of individual liberty from encroachment by government under any and every pretext. This is absolutely necessary in America, as "conservatism" has come more to resemble the nature of police statism that purges freedom to "promote" security, however ineffective its tactics may be in this regard. While Tory leaders like Davis, Cameron, and former Prime Minister John Major excoriate the British government's offense on civil liberties; in America, the "conservative" Bush Administration has trampled on the Bill of Rights- with the President even saying that the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper"- while Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain calls the Supreme Court's rejection of suspension of Habeas Corpis in the Military Commissions Act "one of the worst decisions" in the history of the Supreme Court. A writer at the "conservative" National Review even claimed that the Court's upholding of Habeas Corpis proclaimed that the America people had "lost to radical Islam."
As Constitutional lawyer Glen Greenwald explains in this terrific piece on Friday, what the "right" of American politics currently pursues is nothing resembling conservatism, but rather authoritarianism. Basic preconditions to true conservatism are the preservation of tradition and restraint. For America, entails preserving America's tradition of as a free society rooted in individual liberty and restraint of government from encroaching on this liberty by Constitutional law. Inherent in the actions advocated by "conservative" Republicans like George W. Bush, John McCain, and most of the Republican Party wholly contradict these ideas. In order for the freedom movement to advance in America, conservatism must once again be identified in its true context. Self-identified libertarians (sadly, since I am one) simply do not amount to a large enough number at this point to ensure victory; and Democrats, who voted in overwhelming majority to institute the Patriot Act and the Real ID clearly cannot be trusted completely, if at all, to faithfully carry forth this agenda. The American Right must once again reacquaint itself with its purpose in order to have the numbers and momentum to prevail. In a sense, we who seek to preserve and promote individual liberty- be we of the left, right, or the libertarian column- are all true conservatives.
This week, the sacred British traditions enshrined in the Magna Carta were dealt a serious blow by Parliament. The Labour Party (the UK's equivalent of the Democratic Party in the U.S.), who currently controls government under the leadership of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, introduced new legislation that would extend the detention period for terror suspects without charge to 42 days. Whereas the mere presence of detention without charge is a clear violation of Habeas Corpis, a hundred years old principle dictated by the Magna Carta, extending the period of detention to 42 days is a simply unacceptable increase in power of the state and is a serious threat to liberty. It is fundamental to the freedom of the individual that he/she must be allowed to live his/her life without coercion by anyone, as long as there is no coercion of others' life and liberty. That a person can be held without charge for a crime completely contradicts a free society and establishes the basis for tyranny. This is the initiation of a trend very damaging to the concept of a free British society. What's to say that in the future, the government won't ask for the period to be extended to 90 days, or six months, or even a year?
Unfortunately, this legislation passed on Wednesday by a very narrow margin of 9 votes. What is encouraging, though (and surprising, from the perspective of an American) is that the Conservative Party- essentially the UK's version of the Republican Party- was opposed to the legislation. The Tories (British nickname for the Conservatives) joined the Liberal Democrats (who would be best compared to the left-wing of the Democratic Party here) in fighting the legislation, while most of Labour pushed for it.
But no Tory, or for that matter any other MP, has offered such spirited opposition to the proposal and gone to such extraordinary lengths to defeat it as David Davis, a Shadow Cabinet minister, who this week resigned from Parliament in protest of the Bill's passage. Mr. Davis, who led the Conservatives' opposition to the measure, has committed to running in a by-election (when a MP resigns, a special election for the seat called a "by-election" is automatically held) from his district on the platform of protecting civil liberties. In doing so, he gave an eloquent and alarming speech laying out the specific anti-freedom actions pursued by the UK government recently- which reads quite similarly to a list of legislation enacted and being promoted in the US- and boldly initiating a new struggle for British civil liberties.
But while Mr. Davis is promoting a stance in line with his Party's, this move was truly one of political courage. For one, he resigned from one of the most power seats in the Conservative Party and, effectively, has surrendered any chance he would have at a cabinet post if, as expected, the Tories win power in the next Parliamentary election. The move, according to The Independent, is also said to have angered Tory leader David Cameron with the perception of instability in the Party that has come in the aftermath of the resignation. Cameron, who has been working hard to build momentum for the Conservative Party, who is set to become the next Prime Minister after the next Parliamentary election. All of this gives every indication that Davis is now permanently out of power and out the running to one day be leader of the Conservative Party, which would position him to one day be Prime Minister if the Conservatives hold Parliament under his leadership. This is not exactly a typical quality for a man who very recently made a strong challenge for the leadership of the Conservative Party when it last came up, which would have set him up to be the next Prime Minister of the UK.
Mr. Davis has also opened himself to great public criticism, particularly by the notoriously harsh, yet substantially influential, British media. He has been accused of making a mere self-promoting publicity stunt, the London Times calling it a "disastrous ego trip." The Sun, a right-leaning publication owned by Rupert Murdoch, accused him of "treachery to David Cameron" in a scathing attack in which they call him a "quitter" and say he has "gone stark raving mad." Even by media that has been positive to Mr. Davis, such as the Daily Telegraph. Many in the media suspect him of attempting to exploit the situation to engineer public momentum behind him to challenge for Conservative leadership, a notion he has roundly and convincingly rejected.
This historic act by David Davis solidifies him firmly as Britain's very own Ron Paul. It is an important and inspirational moment in the international movement for liberty, and this is certainly the case for America. Obviously, an act in specified defense of liberty by a politician this powerful and well-known in the cradle of modern Constitutional law of the world qualifies as such. But it is particularly important in that it re-establishes the notion that conservatism- true conservatism- has as one of its fundamental tenants the staunch defense of individual liberty from encroachment by government under any and every pretext. This is absolutely necessary in America, as "conservatism" has come more to resemble the nature of police statism that purges freedom to "promote" security, however ineffective its tactics may be in this regard. While Tory leaders like Davis, Cameron, and former Prime Minister John Major excoriate the British government's offense on civil liberties; in America, the "conservative" Bush Administration has trampled on the Bill of Rights- with the President even saying that the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper"- while Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain calls the Supreme Court's rejection of suspension of Habeas Corpis in the Military Commissions Act "one of the worst decisions" in the history of the Supreme Court. A writer at the "conservative" National Review even claimed that the Court's upholding of Habeas Corpis proclaimed that the America people had "lost to radical Islam."
As Constitutional lawyer Glen Greenwald explains in this terrific piece on Friday, what the "right" of American politics currently pursues is nothing resembling conservatism, but rather authoritarianism. Basic preconditions to true conservatism are the preservation of tradition and restraint. For America, entails preserving America's tradition of as a free society rooted in individual liberty and restraint of government from encroaching on this liberty by Constitutional law. Inherent in the actions advocated by "conservative" Republicans like George W. Bush, John McCain, and most of the Republican Party wholly contradict these ideas. In order for the freedom movement to advance in America, conservatism must once again be identified in its true context. Self-identified libertarians (sadly, since I am one) simply do not amount to a large enough number at this point to ensure victory; and Democrats, who voted in overwhelming majority to institute the Patriot Act and the Real ID clearly cannot be trusted completely, if at all, to faithfully carry forth this agenda. The American Right must once again reacquaint itself with its purpose in order to have the numbers and momentum to prevail. In a sense, we who seek to preserve and promote individual liberty- be we of the left, right, or the libertarian column- are all true conservatives.
The Long Run is Really....Long
I endorse the goal of this blog, and its readers, and am glad to be included.
As a recovering Republican myself, I can understand the attraction of saving the GOP from itself.
I worked in the first Reagan administration, at the Federal Trade Commission, for Wendy Gram, wife of then-Senataor Phil Gram (R-TX). We worked on deregulation and costs of taxes.
Before that, I worked for Murray Weidenbaum, in the Center for Study of American Business. We came up with estimates of the total costs of regulations on the U.S. economy, and a variety of other pro-market topics.
More recently, I testified in the US Sentate, at the invitation of Senator Mitch McConnell, against McCain-Feingold.
In short, I have been in the trenches working for the Republican Party, and what it SAID it believed in, for the first two decades of my professional life. In the long run, maybe the Republican party will come back towards some of its roots.
But....the long run is long. I appreciate the fact that Paige asked me to contribute here. My role, as I'm sure is clear, is to stir things up a bit and ask questions. I understand that some of you may get upset, and have sharp responses. That's fine.
Here's the thing: We are the sort of people that are going to have to lead America back to its real values, if America is to be led. The Republican Party has been hijacked. If there were more people like Ron Paul and BJ Lawson in the Republican party, I might be a Republican, too.
At this point, I'm certainly not. But let's have a dialogue, and let's learn from each other. And if I say something that you think is wrong, let me know about it.
As a recovering Republican myself, I can understand the attraction of saving the GOP from itself.
I worked in the first Reagan administration, at the Federal Trade Commission, for Wendy Gram, wife of then-Senataor Phil Gram (R-TX). We worked on deregulation and costs of taxes.
Before that, I worked for Murray Weidenbaum, in the Center for Study of American Business. We came up with estimates of the total costs of regulations on the U.S. economy, and a variety of other pro-market topics.
More recently, I testified in the US Sentate, at the invitation of Senator Mitch McConnell, against McCain-Feingold.
In short, I have been in the trenches working for the Republican Party, and what it SAID it believed in, for the first two decades of my professional life. In the long run, maybe the Republican party will come back towards some of its roots.
But....the long run is long. I appreciate the fact that Paige asked me to contribute here. My role, as I'm sure is clear, is to stir things up a bit and ask questions. I understand that some of you may get upset, and have sharp responses. That's fine.
Here's the thing: We are the sort of people that are going to have to lead America back to its real values, if America is to be led. The Republican Party has been hijacked. If there were more people like Ron Paul and BJ Lawson in the Republican party, I might be a Republican, too.
At this point, I'm certainly not. But let's have a dialogue, and let's learn from each other. And if I say something that you think is wrong, let me know about it.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
An obviously late introduction.
I was going to introduce our new blogger, Libertarian Gubernatorial Nominee Mike Munger, but I was away from the computer the last couple of days, on account of my sister getting married. Clearly, though, he has upstaged the grandiosity of any introduction I could have given him. From blogging live from candidate school to taking a shot at the very Party I and others are trying to take back, the man has shown he is completely fearless. This, along with his unmatched intellectualism and his principled advocacy of liberty, is why I vigorously endorse him for Governor of North Carolina, encourage you all to support him, and am proud to consider him a friend.
And yes, you're right, Mike: the NCGOP took a major leak in our faces. It was positively unnecessary for them to do what they did. Needless to say, though, they angered a lot of other people in the Party than just Ron Paul Republicans. In light of all of this, I encourage them all to either come to the 4th District to help Lawson for Congress or to get on board with the Libertarian Party in North Carolina this year in supporting Bob Barr and Mike Munger. With their energy behind them, B.J. CAN win the 4th District, and the terrific statewide LP candidates can get between 5-10% of the vote in this state, both of which will send a message to the Party here.
And Mike, you rock, and thanks for blogging here. I hope this blog will help you greatly.
And yes, you're right, Mike: the NCGOP took a major leak in our faces. It was positively unnecessary for them to do what they did. Needless to say, though, they angered a lot of other people in the Party than just Ron Paul Republicans. In light of all of this, I encourage them all to either come to the 4th District to help Lawson for Congress or to get on board with the Libertarian Party in North Carolina this year in supporting Bob Barr and Mike Munger. With their energy behind them, B.J. CAN win the 4th District, and the terrific statewide LP candidates can get between 5-10% of the vote in this state, both of which will send a message to the Party here.
And Mike, you rock, and thanks for blogging here. I hope this blog will help you greatly.
Statist Quo
We all watched Ron Paul get disrespected, mistreated, and dismissed by the Republican Party. He raised a remarkable amount of money, had strong organizations in a lot of states, and got 35 delegates even in Republican "winner take all" system. He came in fourth, and brought in a lot of new people, people the Republicans are going to need to do well in November.
And the Republicans acted like he was some drunk uncle with an embarrassing secret, instead of the most exciting thing to happen in more than a decade.
Now, the NC Repubs have dealt a death blow to the enthusiasm of the Ron Paul Republicans, with their high-handed tactics in choosing delegates.
Then, this week we all found out that the "statist quo" is going to be preserved in our state for the debates. Only the two candidates from the political cartel are going to be allowed to participate.
Some problems with this:
1. The Libertarians did what is required to get on the ballot. That's not easy. Why isn't it enough to get into the debate?
2. The Republicans are confident that they don't need to show respect to Ron Paul; you Republicans will go to the polls like sheep and vote for McCain anyway. And they believe that they can leave me out of the Gov debates, so you will vote for Pat McCrory.
Are they right? Are you just going to vote for the lesser of two evils?
Or are you guys going to stand up, and remember the way Ron Paul was treated?
I hope, at a minimum, I can count on your support on July 3, for the Money Grenade Brigade. I need at least 1,000 separate contributions. I don't care how big the contributions are. But I need 1,000 to contribute, or pledge to contribute, on July 3.
And the Republicans acted like he was some drunk uncle with an embarrassing secret, instead of the most exciting thing to happen in more than a decade.
Now, the NC Repubs have dealt a death blow to the enthusiasm of the Ron Paul Republicans, with their high-handed tactics in choosing delegates.
Then, this week we all found out that the "statist quo" is going to be preserved in our state for the debates. Only the two candidates from the political cartel are going to be allowed to participate.
Some problems with this:
1. The Libertarians did what is required to get on the ballot. That's not easy. Why isn't it enough to get into the debate?
2. The Republicans are confident that they don't need to show respect to Ron Paul; you Republicans will go to the polls like sheep and vote for McCain anyway. And they believe that they can leave me out of the Gov debates, so you will vote for Pat McCrory.
Are they right? Are you just going to vote for the lesser of two evils?
Or are you guys going to stand up, and remember the way Ron Paul was treated?
I hope, at a minimum, I can count on your support on July 3, for the Money Grenade Brigade. I need at least 1,000 separate contributions. I don't care how big the contributions are. But I need 1,000 to contribute, or pledge to contribute, on July 3.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Greetings from Campaign School!
Greetings from DC, where I am learning about how to raise money, win friends, and influence media.
It is actually a pretty great opportunity.
Please consider going to my campaign site, and let me know what I've got right and what I've got wrong.
And I look forward to posting here now and again, to let you know what sorts of things are worrying me about the directions our nation is taking.
Mike Munger
Libertarian Candidate for NC Governor
It is actually a pretty great opportunity.
Please consider going to my campaign site, and let me know what I've got right and what I've got wrong.
And I look forward to posting here now and again, to let you know what sorts of things are worrying me about the directions our nation is taking.
Mike Munger
Libertarian Candidate for NC Governor
Announcement: New Writer
I am pleased to announce a new contributor to Liberty Republicans, Kacy. Kacy is a friend of mine who was with me in UNC Students for Ron Paul since the very beginning, and he is now interning for Lawson for Congress. He's a very bright individual and quite web-savvy, and he created a July 4 money bomb website for B.J. Lawson, Lawson Liberty Fund. He is going to be a very valuable contributor going forward. (BTW, Kacy; could I get a web banner to advertise the LLF? Thanks!)
I am about to expand the roster of writers quite a bit. I want to keep this blog regularly updated and start generating a lot more traffic.
I am about to expand the roster of writers quite a bit. I want to keep this blog regularly updated and start generating a lot more traffic.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Common myths about America
If you want to know how to foment a libertarian revolution, look no further than the complete abolition of government's unholy alliance with education. Thanks to our wonderful government schools, countless children are exposed to an array of lies about America history, economics, politics and government. Critical discussion of ideas is a no-no; school boards are just fine with children accepting whatever dogma is presented to them in the classroom. It's no wonder so many people grow up ignorant about the morality and benefits of a free society.
These are some of more prevalent myths circulating out there. Feel free to add your own.
Myth #1: America is a democracy.
Fact: no, it isn't.
It's true that America is a de facto democracy, because pretty much anything people want, they can get from government, but it was never intended to be so. The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the Constitution, and for good reason: the Founding Fathers hated it. Democracy was rightly seen as mob rule on the way to statism. Even Alexander Hamilton, the archetypal big government advocate among our forefathers, once declared, "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."
The word "Constitution," of course, refers to that governing document, the supreme law of the land, that Republicans and Democrats trot out every so often whenever it fits their agenda, but which neither party consistently defends. National politicians take an oath to defend it, and then most subsequently turn their backs to it.
Myth #2: the Republican Party is conservative.
Fact: the GOP is neo-conservative, liberal, and statist - but is not conservative.
The public generally perceives President Bush to be a rightwinger or a conservative, and the Republican Party to advocate limited government. If only that were true! The Republican Party is controlled by neo-conservatism, a fake brand of conservatism owing its existence to Leon Trotsky, a revolutionary communist of the old Soviet Union. Irving Kristol, a prominent neo-con, wrote in 1995 that neo-cons "[accept] the New Deal in principle, and ha[ve] little affection for the kind of isolationism that [once] permeated American conservatism." Note the phrase: "accept the New Deal in principle." A true conservative who believes in individual freedom despises FDR and the statism he stood for. Libertarians, even more so. As for "isolationism," this slur is a bit of a myth in its own right. America has never been "isolationist," even from the early colonial days. Our forefathers traded with and welcomed foreigners to our shores. We needed international commerce to survive as colonies; why would be make ourselves into a fortress?
The correct term for the true conservative point of view - which is certainly not represented today by the GOP - is non-interventionism. It's based in part on George Washington's Farewell Address, which warned against meddling in foreign affairs. America is not, and cannot be, the world's police, and we have no business telling other countries what to do. Republicans used to know that before 9-11 "changed everything."
Myth #3: you can own property in America.
Fact: you never really own property in America; you rent it from the government.
You can never actually own a home, or anything else, in America. With a home, at some point, you will pay off your mortgage. And with a car, at some point, you will have paid the bank. But you will always owe a property tax on both. Real property is also subject to zoning and anti-discrimination laws, and commercial property to a host of regulations and laws. And if that's not enough, well, government can use its eminent domain power to legally steal your land outright and force you to settle.
You also own nothing you have purchased. Everything you buy, you pay a sales tax on. The sales tax is doubly evil because it forcibly robs the consumer and, at the same time, enslaves the retailer by forcing him to be a tax collector for the government. It might be a little slavery - but it's still slavery (being forced, at the point of a gun ultimately, to produce and live for others).
If you cannot control something 100%, then you do not really own it. You don't own a home; you pay the government rent for the "privilege" of living in it. Same with a car. And if you run a business, you are subject to an array of laws ranging from labor regulations, minimum wage requirements, anti-discrimination laws, zoning ordinances, and so forth. Try disobeying our sovereigns, and they'll come arrest you; resist, and you may lose your life. The same goes with all other taxes, especially income tax. You don't really own the money you earn; you owe part of it to the government. And when you die, if your estate is worth "too much" (if it's "not fair" that you have "too many" things while others have less), the government takes a slice out of that as well.
The reality is that we are all serfs, renting our property out from a government that can come take it at any time. And not one of these laws, including and especially taxation and zoning laws, is actually necessary.
Myth #4: America's economy is capitalist.
Fact: it's a mixture of command economy and capitalism.
America has never been a capitalist country, which is why Ayn Rand titled her book: "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." True capitalism is laissez-faire, the absence of any and all government regulations and controls on the economy. It's insane to say that this is the state of the modern American economy. There are a plethora of laws and regulations which destroy and enslave some businesses while favoring and coddling many others. Everything from corporate welfare to subsidies to insider trading laws to incorporation is an example of government intervention in an otherwise free economy. It's easy to hate "big business," but try getting a job from a poor person and see where you end up. Nonetheless, bashing business makes good politics, and the lemmings are led straight over the cliff.
Myth #5: capitalism leads to Great Depressions, slavery, and imperialism.
Fact: these and all other alleged "evils" of capitalism are only possible with government.
We have had, in America, a Great Depression, slavery, and imperialistic policies. What we have never had is capitalism. So it's only the ignorant who make such a demonstrably false claim.
The reason we had a Great Depression was that we have a Federal Reserve whose job it is to artificially set interest rates and manipulate the nation's monetary supply. This is government intervention - the very opposite of laissez-faire capitalism. The Great Depression was brought on because Fed policies encouraged the cancerous growth of speculation. It had nothing to do with free enterprise. In a purely free market, there will be recessions, but the market is self-correcting and simply does not permit the sort of extreme losses witnessed during the Great Depression. Despite the historical reality that government caused the Depression, it was business that needlessly took the fall and government that looked like the hero in the form of FDR and his repulsive socialist policies. But try telling this to a statist liberal, who knows next to nothing about history or economics.
As for slavery and imperialism, these are prohibited in societies where the initiation of force is outlawed - that is, truly capitalist societies. Rand recognized that capitalism is "a SOCIAL system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." (Emphasis added). Capitalism by definition banishes the initiation of force by one man against the other, and prohibits slavery of all kinds. Slavery is enforced by the state, and imperialism is an act of government; again, both have nothing to do with true capitalism.
These are some of more prevalent myths circulating out there. Feel free to add your own.
Myth #1: America is a democracy.
Fact: no, it isn't.
It's true that America is a de facto democracy, because pretty much anything people want, they can get from government, but it was never intended to be so. The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the Constitution, and for good reason: the Founding Fathers hated it. Democracy was rightly seen as mob rule on the way to statism. Even Alexander Hamilton, the archetypal big government advocate among our forefathers, once declared, "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."
The word "Constitution," of course, refers to that governing document, the supreme law of the land, that Republicans and Democrats trot out every so often whenever it fits their agenda, but which neither party consistently defends. National politicians take an oath to defend it, and then most subsequently turn their backs to it.
Myth #2: the Republican Party is conservative.
Fact: the GOP is neo-conservative, liberal, and statist - but is not conservative.
The public generally perceives President Bush to be a rightwinger or a conservative, and the Republican Party to advocate limited government. If only that were true! The Republican Party is controlled by neo-conservatism, a fake brand of conservatism owing its existence to Leon Trotsky, a revolutionary communist of the old Soviet Union. Irving Kristol, a prominent neo-con, wrote in 1995 that neo-cons "[accept] the New Deal in principle, and ha[ve] little affection for the kind of isolationism that [once] permeated American conservatism." Note the phrase: "accept the New Deal in principle." A true conservative who believes in individual freedom despises FDR and the statism he stood for. Libertarians, even more so. As for "isolationism," this slur is a bit of a myth in its own right. America has never been "isolationist," even from the early colonial days. Our forefathers traded with and welcomed foreigners to our shores. We needed international commerce to survive as colonies; why would be make ourselves into a fortress?
The correct term for the true conservative point of view - which is certainly not represented today by the GOP - is non-interventionism. It's based in part on George Washington's Farewell Address, which warned against meddling in foreign affairs. America is not, and cannot be, the world's police, and we have no business telling other countries what to do. Republicans used to know that before 9-11 "changed everything."
Myth #3: you can own property in America.
Fact: you never really own property in America; you rent it from the government.
You can never actually own a home, or anything else, in America. With a home, at some point, you will pay off your mortgage. And with a car, at some point, you will have paid the bank. But you will always owe a property tax on both. Real property is also subject to zoning and anti-discrimination laws, and commercial property to a host of regulations and laws. And if that's not enough, well, government can use its eminent domain power to legally steal your land outright and force you to settle.
You also own nothing you have purchased. Everything you buy, you pay a sales tax on. The sales tax is doubly evil because it forcibly robs the consumer and, at the same time, enslaves the retailer by forcing him to be a tax collector for the government. It might be a little slavery - but it's still slavery (being forced, at the point of a gun ultimately, to produce and live for others).
If you cannot control something 100%, then you do not really own it. You don't own a home; you pay the government rent for the "privilege" of living in it. Same with a car. And if you run a business, you are subject to an array of laws ranging from labor regulations, minimum wage requirements, anti-discrimination laws, zoning ordinances, and so forth. Try disobeying our sovereigns, and they'll come arrest you; resist, and you may lose your life. The same goes with all other taxes, especially income tax. You don't really own the money you earn; you owe part of it to the government. And when you die, if your estate is worth "too much" (if it's "not fair" that you have "too many" things while others have less), the government takes a slice out of that as well.
The reality is that we are all serfs, renting our property out from a government that can come take it at any time. And not one of these laws, including and especially taxation and zoning laws, is actually necessary.
Myth #4: America's economy is capitalist.
Fact: it's a mixture of command economy and capitalism.
America has never been a capitalist country, which is why Ayn Rand titled her book: "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." True capitalism is laissez-faire, the absence of any and all government regulations and controls on the economy. It's insane to say that this is the state of the modern American economy. There are a plethora of laws and regulations which destroy and enslave some businesses while favoring and coddling many others. Everything from corporate welfare to subsidies to insider trading laws to incorporation is an example of government intervention in an otherwise free economy. It's easy to hate "big business," but try getting a job from a poor person and see where you end up. Nonetheless, bashing business makes good politics, and the lemmings are led straight over the cliff.
Myth #5: capitalism leads to Great Depressions, slavery, and imperialism.
Fact: these and all other alleged "evils" of capitalism are only possible with government.
We have had, in America, a Great Depression, slavery, and imperialistic policies. What we have never had is capitalism. So it's only the ignorant who make such a demonstrably false claim.
The reason we had a Great Depression was that we have a Federal Reserve whose job it is to artificially set interest rates and manipulate the nation's monetary supply. This is government intervention - the very opposite of laissez-faire capitalism. The Great Depression was brought on because Fed policies encouraged the cancerous growth of speculation. It had nothing to do with free enterprise. In a purely free market, there will be recessions, but the market is self-correcting and simply does not permit the sort of extreme losses witnessed during the Great Depression. Despite the historical reality that government caused the Depression, it was business that needlessly took the fall and government that looked like the hero in the form of FDR and his repulsive socialist policies. But try telling this to a statist liberal, who knows next to nothing about history or economics.
As for slavery and imperialism, these are prohibited in societies where the initiation of force is outlawed - that is, truly capitalist societies. Rand recognized that capitalism is "a SOCIAL system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." (Emphasis added). Capitalism by definition banishes the initiation of force by one man against the other, and prohibits slavery of all kinds. Slavery is enforced by the state, and imperialism is an act of government; again, both have nothing to do with true capitalism.
The Omega and the Alpha
Tonight in less than an hour, a very bittersweet moment will occur, as Ron Paul will officially end his bid for the Presidency of the United States. You can view the announcement here.
Obviously, this campaign was one of the most monumental Presidential campaigns in history with regard to its long-term political impact. It is a hugely important development in the campaign for liberty, as the campaign raised more than $30 million in total, received 2nd and 3rd place results in many caucuses with a competitive field, and won more than 1 million Republican primary and caucus votes, beating the total of any Libertarian Party candidate in any previous general election. All, while many in the Party actively worked against him to demean him and shut him out. He was able to get the libertarian message across to millions more with unprecedented access to mainstream media coverage and revolutionary use of the internet. He was able to accomplish in just a few months what the Libertarian Party hasn't been able to accomplish in almost four decades.
Personally, this campaign was my re-engagement with politics. I was involved in Republican races in 2002 and 2004, volunteering for the Elizabeth Dole for US Senate and interning for (very regrettably) the Bush campaign in 2004. It was a good education in political campaigning, as I canvassed for both Dole and Bush and phone-banked for Bush, as well. But I have regretted working for both massively over time. I knew I was libertarian in my views during then, but I was at that point "politically pragmatic" and thought, since the Democrats were offering no sound alternative on a number of issues where I was upset with Bush (Iraq, civil liberties, drugs, spending, corporate welfare, etc.), I decided to hold my nose and support the guy I thought was slightly better. That turned into quite a very regrettable mistake.
The issue that really tipped the iceberg for me was the steroids issue that was brought up in early 2005, when the House Government Reform Committee (not really sure what this has to do with juice) conducted witch hunts against Major League Baseball on the issue and went way beyond the proper role of government. The fact is that people have the right to put in their bodies what they wish and accept the consequences, and if we don't like the influence of people doing it on kids, then it is the responsibility of families to EDUCATE their own children about the issue and why they shouldn't do it, not the government's responsibility to conduct an expensive and completely ineffective war will have no hope of ridding steroids and will violate our civil liberties and right to consume what we want. An at the time Freshmen North Carolina Republican Congressman, Patrick McHenry, made political use of the issue to get his name out to a national audience by grilling Commissioner Bud Selig on live t.v. in what was a completely shameful display. A couple of months later, he was the keynote speaker at the North Carolina Federation of College Republicans Spring Convention in 2005. I simply hated the speech, and I couldn't stand the hypocrisy in his comments, making mention of "individual liberty" and "limited government" and then stating that it was the responsibility of government to pervasively violate both principles. I came to the conclusion during that speech that I just could not support the Republican Party in the direction it was going under George W. Bush, and when I got home, I immediately changed my registration from Republican to Libertarian. After the Libertarian Party was de-registered by the North Carolina State Board of Elections, I basically quit on politics altogether and had lost hope.
Ron Paul gave me hope again. I had known of him for quite a while dating back to Freshman year of High School, when I first started thinking about and coming to libertarianism, and he became a hero of mine. At the beginning of the cycle, I was very interested in Chuck Hagel, who was making rumblings at the time about running and was an anti-war, demonstrably fiscally conservative and federalist Republican, and he is a terrific man who I could definitely have supported. When I first heard that Ron was running, I was immediately very interested and enthusiastic, but I wanted to see where the campaign got. And then, during the South Carolina debate, he had the courage to tell the truth about 9/11 and our foreign policy, and when I first heard his statement on the radio the next morning, I said to myself, "I have to get into this." I started the Students for Ron Paul Chapter at UNC, and we built a large group, with over 200 listed members. About 10-15 were active, but that was a good group, and we were 2nd only to the Students for Barack Obama on campus among Presidential candidates. We rounded up a group of 10 people to go to South Carolina to canvass and make phone calls, and it was a great experience for everyone.
I was unbelievably surprised and heartened about the lengths to which the campaign achieved. The fundraising, the crowds, the energy, the enthusiasm, the extent to which the message has traveled in such a short time: as a libertarian, it is true inspiring. The best part of this is how he handled himself as a candidate as the campaign went on. He was attacked viciously by opponents and had his name dragged through the mud, the epitome of which was Jamie Kirchick's smear job about his newsletters, an issue that he has explained over and again and absolutely does not concord with what he has written throughout his career. Like in his 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege, written years before the nasty newsletters were published, in which he wrote:
Commencement ceremonies at the end of academic years serve as the beginning of something new while celebrating the end of the process of getting to that point. Ron Paul's exit tonight from the race is just that: a commencement. This year has been an education for all of us in the liberty movement: an education of the principles of liberty to those who have never come across them, an education in how to campaign at a grassroots level for those who have never been in politics before, an education in the way to run a campaign and in the way not to, and an education in how we conduct ourselves as we continue forward. Let us celebrate this great campaign and this great candidate who achieved unprecedented heights for libertarianism and set forth a tremendous foundation for us, as well as the beginning of the next phase. We have many more campaigns that need our support, such as the campaign I'm working on, B.J. Lawson for Congress in North Carolina's 4th District. We have some of the smartest people in America on our side, and we have the right message and principles. It's now up to us to take the baton from Ron Paul and run with it. If we stick together and stay involved, we will win when the time is right, and this time may be sooner than we think.
This Revolution continues!
Obviously, this campaign was one of the most monumental Presidential campaigns in history with regard to its long-term political impact. It is a hugely important development in the campaign for liberty, as the campaign raised more than $30 million in total, received 2nd and 3rd place results in many caucuses with a competitive field, and won more than 1 million Republican primary and caucus votes, beating the total of any Libertarian Party candidate in any previous general election. All, while many in the Party actively worked against him to demean him and shut him out. He was able to get the libertarian message across to millions more with unprecedented access to mainstream media coverage and revolutionary use of the internet. He was able to accomplish in just a few months what the Libertarian Party hasn't been able to accomplish in almost four decades.
Personally, this campaign was my re-engagement with politics. I was involved in Republican races in 2002 and 2004, volunteering for the Elizabeth Dole for US Senate and interning for (very regrettably) the Bush campaign in 2004. It was a good education in political campaigning, as I canvassed for both Dole and Bush and phone-banked for Bush, as well. But I have regretted working for both massively over time. I knew I was libertarian in my views during then, but I was at that point "politically pragmatic" and thought, since the Democrats were offering no sound alternative on a number of issues where I was upset with Bush (Iraq, civil liberties, drugs, spending, corporate welfare, etc.), I decided to hold my nose and support the guy I thought was slightly better. That turned into quite a very regrettable mistake.
The issue that really tipped the iceberg for me was the steroids issue that was brought up in early 2005, when the House Government Reform Committee (not really sure what this has to do with juice) conducted witch hunts against Major League Baseball on the issue and went way beyond the proper role of government. The fact is that people have the right to put in their bodies what they wish and accept the consequences, and if we don't like the influence of people doing it on kids, then it is the responsibility of families to EDUCATE their own children about the issue and why they shouldn't do it, not the government's responsibility to conduct an expensive and completely ineffective war will have no hope of ridding steroids and will violate our civil liberties and right to consume what we want. An at the time Freshmen North Carolina Republican Congressman, Patrick McHenry, made political use of the issue to get his name out to a national audience by grilling Commissioner Bud Selig on live t.v. in what was a completely shameful display. A couple of months later, he was the keynote speaker at the North Carolina Federation of College Republicans Spring Convention in 2005. I simply hated the speech, and I couldn't stand the hypocrisy in his comments, making mention of "individual liberty" and "limited government" and then stating that it was the responsibility of government to pervasively violate both principles. I came to the conclusion during that speech that I just could not support the Republican Party in the direction it was going under George W. Bush, and when I got home, I immediately changed my registration from Republican to Libertarian. After the Libertarian Party was de-registered by the North Carolina State Board of Elections, I basically quit on politics altogether and had lost hope.
Ron Paul gave me hope again. I had known of him for quite a while dating back to Freshman year of High School, when I first started thinking about and coming to libertarianism, and he became a hero of mine. At the beginning of the cycle, I was very interested in Chuck Hagel, who was making rumblings at the time about running and was an anti-war, demonstrably fiscally conservative and federalist Republican, and he is a terrific man who I could definitely have supported. When I first heard that Ron was running, I was immediately very interested and enthusiastic, but I wanted to see where the campaign got. And then, during the South Carolina debate, he had the courage to tell the truth about 9/11 and our foreign policy, and when I first heard his statement on the radio the next morning, I said to myself, "I have to get into this." I started the Students for Ron Paul Chapter at UNC, and we built a large group, with over 200 listed members. About 10-15 were active, but that was a good group, and we were 2nd only to the Students for Barack Obama on campus among Presidential candidates. We rounded up a group of 10 people to go to South Carolina to canvass and make phone calls, and it was a great experience for everyone.
I was unbelievably surprised and heartened about the lengths to which the campaign achieved. The fundraising, the crowds, the energy, the enthusiasm, the extent to which the message has traveled in such a short time: as a libertarian, it is true inspiring. The best part of this is how he handled himself as a candidate as the campaign went on. He was attacked viciously by opponents and had his name dragged through the mud, the epitome of which was Jamie Kirchick's smear job about his newsletters, an issue that he has explained over and again and absolutely does not concord with what he has written throughout his career. Like in his 1987 book, Freedom Under Siege, written years before the nasty newsletters were published, in which he wrote:
There are times when it seems like we get our system of values from television productions. Professional wrestling is one of the few programs which started on TV in the late 1940s and now claims more viewers than ever. There are no rules, and it is associated with contrived (but unreal) violence: mockery of the referee, racism, absence of sportsmanship, yelling, screaming, and hatred. Reasonable rules of decency are totally ignored. The shows get worse every year; belts, chains, and cages are now part of the acts. Twenty wrestlers are put into a ring without a referee and a free-for-all erupts -- the more violent, the more the crowd cheers the ridiculous charade.But nonetheless, he stood firm and continued to say what truly was in heart and mind, consequences be damned. Not only is he a man with the right message, but he is a man with the right approach and the right conduct, and we in this Revolution could learn much from him in this respect.
Commencement ceremonies at the end of academic years serve as the beginning of something new while celebrating the end of the process of getting to that point. Ron Paul's exit tonight from the race is just that: a commencement. This year has been an education for all of us in the liberty movement: an education of the principles of liberty to those who have never come across them, an education in how to campaign at a grassroots level for those who have never been in politics before, an education in the way to run a campaign and in the way not to, and an education in how we conduct ourselves as we continue forward. Let us celebrate this great campaign and this great candidate who achieved unprecedented heights for libertarianism and set forth a tremendous foundation for us, as well as the beginning of the next phase. We have many more campaigns that need our support, such as the campaign I'm working on, B.J. Lawson for Congress in North Carolina's 4th District. We have some of the smartest people in America on our side, and we have the right message and principles. It's now up to us to take the baton from Ron Paul and run with it. If we stick together and stay involved, we will win when the time is right, and this time may be sooner than we think.
This Revolution continues!
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Catching up on my Barr pimpage.
A few stories that need to be covered.
1. Apparently, Tom DeLay's wife has seen the light and intends to vote for Bob.
2. Hilldog's brother may vote for him, as well.
3. Bob Barr in a great interview on Bloomberg TV. Parts one, two, and three.
4. Bob Barr in another great interview on Glenn Beck a few nights ago. Parts one, two, three, four, five, and six.
1. Apparently, Tom DeLay's wife has seen the light and intends to vote for Bob.
Tom DeLay will vote for John McCain but the former House Republican leader said his wife, Christine, is planning to vote for Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr.
"I'm trying to convince my wife not to do that," the Texas Republican told editors and reporters at The Washington Times on Friday. "She said it publicly yesterday."
I'm not the biggest Tom DeLay fan in the world, and I would say that at least his wife seems to have good judgment, except that statement would naturally be nullified by the fact that she's married to him. However, she seems to have her moments, at least. But she's not the only relative of a corrupt politician who seems to like liberty, as...2. Hilldog's brother may vote for him, as well.
“If my sister doesn’t end up with the nomination, I gotta take a look at who I’m gonna vote for,” he said.
Horrors.
Does that mean, Fiore asked, Rodham would vote for Republican John McCain?
“I didn’t say that. It could be Bob Barr,” he said, referring to the Libertarian presidential candidate who, as a House member from Georgia, was a prime player in the impeachment of Rodham’s brother-in-law, Bill Clinton).
Then again, she was raised a Republican and was a Goldwater Girl, so this news isn't totally surprising. The limited government instincts look like they're there.
3. Bob Barr in a great interview on Bloomberg TV. Parts one, two, and three.
4. Bob Barr in another great interview on Glenn Beck a few nights ago. Parts one, two, three, four, five, and six.
When non-supply side apologist or free market-leaning economists who are most likely Democrats strike
I just came across this great tidbit, courtesy of the great Greg Mankiw. Paul Orszag, a well-respected public finance economist who used to work for the Brookings Institution (not exactly a right-wing bastion) and who is now Director of the Congressional Budget Office, prepared a report for Congressman Paul Ryan, the Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, on issues of spending. Citing Greg's citation verbatim:
Looks like the new generation of spend-happy Democrats is going to have a lot of trouble financing all of the goodies they want while still maintaining a strong and growing economy.With no economic feedbacks taken into account and under an assumption that raising marginal tax rates was the only mechanism used to balance the budget, tax rates would have to more than double. The tax rate for the lowest tax bracket would have to be increased from 10 percent to 25 percent; the tax rate on incomes in the current 25 percent bracket would have to be increased to 63 percent; and the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35 percent to 88 percent. The top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35 percent to 88 percent.
Such tax rates would significantly reduce economic activity and would create serious problems with tax avoidance and tax evasion.
Obama on the Economy: Do more of exactly what got us into this crap.
Today, Barack Obama called for Congress to spend another whopping $50 billion in economic stimulus. I find these particular excerpts by him cited by the article to be particularly fascinating:
As the article states,
Preventing recession and generating growth are two fundamentally different concepts. Preventing recession also prevents the process by which causes of long-term decline, such as bad debt and perverse incentives, are cleaned out of the market. Broadly defining the economy as "in recession" in the first place is useless. Macro data is often horrendously unreliable given the complexity of the macroeconomy, and the fall of production overall in the economy does not necessarily entail that every industry is in recession and that the sky is falling because some in the economy (often a relatively small minority) have no jobs. On the other hand, economic growth policy entails having a policy framework that facilitates strength in the fundamentals of growth. There is broad consensus among growth theorists that long-term growth is sourced in the following:
* Vibrant entrepreneurship (thank you, Mr. Schumpeter)
* Innovation
* High personal saving rates
* Physical capital investment
* Human capital investment (i.e., education investment)
* Public infrastructure investment
* Protection of property rights and enforcement of contracts
Most growth theorists would agree that low and simple taxation and regulation, although not all do.
Further Obama proposals cited in the article:
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee cited the largest monthly increase in the unemployment rate in over 20 years, and record highs in oil prices, food prices and foreclosures.
"Such relief can't wait until the next president takes office. ... That's why I've called for another round of fiscal stimulus, an immediate $50 billion to help those who've been hit hardest by this economic downturn," Obama told a crowd in Raleigh, N.C.He said that he supports the expansion and extension of unemployment benefits, as well as a second round of tax rebate checks.
So his answer to rising oil and food prices is more inflationary deficit spending? (And we're supposed to believe that he is some sort of fiscal conservative, as he tries to claim, who is concerned about deficits? Then again, I've already detailed how Senator Obama has a thing for big spending.) This, while Helicopter Ben has sent all of the choppers in the battalion into Red Alert mode this year?
And his answer to addressing the unemployment rate is further subsidizing unemployment?
As the article states,
the jury is still out on how successful those rebates will be stimulating the economy.The mess we are in right now is precisely due to deficit spending policies of this kind and due to the active manipulation by the government the economy through discretionary policy, be it on the fiscal side or the monetary side. The racking of $9.4 trillion in national debt, as my nifty clock to the right keeps track of by the money, is having some serious consequences, and will continue to have serious consequences. This, while we have $50-70 trillion in present value stacked in unfunded liabilities of our government, depending on the source. This, while the Federal Reserve's manipulation of market interest rates has caused massive instability in financial markets. Nearly every economic problem we are facing in this country- inflation, decline in the manufacturing base, malinvestment, declining savings, our massive current account deficit, destruction of the currency in foreign exchange markets, the current mortgage and credit crises- can be traced to the presence and wicked interaction of discretionary policies.
Preventing recession and generating growth are two fundamentally different concepts. Preventing recession also prevents the process by which causes of long-term decline, such as bad debt and perverse incentives, are cleaned out of the market. Broadly defining the economy as "in recession" in the first place is useless. Macro data is often horrendously unreliable given the complexity of the macroeconomy, and the fall of production overall in the economy does not necessarily entail that every industry is in recession and that the sky is falling because some in the economy (often a relatively small minority) have no jobs. On the other hand, economic growth policy entails having a policy framework that facilitates strength in the fundamentals of growth. There is broad consensus among growth theorists that long-term growth is sourced in the following:
* Vibrant entrepreneurship (thank you, Mr. Schumpeter)
* Innovation
* High personal saving rates
* Physical capital investment
* Human capital investment (i.e., education investment)
* Public infrastructure investment
* Protection of property rights and enforcement of contracts
Most growth theorists would agree that low and simple taxation and regulation, although not all do.
Further Obama proposals cited in the article:
Obama has pledged to keep the tax cuts in place for everyone except those making roughly $250,000 and up. He has also made proposals to cut taxes further for the middle class, some of which he reiterated in his speech: exempt seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax; give a tax credit worth up to $500 per working person ($1,000 per family) to offset the Social Security tax on the first $8,100 of earnings; and expand the earned income tax credit.
To boost retirement savings, he has also proposed a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000.
1) What's with setting an arbitrary threshold for maintenance of tax cuts at $250,000? If Senator Obama is as big of a fan of small businesses as Democrats claim to be, he would realize that there are quite a few small businessmen making exactly that amount or perhaps a little higher. Does he really want to throw a huge new burden on small business owners who file individual income taxes? Furthermore, does he really think that someone making six-figures is part of the evil "money culture" oppressor class that he seems to hate so much? That's a pretty ridiculous assertion, if in fact that is what he is saying. And it's not as if the revenue from getting rid of the tax cuts for those with incomes greater than $250,000 is going to generate much more revenue, or even enough to fund all of his grand programs.
2) So the answer to easing the burden on low-middle income families is to add more complication and paperwork to their tax filing every year? I beg to differ.
3) How the hell is a federal match on the first 50% of $1,000 saving for families earning under $75,000 going to boost saving substantially? $1,500 a year over, say, 30 years or so (maybe not even that many years, for many families who will see upward income mobility) would build a nominal nest egg principal of $45,000, with the real figure being significantly less after inflation. A saver at this level would have to get some really kick-ass return in order to finance a decent standard of living in retirement, and people saving at this level probably aren't going to afford the instruments that generate this type of return. This proposal, with its arbitrary constrictions, is pure poppycock. But hey! Social Security and Medicare will be in tremendous financial shape at that time and will affordably be able to finance a nice middle class standard of living for retirees in the future with absolutely no crushing cost to the productive economy! Oh, wait.
And besides, tax-preferenced schemes to boost savings such as this have tricky effects, such as giving breaks to people already saving and, in cases like tax-preferenced IRAs, re-channeling saving into another financial insturment. The use of the tax code to engineer some type of economic outcome, which is really just a form of central planning, typically doesn't work very well, and often has effects just as negative as other lovely central planning instruments like price controls, direct subsidies, and regulation. (For a grand example of a royal screwup by tax-preferencing, observe the health care industry.)
However, it is at least encouraging that he's at least thinking about saving.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Barr-Root 2008: My Analysis (Finally)
I'm a couple of weeks late in discussing this, but I've finally come around to it. My apologies for my tardiness.
I am obviously very pleased about Bob Barr's nomination for President. I endorsed him a couple of months ago for office, and I will easily support him vigorously and vote for him in November. As I stated in a previous post, I disagree with the key objections of some libertarians to him based on past votes in Congress, as I believe they are either ignorant (accusing him of having an anti-civil liberties record because of his Patriot Act vote, when in fact he had a long record of defending the Bill of Rights and fought to get sunset clauses into the Patriot Act before he voted for it, is just wrong) or misguided (as in the case of drugs; he did go to work for the Marijuana Policy Project after he left Congress, so while his position isn't perfect, he's coming around). Furthermore, his coming around on DOMA and calling for repeal of the definition of marriage for purposes federal law is very welcome.
That Bob Barr is an effective politician and will be an effective candidate for the Party is undoubtable. He is a very intelligent, passionate, and well-spoken man who has impressive credentials in a sphere of issues- Civil Liberties- that must be addressed, will have great political appeal, and will bring many new voters to the Libertarian Party. Representative Barr is often criticized for his lack of charisma, but I think he brings another intrinsic quality that will be very politically appealing: seriousness. When he speaks, he comes across as very focused, professional, and businesslike. I believe that these are the characteristics that many people are looking for in a leader now, and they contrast well with Obama's brash aloofness and McCain's temperamental brazenness. Furthermore, it is a terrific quality in a messenger for libertarianism, which is too often associated with the word "kook."
This brings me a great deal of uneasiness about Wayne Allyn Root's selection as the Vice Presidential candidate. For all of Barr's sobriety, Root is in equal measure grotesquely obnoxious in a way reminiscing of the used car salesman from hell. This is readily apparent in any video of him available online. He is firmly a man of Vegas, and not only does he seem oblivious to the possible political drawbacks of such a personality, but promotes this persona as if it is that of a model citizen. While brings great energy to the ticket and is a confident (even intelligent) speaker. He can also be serious and focused, as he demonstrates in this debate with Mike Gravel. However, generally speaking, he also has a certifiably basket case personality, and the campaign should always make sure to keep a bottle of Valium close by at all times.
Given the potential candidates for the position, though, he's probably the best choice. Steve Kubby, the other major candidate for the nomination, goes to great lengths to do nothing to perpetuate the common libertarian stereotype of what The Economist calls the "Refer Madness" wing of the LP. Mary Ruwart, while a very intelligent woman and an effective and rational communicator, also possesses a skeleton closet full of not-so-carefully-worded writings, such as the child porn fiasco. It is disappointing, though, that she did not even declare her candidacy for the position, if for no other reason than the silent declaration that she will have nothing to do with this campaign. She would have been an effective evangelical on its behalf.
The really good news for the Party is that it looks like it's united behind this ticket. I was very worried about the prospect of a blowup at the site of a Barr-Root ticket, given that both are former Republicans. The Radical Caucus certainly seemed to be leading an energized "Anybody But Barr" movement, but it did not culminate in a massive walkout after the ticket was formed. This is good news, as it appears the LP is starting to understand the unprecedented political opportunity they have on behalf of liberty, in light of Ron Paul's illuminating campaign. More political pragmatism throughout in the LP going forward can only be positive.
Barr-Root will be the ticket that will establish the LP as a true political force. I would project right now their popular vote total will fall somewhere in the range of 5-20%, which would be simply outstanding. From this campaign will come more money, more perception of credibility, more motivation for activists, and the construction of a legitimate organization that will establish it as THE 3rd Party. Where the Perot campaign failed in establishing a long-term 3rd Party movement, it did so because it emphasized a quixotic, and largely authoritarian, set of policy positions and was centered around a candidate who was perceived as kooky. The Barr campaign will succeed because it will be lead by a candidate who is serious and will focus on a truly new "way," as opposed to the Democratic and Republican "ways."
But Barr-Root will also have a positive impact for us libertarian Republicans who want to bring the Party back in line with the ideas of Goldwater and the rhetoric of Reagan. For one, both candidate symbolize the disaffected Republican: the fiscally conservative, socially tolerant, pro-civil liberties Republican who is tiring of the Bush Republicans' expansion of government spending and regulation, assaults on the Bill of Rights, failed Iraq War and foreign policy, use of divisive social rhetoric in lieu of addressing more important issues, and the general incompetence of leaders in the Party. Barr-Root will obviously be heavily targeting disaffected Republicans, but its greatest performance will be among Independents (which include all non-Republicans and non-Democrats) and among new voters. The success of Barr-Root will demonstrate the potency of libertarianism as a political force and the necessity of advocating for truly limited government if they are to maintain a long-term movement that can sustain and repel the anti-liberty tide being generated by the new Democrats.
I have never been as excited about a Presidential Campaign as I have been about Ron Paul's campaign. Barr-Root will receive every ounce of it going into November.
GO BOB BARR!
I am obviously very pleased about Bob Barr's nomination for President. I endorsed him a couple of months ago for office, and I will easily support him vigorously and vote for him in November. As I stated in a previous post, I disagree with the key objections of some libertarians to him based on past votes in Congress, as I believe they are either ignorant (accusing him of having an anti-civil liberties record because of his Patriot Act vote, when in fact he had a long record of defending the Bill of Rights and fought to get sunset clauses into the Patriot Act before he voted for it, is just wrong) or misguided (as in the case of drugs; he did go to work for the Marijuana Policy Project after he left Congress, so while his position isn't perfect, he's coming around). Furthermore, his coming around on DOMA and calling for repeal of the definition of marriage for purposes federal law is very welcome.
That Bob Barr is an effective politician and will be an effective candidate for the Party is undoubtable. He is a very intelligent, passionate, and well-spoken man who has impressive credentials in a sphere of issues- Civil Liberties- that must be addressed, will have great political appeal, and will bring many new voters to the Libertarian Party. Representative Barr is often criticized for his lack of charisma, but I think he brings another intrinsic quality that will be very politically appealing: seriousness. When he speaks, he comes across as very focused, professional, and businesslike. I believe that these are the characteristics that many people are looking for in a leader now, and they contrast well with Obama's brash aloofness and McCain's temperamental brazenness. Furthermore, it is a terrific quality in a messenger for libertarianism, which is too often associated with the word "kook."
This brings me a great deal of uneasiness about Wayne Allyn Root's selection as the Vice Presidential candidate. For all of Barr's sobriety, Root is in equal measure grotesquely obnoxious in a way reminiscing of the used car salesman from hell. This is readily apparent in any video of him available online. He is firmly a man of Vegas, and not only does he seem oblivious to the possible political drawbacks of such a personality, but promotes this persona as if it is that of a model citizen. While brings great energy to the ticket and is a confident (even intelligent) speaker. He can also be serious and focused, as he demonstrates in this debate with Mike Gravel. However, generally speaking, he also has a certifiably basket case personality, and the campaign should always make sure to keep a bottle of Valium close by at all times.
Given the potential candidates for the position, though, he's probably the best choice. Steve Kubby, the other major candidate for the nomination, goes to great lengths to do nothing to perpetuate the common libertarian stereotype of what The Economist calls the "Refer Madness" wing of the LP. Mary Ruwart, while a very intelligent woman and an effective and rational communicator, also possesses a skeleton closet full of not-so-carefully-worded writings, such as the child porn fiasco. It is disappointing, though, that she did not even declare her candidacy for the position, if for no other reason than the silent declaration that she will have nothing to do with this campaign. She would have been an effective evangelical on its behalf.
The really good news for the Party is that it looks like it's united behind this ticket. I was very worried about the prospect of a blowup at the site of a Barr-Root ticket, given that both are former Republicans. The Radical Caucus certainly seemed to be leading an energized "Anybody But Barr" movement, but it did not culminate in a massive walkout after the ticket was formed. This is good news, as it appears the LP is starting to understand the unprecedented political opportunity they have on behalf of liberty, in light of Ron Paul's illuminating campaign. More political pragmatism throughout in the LP going forward can only be positive.
Barr-Root will be the ticket that will establish the LP as a true political force. I would project right now their popular vote total will fall somewhere in the range of 5-20%, which would be simply outstanding. From this campaign will come more money, more perception of credibility, more motivation for activists, and the construction of a legitimate organization that will establish it as THE 3rd Party. Where the Perot campaign failed in establishing a long-term 3rd Party movement, it did so because it emphasized a quixotic, and largely authoritarian, set of policy positions and was centered around a candidate who was perceived as kooky. The Barr campaign will succeed because it will be lead by a candidate who is serious and will focus on a truly new "way," as opposed to the Democratic and Republican "ways."
But Barr-Root will also have a positive impact for us libertarian Republicans who want to bring the Party back in line with the ideas of Goldwater and the rhetoric of Reagan. For one, both candidate symbolize the disaffected Republican: the fiscally conservative, socially tolerant, pro-civil liberties Republican who is tiring of the Bush Republicans' expansion of government spending and regulation, assaults on the Bill of Rights, failed Iraq War and foreign policy, use of divisive social rhetoric in lieu of addressing more important issues, and the general incompetence of leaders in the Party. Barr-Root will obviously be heavily targeting disaffected Republicans, but its greatest performance will be among Independents (which include all non-Republicans and non-Democrats) and among new voters. The success of Barr-Root will demonstrate the potency of libertarianism as a political force and the necessity of advocating for truly limited government if they are to maintain a long-term movement that can sustain and repel the anti-liberty tide being generated by the new Democrats.
I have never been as excited about a Presidential Campaign as I have been about Ron Paul's campaign. Barr-Root will receive every ounce of it going into November.
GO BOB BARR!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
