President Obama last week began his second term by promising that “a decade of war is now ending.” As he spoke, the US military was rapidly working its way into another war, this time in the impoverished African country of Mali. As far as we know, the US is only providing transport and intelligence assistance to France, which initiated the intervention then immediately called Washington for back-up and funding. However, even if US involvement is limited, and, as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, US boots on the ground are not being considered “at this time,” this clearly is developing into another war. As usual, the mission is creeping.
Within the first week of French military action in Mali, the promise that it would be a quick operation to put down an Islamic rebel advance toward the capitol was broken. France announced that it would be forced to send in thousands of troops and would need to remain far longer than the few weeks it initially claimed would be necessary.
Media questions as to whether the US has Special Operations forces, drones, or CIA paramilitary units active in Mali are unanswered by the Administration. Congress has asked few questions and demanded few answers from the president. As usual, it was not even consulted. But where does the president get the authority to become a co-combatant in French operations in Mali, even if US troops are not yet overtly involved in the attack?
How did we get to Mali? Blowback and unintended consequences played key roles. When the president decided to use the US military to attack Libya in 2011, Congress was not consulted. The president claimed that UN and NATO authority for the use of US military force were sufficient and even superior to any kind of Congressional declaration. Congress once again relinquished its authority, but also its oversight power, by remaining silent. That meant the difficult questions such as why is the action necessary, what would it entail, and what kind of unintended consequences might we see if the operation does not go exactly as planned, were neither asked nor answered.
When Gaddafi was overthrown in Libya, many fighters from Mali who had lived in Libya and been trained by Gaddafi’s military returned to their home country with sophisticated weapons and a new determination to continue their fight for independence for northern Mali. Thus the France-initiated action against Libya in 2011 led to new violence and instability in Mali that France decided it must also address. Shortly after the French attack on Mali, rebels in Algeria attacked a BP gas facility in retaliation for their government’s decision to allow foreign military to fly over Algerian territory en route to Mali. Thus the action in Mali to solve the crisis created by the prior action in Libya is turning into a new crisis in Algeria. This is the danger of interventionism and, as we saw in Vietnam more than four decades ago, it threatens to drag the US further into the conflict. And Congress is AWOL.
There is a reason why the framers of our Constitution placed the authority to declare war strictly with the Legislative Branch of government. They knew well that kings were all too willing to go to war without the consent of those who would do the killing and dying -- and funding. By placing that authority in Congress, the people’s branch of government, they intended to blunt the executive branch’s enthusiasm toward overseas adventurism. The consequences of this steady erosion of our system toward the unitary executive are dire.
Friday
WHAT I THINK........MICHAEL VODICKA
Ron Paul is a lot like licorice; not everyone likes him, but the ones who do really like him.
The former Texas congressman built his reputation and loyal following by taking strong positions on a number of controversial issues.
The first is his desire to audit and eliminate the Federal Reserve. Paul is a free-market capitalist and doesn't believe a centrally controlled, non-elected entity should have the ability to dictate interest rates and change the trajectory of the economy.
Paul has also expressed deep concerns about the U.S. dollar, which is not backed by any physical asset, and has been steadily devaluing against other currencies since 2001 under growing domestic trade deficits.
Finally, Paul is also worried about the possibility of massive inflation. Although the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics' Consumer Price Index has yet to show any serious signals of inflation, with central banks around the world fully committed to monetary stimulation, the devaluation of fiat currency is a very real consideration for many investors.
But unlike many politicians simply tickling populist fancy, after taking a look at Paul's portfolio, it's obvious the man puts his money where his mouth is.
The typical congressional portfolio might have 10% in cash, 10% in bonds, 20% in real estate and 60% in stocks or stock funds, according to the Wall Street Journal.
But Paul has taken a radically different approach.
His 21% allocation to real estate looks pretty normal. So does his 14% allocation in cash. But where he parts ways with his congressional brethren is the remaining 64% of his portfolio, which is invested in gold- and silver-mining stocks. Adding to his contrarian style, his 1% allocation to stocks funds are invested in "short" funds, a bet against future stock gains.
Here is a list of 15 gold- and silver-mining stocks that Paul owns in descending order from largest to smallest market cap.
From the group, I have chosen to highlight Barrick Gold Corp. (NYSE: ABX) because of its historically low valuation and Silver Wheaton (NYSE: SLW) because of its low valuation and unique business model.
Barrick Gold Corp. (NYSE: ABX)
Barrick Gold is the largest gold miner in the world, with a market cap of $34 billion and owning four of the world's 10 largest gold mines. Much like other gold and mining stocks, Barrick has been under pressure during the past year, with shares down 24%.
But in the meantime, Barrick's earnings have held strong, with analysts looking for earnings of $3.89 a share in 2012 and $4.90 a share in 2013, a bullish
26% growth projection. The downtrend in the face of strong earnings has
pushed Barrick deep into value territory. The stock is trading at just
seven times forward earnings, a sharp discount to its 10-year average of 19 and its peer average of 12.
Silver Wheaton (NYSE: SLW)
Silver Wheaton has a different business model from other miners in that it is technically a "silver streaming" company. This means Silver Wheaton purchases the by-product silver production of a mine that it does not own or operate, allowing the owner/operator of the mine to receive an upfront payment and focus on its target metal (usually gold). This creates a mutually-beneficial relationship between the companies involved, because it gives Silver Wheaton the option to purchase silver at predetermined prices, while the owner/operator of the mines are able to monetize the value of its future, non-core silver production. This unique business model has lifted Silver Wheaton to a rare gain against its peers, with shares up 17% in the past year.
But in spite of these gains, shares till look undervalued, trading at 16 times forward earnings, a discount to the 10-year average of 25 and its peer group average of 22.
Risks to Consider: Most gold-mining stocks have sharply underperformed gold prices in the past two years, driving big losses for investors choosing to invest in gold miners as opposed to bullion or spot prices through exchange-traded funds like SPDR Gold Shares (NYSE: GLD) and PowerShares DB
Gold Double Long (NYSE: DGP).
Action to Take --> If you are concerned the Fed's recent actions, weakness in the dollar and inflation, then it's time to take a page from Ron Paul's portfolio and consider gold and silver miners. And while I wouldn't recommend the same allocation as Paul has, I do like Barrick and Silver Wheaton for most portfolios.
The former Texas congressman is considered a political renegade, fueling what some analysts call the craziest portfolio they have ever seen.
The first is his desire to audit and eliminate the Federal Reserve. Paul is a free-market capitalist and doesn't believe a centrally controlled, non-elected entity should have the ability to dictate interest rates and change the trajectory of the economy.
Paul has also expressed deep concerns about the U.S. dollar, which is not backed by any physical asset, and has been steadily devaluing against other currencies since 2001 under growing domestic trade deficits.
Finally, Paul is also worried about the possibility of massive inflation. Although the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics' Consumer Price Index has yet to show any serious signals of inflation, with central banks around the world fully committed to monetary stimulation, the devaluation of fiat currency is a very real consideration for many investors.
But unlike many politicians simply tickling populist fancy, after taking a look at Paul's portfolio, it's obvious the man puts his money where his mouth is.
The typical congressional portfolio might have 10% in cash, 10% in bonds, 20% in real estate and 60% in stocks or stock funds, according to the Wall Street Journal.
But Paul has taken a radically different approach.
His 21% allocation to real estate looks pretty normal. So does his 14% allocation in cash. But where he parts ways with his congressional brethren is the remaining 64% of his portfolio, which is invested in gold- and silver-mining stocks. Adding to his contrarian style, his 1% allocation to stocks funds are invested in "short" funds, a bet against future stock gains.
Here is a list of 15 gold- and silver-mining stocks that Paul owns in descending order from largest to smallest market cap.
Barrick Gold Corp. (NYSE: ABX)
Barrick Gold is the largest gold miner in the world, with a market cap of $34 billion and owning four of the world's 10 largest gold mines. Much like other gold and mining stocks, Barrick has been under pressure during the past year, with shares down 24%.
Silver Wheaton (NYSE: SLW)
Silver Wheaton has a different business model from other miners in that it is technically a "silver streaming" company. This means Silver Wheaton purchases the by-product silver production of a mine that it does not own or operate, allowing the owner/operator of the mine to receive an upfront payment and focus on its target metal (usually gold). This creates a mutually-beneficial relationship between the companies involved, because it gives Silver Wheaton the option to purchase silver at predetermined prices, while the owner/operator of the mines are able to monetize the value of its future, non-core silver production. This unique business model has lifted Silver Wheaton to a rare gain against its peers, with shares up 17% in the past year.
Risks to Consider: Most gold-mining stocks have sharply underperformed gold prices in the past two years, driving big losses for investors choosing to invest in gold miners as opposed to bullion or spot prices through exchange-traded funds like SPDR Gold Shares (NYSE: GLD) and PowerShares DB
Gold Double Long (NYSE: DGP).
Action to Take --> If you are concerned the Fed's recent actions, weakness in the dollar and inflation, then it's time to take a page from Ron Paul's portfolio and consider gold and silver miners. And while I wouldn't recommend the same allocation as Paul has, I do like Barrick and Silver Wheaton for most portfolios.
The former Texas congressman is considered a political renegade, fueling what some analysts call the craziest portfolio they have ever seen.
Tuesday
THE COMING DEBT LIMIT DRAMA: GOVERNMENT WINS, WE LOSE
Last week President Obama bluntly warned Congress that he will not negotiate when it comes to raising the statutory debt limit. If Republicans attempt to use a debt ceiling vote to win concessions on spending from the White House, Mr. Obama threatens simply to raise the limit by executive order or other unilateral action.
This is business as usual in Washington. Democrats literally do not believe we have a deficit and debt problem, and reliably propose greater borrowing and spending. Republicans talk a good game when it comes to government debt, but have no credibility to argue against deficits or abuses of executive power. Brinksmanship ensues, and ugly compromises are reached at the 11th hour. We all lose as the endless borrowing and money printing further erode our dollar and our economy. Keep in mind that the federal government relentlessly spends about $100 billion more each month than it collects in taxes. This means roughly 40% of every dollar Washington spends is borrowed, to be “paid back” only in highly devalued, newly created money. Ultimately this can only lead to the destruction of the US dollar, as history plainly teaches. But in the face of this reality Obama just shrugs, turning to demagoguery and talk of little old ladies’ Social Security checks . Like Obama, far too many Americans view federal debt as a nonissue. Consider Paul Krugman, America’s most reliable Keynesian economist and a beloved figure among mainstream journalists. He recently wrote an article about the debt limit issue, in which he discussed a controversial proposal to have the federal government simply create a platinum coin with a face value of $1 trillion:
Krugman’s suggestion is just another variant of the endless stimulus proposals, which purport to create greater aggregate demand in the economy by creating more money. Whether this is done by the Fed or the Treasury is of little importance, as long as government is creating demand-side “growth,” however artificial. But in just a few short sentences Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe eviscerates the Krugmans of the world by pointing out the obvious: If governments or central banks really can create wealth simply by creating money, why does poverty exist anywhere on earth? Why haven’t successive rounds of quantitative easing by the US Fed solved our economic recession? And if Fed money creation really works, and doesn’t create inflation, why haven’t Americans gotten richer as the money supply has grown? The truth is obvious to everyone. Fiat currency is not wealth, and the creation of more fiat dollars does not mean that more rice, steel, soybeans, Ipads, or Honda Accords suddenly come into existence. The creation of new fiat currency simply strengthens a fantasy balance sheet, either by adding to cash reserves or servicing debt. But this balance sheet wealth is an illusion, just as the notion we can continue to raise the debt limit and borrow money forever is an illusion.
This is business as usual in Washington. Democrats literally do not believe we have a deficit and debt problem, and reliably propose greater borrowing and spending. Republicans talk a good game when it comes to government debt, but have no credibility to argue against deficits or abuses of executive power. Brinksmanship ensues, and ugly compromises are reached at the 11th hour. We all lose as the endless borrowing and money printing further erode our dollar and our economy. Keep in mind that the federal government relentlessly spends about $100 billion more each month than it collects in taxes. This means roughly 40% of every dollar Washington spends is borrowed, to be “paid back” only in highly devalued, newly created money. Ultimately this can only lead to the destruction of the US dollar, as history plainly teaches. But in the face of this reality Obama just shrugs, turning to demagoguery and talk of little old ladies’ Social Security checks . Like Obama, far too many Americans view federal debt as a nonissue. Consider Paul Krugman, America’s most reliable Keynesian economist and a beloved figure among mainstream journalists. He recently wrote an article about the debt limit issue, in which he discussed a controversial proposal to have the federal government simply create a platinum coin with a face value of $1 trillion:
“Here’s how it would work: The Treasury would mint a platinum coin with a face value of $1 trillion (or many coins with smaller values; it doesn’t really matter). This coin would immediately be deposited at the Federal Reserve, which would credit the sum to the government’s account. And the government could then write checks against that account, continuing normal operations without issuing new debt.”To be fair, Mr. Krugman acknowledges that minting such a coin would be an accounting “trick,” but he is dead serious about this option for the Obama administration. This then is the state of modern economics discourse in America, where a respected New York Times economist literally can propose creating “money for nothing” and have the idea taken seriously.
Krugman’s suggestion is just another variant of the endless stimulus proposals, which purport to create greater aggregate demand in the economy by creating more money. Whether this is done by the Fed or the Treasury is of little importance, as long as government is creating demand-side “growth,” however artificial. But in just a few short sentences Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe eviscerates the Krugmans of the world by pointing out the obvious: If governments or central banks really can create wealth simply by creating money, why does poverty exist anywhere on earth? Why haven’t successive rounds of quantitative easing by the US Fed solved our economic recession? And if Fed money creation really works, and doesn’t create inflation, why haven’t Americans gotten richer as the money supply has grown? The truth is obvious to everyone. Fiat currency is not wealth, and the creation of more fiat dollars does not mean that more rice, steel, soybeans, Ipads, or Honda Accords suddenly come into existence. The creation of new fiat currency simply strengthens a fantasy balance sheet, either by adding to cash reserves or servicing debt. But this balance sheet wealth is an illusion, just as the notion we can continue to raise the debt limit and borrow money forever is an illusion.
ON OBAMA'S NEW NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM, KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE POLICY
President Obama announced his choices for key national security posts this past week, and there has been both celebration and gnashing of teeth in Washington and around the country. There is widespread belief that either or both of these nominees will have an immediate and profound effect on US policy. However, this belief is really just a mistaken over-emphasis on personnel over policy. We should not forget that cabinet secretaries serve the president, and not the other way around.
Many who object to our continued foreign policy of endless war and empire overseas feel encouraged by Obama’s choice of Senator Hagel to head the Defense Department. Hagel has shown some admirable willingness to advise caution overseas. He is seen as unenthusiastic over the prospects of a US war on Iran, which is certainly to be welcomed. But let us not forget that he did vote for the war against Iraq, he has expressed support for multi-lateral sanctions on Iran, and last year he wrote in the Washington Post that, on Iran, he supports “keeping all options on the table, including the use of military force.”
Nevertheless because he does represent a more moderate voice in foreign policy than the neo-conservatives can tolerate, they are dragging his name through the mud. In choosing Hagel, then, we can hope the president is signaling that he will pursue a less aggressive foreign policy in his second term. But we cannot count on it.
At the same time, the president has chosen John Brennan as Central Intelligence Agency director -- a man who is considered the author of Obama’s destructive drone warfare policy, and who as such has been in charge of the president’s secret “kill list” that has already claimed the lives of three American citizens. He claimed in 2011 that there were no collateral deaths from the US drone attacks on Pakistan, which is simply not believable. We also should not forget that as then-CIA director George Tenet’s right hand man during the Bush presidency, Brennan was certainly involved in the manufactured intelligence and lies that led the US to attack Iraq.
The real problem is in placing too much emphasis on the person the president hires to carry out his foreign and defense policy, as it ignores that policy itself. If the president has decided to continue or even expand US military action overseas through more covert warfare and use of special operations forces, which seems to be the case, it will matter little who he chooses to carry out those policies. If the president decides to continue to provide support to rebels in Syria who have dubious ties to Islamic extremists, to continue to meddle in the internal affairs of countless countries overseas, to continue to refuse to even talk with Iran without preconditions, and so on, we will not see a return to foreign policy sanity no matter who occupies what position in the president’s cabinet.
So we should be optimistic that the president may see the wisdom in pursuing a foreign policy that is truly in our national interest, but we should always keep an eye on the policies over the personnel.
Many who object to our continued foreign policy of endless war and empire overseas feel encouraged by Obama’s choice of Senator Hagel to head the Defense Department. Hagel has shown some admirable willingness to advise caution overseas. He is seen as unenthusiastic over the prospects of a US war on Iran, which is certainly to be welcomed. But let us not forget that he did vote for the war against Iraq, he has expressed support for multi-lateral sanctions on Iran, and last year he wrote in the Washington Post that, on Iran, he supports “keeping all options on the table, including the use of military force.”
Nevertheless because he does represent a more moderate voice in foreign policy than the neo-conservatives can tolerate, they are dragging his name through the mud. In choosing Hagel, then, we can hope the president is signaling that he will pursue a less aggressive foreign policy in his second term. But we cannot count on it.
At the same time, the president has chosen John Brennan as Central Intelligence Agency director -- a man who is considered the author of Obama’s destructive drone warfare policy, and who as such has been in charge of the president’s secret “kill list” that has already claimed the lives of three American citizens. He claimed in 2011 that there were no collateral deaths from the US drone attacks on Pakistan, which is simply not believable. We also should not forget that as then-CIA director George Tenet’s right hand man during the Bush presidency, Brennan was certainly involved in the manufactured intelligence and lies that led the US to attack Iraq.
The real problem is in placing too much emphasis on the person the president hires to carry out his foreign and defense policy, as it ignores that policy itself. If the president has decided to continue or even expand US military action overseas through more covert warfare and use of special operations forces, which seems to be the case, it will matter little who he chooses to carry out those policies. If the president decides to continue to provide support to rebels in Syria who have dubious ties to Islamic extremists, to continue to meddle in the internal affairs of countless countries overseas, to continue to refuse to even talk with Iran without preconditions, and so on, we will not see a return to foreign policy sanity no matter who occupies what position in the president’s cabinet.
So we should be optimistic that the president may see the wisdom in pursuing a foreign policy that is truly in our national interest, but we should always keep an eye on the policies over the personnel.
WHAT I THINK........LYNETTE ROSINGER
Recently I received two email articles outlining analyses of the GOP 2012 presidential election loss, one written by Rabbi Pruzansky and another written by Professor Hollis.
The authors agree that Romney was an outstanding candidate, that he was an admirable man, and that Ryan was a wise choice as a running mate. They concur that he lost because our nation has become immature, and irresponsible. They both fear that because of this, America as we have known it, is over or at least close to the brink.
I agree with the authors about the challenges posed by a left-wing media and I acknowledge that the institutional woes that characterize our current culture are worrisome. But, when it comes to the authors’ conclusion that the nation hit a tipping point with this election and that we are over the brink in terms of people who do not want freedom outnumbering those who do, I believe they are wrong.
Passion for Romney?
The place to begin is with the lead candidate on the ticket. Ms. Hollis writes of the "enthusiasm, passion, commitment and determination" that characterized Romney supporters. Do you remember voting for Romney with passion? Not many people I know did; I can think of one. No, they voted with passion all right, the passion of despair about Obama; these voters were even labeled "ABO, Anybody but Obama voters."
And, there was not much passion for Obama either. Perhaps his victory margin, or most likely, a percentage much greater than that, voted for him because they did not like Romney.
Was there passion and enthusiasm for Romney? No.
Passion, enthusiasm, commitment and determination were there in 2012, there for Ron Paul.
The Primary Campaign: An Unwelcome Mat and a Small Tent
Both Rabbi Pruzansky and Professor Hollis speak very highly of Romney’s character. Perhaps it is all they say it is. But, the tactics used on his behalf during the primary caucuses and conventions were shameful. Parliamentary procedure was ignored, and chairmen threatened to shut down conventions. Once it was known that delegates were Ron Paul supporters, their names were wiped off slates. We hear so much about how the GOP needs to appeal to all kinds of people, other than white men. And yet these very individuals, including independents, if for Ron Paul, were made to feel most unwelcome.
As many as 40% of the participants at the Georgia 6th District Republican Convention left the convention frustrated, sad, and angry. They were Republicans for Ron Paul and had paid dues and registration fees. They listened to speech after speech calling for unity, and yet were not permitted one delegate from their ranks to the state/national conventions. The tent just wasn’t big enough. Just vote for us in November.
The National Convention: A House Divided and a Perception of Unity
This attitude and directive to the local GOP came from above, from the presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney and the party establishment. At the national convention, delegates from Maine were not seated and were eventually chosen by people not even from Maine. Georgia’s chairman’s microphone went dead when she started to read the delegates for Ron Paul from Georgia. Yes, there were some after all. The Convention Secretary only repeated Romney votes anyway even when Paul got more votes in a state than Romney; for example, "25 for Ron Paul, 3 for Romney" was repeated as "3 for Romney." There are so many instances of this kind of childish, rude treatment of fellow delegates. Speaking of immaturity!
When I read reports about how Obama cheated in order to beat Romney, I wonder how much the authors who say that know about how Romney, a man they characterize as decent and honest, clawed his way to a meaningless victory.
Imagine being that Bus Driver
"Let us off the bus!" they yelled. The Rules Committee Minority Report rode on the bus in the hands of a man intending to bring it before the convention. He, along with other delegates, circled the convention hall; around and around they went until it was "safe" to let them off. And so it was that the Minority Report could not be filed, could not be voted on, could not save the GOP from Romney forces who knew what they wanted and would do anything to get it. I wonder how much they paid that bus driver.
Meanwhile, just in case, the script on the teleprompter was already written, "The ayes have it." So when Boehner called for a voice vote, he did not even have to wonder, as many TV commentators wondered when the vote was so close, how the vote actually went. He did not have to recognize calls for "division of the house," the parliamentary term to poll the delegates. All he had to do was stand there and read the script. Simple, neat, and all wrapped up. This same rule, if it had been enacted in 1976 or 1980, would have prohibited Ronald Reagan from ever being nominated.
Is this behavior the model of dignity and righteousness that the authors want me to believe describe Romney? Was he really the man we needed to restore "time-tested principles" back to America?
Nomination by Central Committee and Delegate Positions for Sale
Now that this rules change has been decided, albeit unfairly to say the least, the delegates to the 2016 National Republican convention will not be chosen by the states. Instead, they will be named by the first place winner of the state primary and/or by the RNC. Got money? Grassroots activists better just give up and stay home. That will teach the Tea Party and those pesky Ron Paul supporters! The establishment has hired Karl Rove as a chief strategist to advise them how to combat these liberty-minded troublemakers.
Nobody for President
Pruzansky and Hollis are right about one thing. Obama has no mandate. He won 51% of the votes cast. Fewer people voted in 2012 than in 2008. Gary Johnson’s votes in any given state did not tip the scales for Romney, or for Obama, but if we add in the thousands of alienated voters who stayed home or wrote in Ron Paul, this most definitely would have closed the gap. The unwelcome mat, the small tent, and especially the candidate’s policies, made a difference.
Agreeing with Obama’s Policies
Beyond condoning obviously unfair and unnecessary political maneuvers, Romney and Ryan are not men of principle. Romney is the architect of government run health care and its foundation, the individual mandate. Romney’s principles changed depending on which election he was in. Those authors and individuals so concerned with the morality of our culture, or who write about the imperative to stand up for the unborn, and "time-tested" principles should revisit Romney’s record. They might also want to check his past positions on guns.
The rabbi and the law professor agree that Romney would have been an "excellent" president, that he would have saved us from the collapse, that he was on the side of small business and entrepreneurs, and that those Republicans who cave and support Obama’s policies are doomed.
Ryan’s budget proposal would have balanced the federal budget in 30-40 years. Do you agree with him that we should wait that long? Recently, Ryan said he favored Boehner’s Plan B to increase taxes and he also caved when he voted with Boehner to solve the debt problem by increasing taxes and increasing spending in order to save us from fiscal irresponsibility. Is this the way you would have voted?
Ryan voted for the National Defense Authorization Act, Obama’s law allowing the military to lock up Americans indefinitely with no trial at the whim of the President. This legislation virtually wipes out the 6th amendment.
It is remarkable that the professor and the rabbi contend that Ryan was an inspired choice for VP.
In one debate Romney said he supported the NDAA. Is this the thinking of an excellent President?
The Free Stuff Argument
I read in these articles, and many Republicans have repeated it, that Obama won because Americans want free stuff. Where was the choice? Never did candidate Romney name any federal spending he would cut. He joined in the class warfare uproar that characterizes Obama’s core strategy. Romney’s solution to the country’s deficit was to cut tax loopholes, the negative term for deductions, on the "rich"; in other words, he favored tax increases.
So, where was the principled difference between the two candidates?
Romney favored, and Ryan voted for, the bank bailout, and the GM bailout. This is free stuff too, free stuff for auto unions and free stuff for banks.
Never did Romney call for an audit of the Federal Reserve whose monetary policy of printing money permits presidents to go to war and politicians to buy votes.
Is the Federal Reserve manipulation of the money supply and its contribution to the debt the way to support small businesses and the free market that these authors contend were Romney’s concern?
Intensifying Obama’s Policy
Romney stated in his campaign that he would tighten the sanctions on Iran and increase the drone strikes on Pakistan. Both of these actions are acts of war. Women and children cower daily when the drones fly above them and many children have died from these drone strikes. Children and sick Iranians suffer from the sanctions we impose now. Both of these actions create hostility toward Americans. Both of these acts of war, taken without a declaration of war by Congress, undertaken by a President acting alone, are unconstitutional.
Is this the moral courage we need in a President? What about the oath to protect and defend the Constitution?
What do these actions of war do to protect American lives, and generate goodwill?
Is this the path back to "time-tested principles" the professor calls for?
The Bottom Line and the Illusion of Choice
The bottom line is, if supporting Obama’s policies as a Republican will doom you politically, as the professor acknowledges, is there any wonder why the Romney/Ryan ticket lost? Romney favored expanding overseas war efforts, mentioned nothing he would cut in federal spending, supported the NDAA, and espoused increasing taxes on the rich. This year there was only an illusion of choice.
Eight Reasons Why not to be Sad about the Election
1. If elected, Romney’s policies would have increased federal spending, increased the size of government, increased taxes on the upper brackets and increased unconstitutional war actions abroad. Moreover, and even more importantly, Ron Paul has made history. His campaigns were educational and his influence is being felt, even today, in Congress. The Audit the Fed bill will be introduced again, exactly as written by Dr. Paul, by his colleague, Representative Paul Broun of Georgia.
2. Would you have voted for Boehner to be Speaker? Five brave men of principle, Rep. Justin Amash (MI), Rep. Walter Jones (NC), Rep. Raul Labrador (ID), Rep. Thomas Massie (KY), and Rep. Ted Yoho (FL), along with seven other Republicans, voted against him. This took courage. One of them, Justin Amash, had been stripped of his committee appointment because he kept voting his conscience, instead of the way Boehner wanted him to. Amash is now chairman of the Liberty Caucus that was chaired by Dr. Paul. The "constitutionalists" are going to continue to grow in number in Congress.
3. On November 6, 2012, The Libertarian Party garnered a record number of votes on the national level.
Georgia State Coordinator for Ron Paul, Charles Gregory, won a seat in the Georgia legislature and others have won positions of leadership in various state GOP organizations.
4. The Campaign for Liberty, (C4L), an offshoot of the 2008 Ron Paul campaign for President, engages in research and disseminates information about federal, state, and local issues as well as pending legislation to help us take action with elected officials. The recent victory with Georgia Governor Deal about health exchanges is one example of its success.
5. Young Americans for Liberty, (YAL), a division of the C4L, has chapters on hundreds of campuses across the country. Members receive quality training in politics to ready them to become political leaders as well as candidates.
6. The Ludwig von Mises Institute has had its best year ever. Established to promote the principles of Austrian economics, its sale of books hit an all time high this year. When customers were questioned about why they wanted these books, the overwhelming answer was, because of Ron Paul. The institute will continue to grow, hold seminars, teach young people, publish books, and maintain its international scope.
7. The ideals of freedom, the free market, peace, and small government are certainly not dead.
8. Liberty Republicans remain organized across the country and are already in the arena preparing to become GOP leaders in 2013. There is a movement afoot to convince Judge Andrew Napolitano to run for President in 2016. Let me know if you are interested in either of these two efforts.
So, hold on to the knowledge that the liberty movement will never die. And those who are a part of it are committed, passionate, intelligent, well informed, and optimistic about the future. It is because of the strength of the liberty movement among young people that I have the greatest hope. They will remain on the political scene for years to come. It is time to look ahead and celebrate what we see.
The authors agree that Romney was an outstanding candidate, that he was an admirable man, and that Ryan was a wise choice as a running mate. They concur that he lost because our nation has become immature, and irresponsible. They both fear that because of this, America as we have known it, is over or at least close to the brink.
I agree with the authors about the challenges posed by a left-wing media and I acknowledge that the institutional woes that characterize our current culture are worrisome. But, when it comes to the authors’ conclusion that the nation hit a tipping point with this election and that we are over the brink in terms of people who do not want freedom outnumbering those who do, I believe they are wrong.
Passion for Romney?
The place to begin is with the lead candidate on the ticket. Ms. Hollis writes of the "enthusiasm, passion, commitment and determination" that characterized Romney supporters. Do you remember voting for Romney with passion? Not many people I know did; I can think of one. No, they voted with passion all right, the passion of despair about Obama; these voters were even labeled "ABO, Anybody but Obama voters."
And, there was not much passion for Obama either. Perhaps his victory margin, or most likely, a percentage much greater than that, voted for him because they did not like Romney.
Was there passion and enthusiasm for Romney? No.
Passion, enthusiasm, commitment and determination were there in 2012, there for Ron Paul.
The Primary Campaign: An Unwelcome Mat and a Small Tent
Both Rabbi Pruzansky and Professor Hollis speak very highly of Romney’s character. Perhaps it is all they say it is. But, the tactics used on his behalf during the primary caucuses and conventions were shameful. Parliamentary procedure was ignored, and chairmen threatened to shut down conventions. Once it was known that delegates were Ron Paul supporters, their names were wiped off slates. We hear so much about how the GOP needs to appeal to all kinds of people, other than white men. And yet these very individuals, including independents, if for Ron Paul, were made to feel most unwelcome.
As many as 40% of the participants at the Georgia 6th District Republican Convention left the convention frustrated, sad, and angry. They were Republicans for Ron Paul and had paid dues and registration fees. They listened to speech after speech calling for unity, and yet were not permitted one delegate from their ranks to the state/national conventions. The tent just wasn’t big enough. Just vote for us in November.
The National Convention: A House Divided and a Perception of Unity
This attitude and directive to the local GOP came from above, from the presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney and the party establishment. At the national convention, delegates from Maine were not seated and were eventually chosen by people not even from Maine. Georgia’s chairman’s microphone went dead when she started to read the delegates for Ron Paul from Georgia. Yes, there were some after all. The Convention Secretary only repeated Romney votes anyway even when Paul got more votes in a state than Romney; for example, "25 for Ron Paul, 3 for Romney" was repeated as "3 for Romney." There are so many instances of this kind of childish, rude treatment of fellow delegates. Speaking of immaturity!
When I read reports about how Obama cheated in order to beat Romney, I wonder how much the authors who say that know about how Romney, a man they characterize as decent and honest, clawed his way to a meaningless victory.
Imagine being that Bus Driver
"Let us off the bus!" they yelled. The Rules Committee Minority Report rode on the bus in the hands of a man intending to bring it before the convention. He, along with other delegates, circled the convention hall; around and around they went until it was "safe" to let them off. And so it was that the Minority Report could not be filed, could not be voted on, could not save the GOP from Romney forces who knew what they wanted and would do anything to get it. I wonder how much they paid that bus driver.
Meanwhile, just in case, the script on the teleprompter was already written, "The ayes have it." So when Boehner called for a voice vote, he did not even have to wonder, as many TV commentators wondered when the vote was so close, how the vote actually went. He did not have to recognize calls for "division of the house," the parliamentary term to poll the delegates. All he had to do was stand there and read the script. Simple, neat, and all wrapped up. This same rule, if it had been enacted in 1976 or 1980, would have prohibited Ronald Reagan from ever being nominated.
Is this behavior the model of dignity and righteousness that the authors want me to believe describe Romney? Was he really the man we needed to restore "time-tested principles" back to America?
Nomination by Central Committee and Delegate Positions for Sale
Now that this rules change has been decided, albeit unfairly to say the least, the delegates to the 2016 National Republican convention will not be chosen by the states. Instead, they will be named by the first place winner of the state primary and/or by the RNC. Got money? Grassroots activists better just give up and stay home. That will teach the Tea Party and those pesky Ron Paul supporters! The establishment has hired Karl Rove as a chief strategist to advise them how to combat these liberty-minded troublemakers.
Nobody for President
Pruzansky and Hollis are right about one thing. Obama has no mandate. He won 51% of the votes cast. Fewer people voted in 2012 than in 2008. Gary Johnson’s votes in any given state did not tip the scales for Romney, or for Obama, but if we add in the thousands of alienated voters who stayed home or wrote in Ron Paul, this most definitely would have closed the gap. The unwelcome mat, the small tent, and especially the candidate’s policies, made a difference.
Agreeing with Obama’s Policies
Beyond condoning obviously unfair and unnecessary political maneuvers, Romney and Ryan are not men of principle. Romney is the architect of government run health care and its foundation, the individual mandate. Romney’s principles changed depending on which election he was in. Those authors and individuals so concerned with the morality of our culture, or who write about the imperative to stand up for the unborn, and "time-tested" principles should revisit Romney’s record. They might also want to check his past positions on guns.
The rabbi and the law professor agree that Romney would have been an "excellent" president, that he would have saved us from the collapse, that he was on the side of small business and entrepreneurs, and that those Republicans who cave and support Obama’s policies are doomed.
Ryan’s budget proposal would have balanced the federal budget in 30-40 years. Do you agree with him that we should wait that long? Recently, Ryan said he favored Boehner’s Plan B to increase taxes and he also caved when he voted with Boehner to solve the debt problem by increasing taxes and increasing spending in order to save us from fiscal irresponsibility. Is this the way you would have voted?
Ryan voted for the National Defense Authorization Act, Obama’s law allowing the military to lock up Americans indefinitely with no trial at the whim of the President. This legislation virtually wipes out the 6th amendment.
It is remarkable that the professor and the rabbi contend that Ryan was an inspired choice for VP.
In one debate Romney said he supported the NDAA. Is this the thinking of an excellent President?
The Free Stuff Argument
I read in these articles, and many Republicans have repeated it, that Obama won because Americans want free stuff. Where was the choice? Never did candidate Romney name any federal spending he would cut. He joined in the class warfare uproar that characterizes Obama’s core strategy. Romney’s solution to the country’s deficit was to cut tax loopholes, the negative term for deductions, on the "rich"; in other words, he favored tax increases.
So, where was the principled difference between the two candidates?
Romney favored, and Ryan voted for, the bank bailout, and the GM bailout. This is free stuff too, free stuff for auto unions and free stuff for banks.
Never did Romney call for an audit of the Federal Reserve whose monetary policy of printing money permits presidents to go to war and politicians to buy votes.
Is the Federal Reserve manipulation of the money supply and its contribution to the debt the way to support small businesses and the free market that these authors contend were Romney’s concern?
Intensifying Obama’s Policy
Romney stated in his campaign that he would tighten the sanctions on Iran and increase the drone strikes on Pakistan. Both of these actions are acts of war. Women and children cower daily when the drones fly above them and many children have died from these drone strikes. Children and sick Iranians suffer from the sanctions we impose now. Both of these actions create hostility toward Americans. Both of these acts of war, taken without a declaration of war by Congress, undertaken by a President acting alone, are unconstitutional.
Is this the moral courage we need in a President? What about the oath to protect and defend the Constitution?
What do these actions of war do to protect American lives, and generate goodwill?
Is this the path back to "time-tested principles" the professor calls for?
The Bottom Line and the Illusion of Choice
The bottom line is, if supporting Obama’s policies as a Republican will doom you politically, as the professor acknowledges, is there any wonder why the Romney/Ryan ticket lost? Romney favored expanding overseas war efforts, mentioned nothing he would cut in federal spending, supported the NDAA, and espoused increasing taxes on the rich. This year there was only an illusion of choice.
Eight Reasons Why not to be Sad about the Election
1. If elected, Romney’s policies would have increased federal spending, increased the size of government, increased taxes on the upper brackets and increased unconstitutional war actions abroad. Moreover, and even more importantly, Ron Paul has made history. His campaigns were educational and his influence is being felt, even today, in Congress. The Audit the Fed bill will be introduced again, exactly as written by Dr. Paul, by his colleague, Representative Paul Broun of Georgia.
2. Would you have voted for Boehner to be Speaker? Five brave men of principle, Rep. Justin Amash (MI), Rep. Walter Jones (NC), Rep. Raul Labrador (ID), Rep. Thomas Massie (KY), and Rep. Ted Yoho (FL), along with seven other Republicans, voted against him. This took courage. One of them, Justin Amash, had been stripped of his committee appointment because he kept voting his conscience, instead of the way Boehner wanted him to. Amash is now chairman of the Liberty Caucus that was chaired by Dr. Paul. The "constitutionalists" are going to continue to grow in number in Congress.
3. On November 6, 2012, The Libertarian Party garnered a record number of votes on the national level.
Georgia State Coordinator for Ron Paul, Charles Gregory, won a seat in the Georgia legislature and others have won positions of leadership in various state GOP organizations.
4. The Campaign for Liberty, (C4L), an offshoot of the 2008 Ron Paul campaign for President, engages in research and disseminates information about federal, state, and local issues as well as pending legislation to help us take action with elected officials. The recent victory with Georgia Governor Deal about health exchanges is one example of its success.
5. Young Americans for Liberty, (YAL), a division of the C4L, has chapters on hundreds of campuses across the country. Members receive quality training in politics to ready them to become political leaders as well as candidates.
6. The Ludwig von Mises Institute has had its best year ever. Established to promote the principles of Austrian economics, its sale of books hit an all time high this year. When customers were questioned about why they wanted these books, the overwhelming answer was, because of Ron Paul. The institute will continue to grow, hold seminars, teach young people, publish books, and maintain its international scope.
7. The ideals of freedom, the free market, peace, and small government are certainly not dead.
8. Liberty Republicans remain organized across the country and are already in the arena preparing to become GOP leaders in 2013. There is a movement afoot to convince Judge Andrew Napolitano to run for President in 2016. Let me know if you are interested in either of these two efforts.
So, hold on to the knowledge that the liberty movement will never die. And those who are a part of it are committed, passionate, intelligent, well informed, and optimistic about the future. It is because of the strength of the liberty movement among young people that I have the greatest hope. They will remain on the political scene for years to come. It is time to look ahead and celebrate what we see.
Friday
WHAT I THINK........GARY NORTH
This evening, Ron Paul will no longer be a member of Congress.
It has happened before. At the end of this day in January 1977 he was no longer a member of Congress. He had lost by 268 votes out of over 180,000. At the end of this day in 1985, he was no longer a member of Congress. He had resigned to run for the Senate. He did not get the nomination.
Twice he came back. There will not be a third time. He has other fish to catch.
I was on his staff in 1976. I saw Congress close-up. Once was enough. I explained why in 1977:
"Confessions of a Washington Reject."
Ron Paul never fit in on Capitol Hill. There are reasons for this. Four reasons.
THE BIG FOUR
The ruling triumvirate on Capitol Hill are the same as in every other political capital in history: money, sex, and power. But there is one more: booze.
The problem is, these four are almost universal in their appeal. In what way is Congress different?
Because power is the biggie. If you get power, you can get the others.
The phrase "money, sex, and power" reflects a commercial sequence, not political. It is more Wall Street than Capitol Hill.
I searched Google for "money, sex, and power" as a unit. How many hits do you think I got? Guess. Go on: guess. To find out, click here.
Amazing, no? The phrase is universal, because the lusts are universal. They are a package deal on Capitol Hill more than anywhere on earth.
I searched for "power, sex, and money." That's Capitol Hill. The hits were 88% smaller.
But here's the deal: booze is #4 on both Wall Street and Capitol Hill.
In 1989, former Senator John Tower was nominated by President Bush as Secretary of Defense. Paul Weyrich of the conservative Free Congress Foundation vocally opposed this. Why? Because Tower was a heavy drinker and a serial adulterer. Everyone in town knew it. No one was supposed to say it in public. Weyrich became hated for this stand. But the Senate eventually refused to confirm his nomination, 53 to 47, on close to a straight party vote. It was the first time in U.S. history that an incoming new President had seen his initial nomination rejected. In his autobiography published a year later, Tower quoted Senator Barry Goldwater: "If they had chased every man or woman out of this town who had shacked up with somebody else or gotten drunk, there'd be no government." He was telling the truth.
Then why booze? If you have money, sex, and power, why do you want booze? If you have scored big on the Big Three, why do you crave the fourth?
Here we get to the heart of the political matter. Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. A lot of women are attracted to it.
I grew up among the most beautiful women on earth: the Southern California beach scene. I lived two blocks from the sand. The best-looking women in the region got on bathing suits and headed for the beaches on the weekends. Unattractive women tended not to do this. The curves on the beach are not bell-shaped. It was not until I worked on Capitol Hill that I saw that many good looking women in one place. They weren't there for the sunshine.
Congressmen have made it to the top in the realm of power. It does not satisfy. They can hire good looking women. They can meet good looking women. They cannot help but meet good looking women. The Seduction of Joe Tynan is a movie on this this. Maybe they are not rich, but they can get rich at any time by quitting and becoming lobbyists. They live as though they are rich. They have entourages of young people following them.
And they drink.
Something is missing in their lives that money, sex, and power cannot fill. Yet if the Big Three don't work, they wind up singing along with Peggy Lee to "Is That All There Is?" Musically, it's not much of a song. The message is unforgettable.
Those of us who are content to live outside the Washington Beltway find it difficult to connect with those on Capitol Hill. The longer they stay there, the more difficult it is. And I think it works both ways. They do not want to leave.
RON PAUL, OUTSIDER
Ron Paul never had any power. His ideology guaranteed that he would not get any. He never did.
He had left a career that pays well: obstetrics. He did not go there for money. He did not even sign up for a Congressional pension.
He was happily married.
I never saw him take a drink.
He could not be seduced by Washington.
When I was there, I was in the back office with Dr. John Robbins and a middle-aged secretary. I did not go to the front office often. I only recall one pretty girl on the staff. Maybe there were others. I don't recall. I think her name was Teresa. She was memorable. She did not like ice cream. I have never met anyone else who did not like ice cream. I have never even heard of anyone who did not like ice cream.
His staff was not a hotbed of scandal.
He did not even have an Administrative Assistant in his first six-month term. He appointed his own staff. That made his staff unique on Capitol Hill.
It is tough to buy someone if he doesn't want anything you have for sale.
How would you blackmail a person whose main deviation was in hiring a good looking girl who does not like ice cream? Or hiring a pair of Calvinist academics who were at loggerheads over VanTilian vs. Clarkian apologetics?
Word spread. He voted "no" all the time. He soon became known as "Dr. No." If the media had known that I was on his staff, I might have become known as "Dr. No's Dr. No." But such was not to be, by 135 votes.
WHAT WAS IN IT FOR HIM?
He stayed to take a stand. He wanted to get his message to a larger audience: the message of limited civil government, which included sound money and a peaceful foreign policy.
He represented the folks back home, in two separate districts: first one, then the other. He became their spokesman. There always has to be a spokesman.
As time went on, he became a spokesman for voters outside his district. By the end, he was a spokesman for voters outside the country.
I cannot think of any Congressman in history who achieved anything like this.
A lot of people come to Washington to take a stand, battle for a cause, and make a difference. But the Big Four sidetrack a lot of people. Those who are not tempted by these face that other sidetrack: frustration.
He came into Washington knowing that he would not persuade Congress. So, frustration was not a problem.
He saw a bully pulpit, and he used it.
He never preached to the choir in Congress. But he preached to the choir outside the Beltway. It just kept getting bigger. Huge.
The "money bomb" of December 2007 revealed just how many people were in his choir. He had not even organized it. Washington finally took notice. He had proven to be a master of one of the Big Four: money. Money talks in Washington. The loudest-talking money is campaign fund money.
Washington asked: "How did this happen?" They never figured it out. They never read Albert J. Nock's 1936 essay, "Isaiah's Job." Even if they had, they would not have understood.
CONCLUSION
What is the lesson of his career? This: "Stick to your knitting."
Anything else? This. "Never give an inch."
Is that all there is? Not at all. There is also this: "Walk the talk."
Are these bipartisan principles? No. Nonpartisan. No political party has ever adopted them.
It has happened before. At the end of this day in January 1977 he was no longer a member of Congress. He had lost by 268 votes out of over 180,000. At the end of this day in 1985, he was no longer a member of Congress. He had resigned to run for the Senate. He did not get the nomination.
Twice he came back. There will not be a third time. He has other fish to catch.
I was on his staff in 1976. I saw Congress close-up. Once was enough. I explained why in 1977:
"Confessions of a Washington Reject."
Ron Paul never fit in on Capitol Hill. There are reasons for this. Four reasons.
THE BIG FOUR
The ruling triumvirate on Capitol Hill are the same as in every other political capital in history: money, sex, and power. But there is one more: booze.
The problem is, these four are almost universal in their appeal. In what way is Congress different?
Because power is the biggie. If you get power, you can get the others.
The phrase "money, sex, and power" reflects a commercial sequence, not political. It is more Wall Street than Capitol Hill.
I searched Google for "money, sex, and power" as a unit. How many hits do you think I got? Guess. Go on: guess. To find out, click here.
Amazing, no? The phrase is universal, because the lusts are universal. They are a package deal on Capitol Hill more than anywhere on earth.
I searched for "power, sex, and money." That's Capitol Hill. The hits were 88% smaller.
But here's the deal: booze is #4 on both Wall Street and Capitol Hill.
In 1989, former Senator John Tower was nominated by President Bush as Secretary of Defense. Paul Weyrich of the conservative Free Congress Foundation vocally opposed this. Why? Because Tower was a heavy drinker and a serial adulterer. Everyone in town knew it. No one was supposed to say it in public. Weyrich became hated for this stand. But the Senate eventually refused to confirm his nomination, 53 to 47, on close to a straight party vote. It was the first time in U.S. history that an incoming new President had seen his initial nomination rejected. In his autobiography published a year later, Tower quoted Senator Barry Goldwater: "If they had chased every man or woman out of this town who had shacked up with somebody else or gotten drunk, there'd be no government." He was telling the truth.
Then why booze? If you have money, sex, and power, why do you want booze? If you have scored big on the Big Three, why do you crave the fourth?
Here we get to the heart of the political matter. Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. A lot of women are attracted to it.
I grew up among the most beautiful women on earth: the Southern California beach scene. I lived two blocks from the sand. The best-looking women in the region got on bathing suits and headed for the beaches on the weekends. Unattractive women tended not to do this. The curves on the beach are not bell-shaped. It was not until I worked on Capitol Hill that I saw that many good looking women in one place. They weren't there for the sunshine.
Congressmen have made it to the top in the realm of power. It does not satisfy. They can hire good looking women. They can meet good looking women. They cannot help but meet good looking women. The Seduction of Joe Tynan is a movie on this this. Maybe they are not rich, but they can get rich at any time by quitting and becoming lobbyists. They live as though they are rich. They have entourages of young people following them.
And they drink.
Something is missing in their lives that money, sex, and power cannot fill. Yet if the Big Three don't work, they wind up singing along with Peggy Lee to "Is That All There Is?" Musically, it's not much of a song. The message is unforgettable.
Those of us who are content to live outside the Washington Beltway find it difficult to connect with those on Capitol Hill. The longer they stay there, the more difficult it is. And I think it works both ways. They do not want to leave.
RON PAUL, OUTSIDER
Ron Paul never had any power. His ideology guaranteed that he would not get any. He never did.
He had left a career that pays well: obstetrics. He did not go there for money. He did not even sign up for a Congressional pension.
He was happily married.
I never saw him take a drink.
He could not be seduced by Washington.
When I was there, I was in the back office with Dr. John Robbins and a middle-aged secretary. I did not go to the front office often. I only recall one pretty girl on the staff. Maybe there were others. I don't recall. I think her name was Teresa. She was memorable. She did not like ice cream. I have never met anyone else who did not like ice cream. I have never even heard of anyone who did not like ice cream.
His staff was not a hotbed of scandal.
He did not even have an Administrative Assistant in his first six-month term. He appointed his own staff. That made his staff unique on Capitol Hill.
It is tough to buy someone if he doesn't want anything you have for sale.
How would you blackmail a person whose main deviation was in hiring a good looking girl who does not like ice cream? Or hiring a pair of Calvinist academics who were at loggerheads over VanTilian vs. Clarkian apologetics?
Word spread. He voted "no" all the time. He soon became known as "Dr. No." If the media had known that I was on his staff, I might have become known as "Dr. No's Dr. No." But such was not to be, by 135 votes.
WHAT WAS IN IT FOR HIM?
He stayed to take a stand. He wanted to get his message to a larger audience: the message of limited civil government, which included sound money and a peaceful foreign policy.
He represented the folks back home, in two separate districts: first one, then the other. He became their spokesman. There always has to be a spokesman.
As time went on, he became a spokesman for voters outside his district. By the end, he was a spokesman for voters outside the country.
I cannot think of any Congressman in history who achieved anything like this.
A lot of people come to Washington to take a stand, battle for a cause, and make a difference. But the Big Four sidetrack a lot of people. Those who are not tempted by these face that other sidetrack: frustration.
He came into Washington knowing that he would not persuade Congress. So, frustration was not a problem.
He saw a bully pulpit, and he used it.
He never preached to the choir in Congress. But he preached to the choir outside the Beltway. It just kept getting bigger. Huge.
The "money bomb" of December 2007 revealed just how many people were in his choir. He had not even organized it. Washington finally took notice. He had proven to be a master of one of the Big Four: money. Money talks in Washington. The loudest-talking money is campaign fund money.
Washington asked: "How did this happen?" They never figured it out. They never read Albert J. Nock's 1936 essay, "Isaiah's Job." Even if they had, they would not have understood.
CONCLUSION
What is the lesson of his career? This: "Stick to your knitting."
Anything else? This. "Never give an inch."
Is that all there is? Not at all. There is also this: "Walk the talk."
Are these bipartisan principles? No. Nonpartisan. No political party has ever adopted them.
Tuesday
NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTIONS FOR CONGRESS
In just a few days, Congress will solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. They should reread Article 1 Section 8 and the Bill of Rights before taking such a serious oath. Most legislation violates key provisions of the Constitution in very basic ways, and if members can’t bring themselves to say no in the face of pressure from special interests, they have broken trust with their constituents and violated their oaths. Congress does not exist to serve special interests, it exists to protect the rule of law.
I also urge my colleagues to end unconstitutional wars overseas. Stop the drone strikes; stop the covert activities and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. Strive to observe “good faith and justice towards all Nations” as George Washington admonished. We are only making more enemies, wasting lives, and bankrupting ourselves with the neoconservative, interventionist mindset that endorses pre-emptive war that now dominates both parties.
All foreign aid should end because it is blatantly unconstitutional. While it may be a relatively small part of our federal budget, for many countries it is a large part of theirs--and it creates perverse incentives for both our friends and enemies. There is no way members of Congress can know or understand the political, economic, legal, and social realities in the many nations to which they send taxpayer dollars.
Congress needs to stop accumulating more debt. US debt, monetized by the Federal Reserve, is the true threat to our national security. Revisiting the parameters of Article 1 Section 8 would be a good start.
Congress should resolve to respect personal liberty and free markets. Learn more about the free market and how it regulates commerce and produces greater prosperity better than any legislation or regulation. Understand that economic freedom IS freedom. Resolve not to get in the way of voluntary contracts between consenting adults. Stop bailing out failed yet politically connected companies and industries. Stop forcing people to engage in commerce when they don’t want to, and stop prohibiting them from buying and selling when they do want to. Stop trying to legislate your ideas of fairness. Protect property rights. Protect the individual. That is enough.
There are many more resolutions I would like to see my colleagues in Congress adopt, but respect for the Constitution and the oath of office should be at the core of everything members of Congress do in 2013.
I also urge my colleagues to end unconstitutional wars overseas. Stop the drone strikes; stop the covert activities and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. Strive to observe “good faith and justice towards all Nations” as George Washington admonished. We are only making more enemies, wasting lives, and bankrupting ourselves with the neoconservative, interventionist mindset that endorses pre-emptive war that now dominates both parties.
All foreign aid should end because it is blatantly unconstitutional. While it may be a relatively small part of our federal budget, for many countries it is a large part of theirs--and it creates perverse incentives for both our friends and enemies. There is no way members of Congress can know or understand the political, economic, legal, and social realities in the many nations to which they send taxpayer dollars.
Congress needs to stop accumulating more debt. US debt, monetized by the Federal Reserve, is the true threat to our national security. Revisiting the parameters of Article 1 Section 8 would be a good start.
Congress should resolve to respect personal liberty and free markets. Learn more about the free market and how it regulates commerce and produces greater prosperity better than any legislation or regulation. Understand that economic freedom IS freedom. Resolve not to get in the way of voluntary contracts between consenting adults. Stop bailing out failed yet politically connected companies and industries. Stop forcing people to engage in commerce when they don’t want to, and stop prohibiting them from buying and selling when they do want to. Stop trying to legislate your ideas of fairness. Protect property rights. Protect the individual. That is enough.
There are many more resolutions I would like to see my colleagues in Congress adopt, but respect for the Constitution and the oath of office should be at the core of everything members of Congress do in 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
