NRSC ignores viable conservative Schiff in CT Senate race

Schiff

Over the past decade, no one has articulated the truth about free markets better than Peter Schiff.  For years the Connecticut brokerage manager has expressed a free market, limited government position across cable news networks, to the cheers of conservatives around the United States.  

Schiff is running for Senate in 2010, and his campaign has received donations on par with all the other GOP Senatorial primary candidates in Connecticut.  He is one of the few truly conservative Republicans seeking office in the Northeast part of the country, and he is polling ahead of the incumbent Democrat, Senator Chris Dodd.  You would think this would make Schiff the ideal candidate for the GOP to steal Dodd’s seat.  But the National Republican Senatorial Committee, for unknown reasons, refuses to even acknowledge Schiff’s candidacy.  Their website lists four Republicans seeking the seat, but fails to mention Schiff, the man who may indeed have the best chance to win.

Today I received a donation request from the NRSC.  The NRSC appears to me to be an organization devoted to demagoguery, and if it refuses to mention a principled conservative like Schiff on its website, its fundraising ability depends more on ignorance than on conservative principles.

Advertisements

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s false mandate

FDR

In my many college political science courses, I have yet to meet a professor who did not subscribe to the belief that Franklin D. Roosevelt was given a mandate by the people to institute his New Deal reforms.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Like many elected since, President Roosevelt attained office through deception.  If the people had known what his plans were, not only would he have failed to win, he would not have received the Democratic party’s nomination.  Roosevelt ran on the promise of less government, but after winning election, he abandoned his rhetoric and his electorate, and instituted a giant bureaucracy that the people did not want.

For proof, I refer the reader to Garet Garrett’s “The Revolution Was”, a pertinent excerpt of which I will provide:

“The first three planks of the Democratic party platform read as follows: We advocate: ‘1. An immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus and eliminating extravagance, to accomplish a saving of not less than 25 per cent in the cost of Federal government…2. Maintenance of the national credit by a Federal budget annually balanced…3. A sound currency to be maintained at all hazards.’  

Mr. Roosevelt pledged himself to be bound by this platform as no President had ever before been bound by a party document.  All during the campaign he supported it with words that could not possibly be misunderstood.  He said: ‘I accuse the present Administration (Hoover’s) of being the greatest spending Administration in peace time in all American history–one which piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission, and has failed to anticipate the dire needs or reduced earning power of the people.  Bureaus and bureaucrats have been retained at the expense of the taxpayer…We are spending altogether too much money for government services which are neither practical nor necessary.  In addition to this, we are attempting too many functions and we need a simplification of what the Federal government is giving to the people.’  This he said many times.”

So when you hear a self-described intellectual claim that Roosevelt’s New Deal was an execution of the people’s will, or allowed by the electoral mandate, know that you are listening to a person who has no understanding of the 1932 election.

Republican vs. Republican-in-Name-Only in Kentucky Senate race

Bunning will resign his seat

This is a must-read for conservatives. Rand Paul challenges Trey Grayson not to accept funds from RINOs.  In 2010 a Republican will take on a RINO for Jim Bunning’s  (pictured) soon-to-be-open U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky. Are the RINOs stronger than the true conservatives?  Have the Democrats wearing Republican hats truly taken over the GOP?  This race will tell whether or not conservative principles still reign in the Republican party.

Two to watch for in 2010 Senate race

 Schiff

The U.S. government’s dramatic, corporate welfare response to the economic crisis has brought many Americans to the following conclusion: my Senator (regardless of party) is a big-government, special-interest-controlled goon who does not give a damn about me.  In an America spiraling further and further into the hellish abyss of corporate fascism, there are a couple of freedom-loving luminaries expected to run for Senate in 2010: Dr. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Peter Schiff of Connecticut.

Paul is a surgeon who brings a unique and insightful perspective to healthcare reform. His seat is particularly important to the cause of liberty, because the man he would replace is among the Senate’s staunchest supporters of free markets, Republican and baseball Hall of Famer Jim Bunning.  Bunning voted against all of the debt-propelling bills designed to fix the economy, which remains broken.  If either a Democrat or Paul’s Republican opposition, Harvard alum Trey Grayson, were to fill Bunning’s seat, the reliable vote against federal government interference in our personal lives will assuredly be lost.

Paul is expected to announce that he will seek the open seat on August 20th.  On that day, which is a planned “money-bomb,” I expect him to raise somewhere in the range of $250,000.  His total for the month of August will likely be somewhere in the range of $300,000, which despite national efforts, will leave his total far behind that of his Ivy League manufactured primary opponent, who has already raised more than $600,000, and boasts the support of the much maligned GOP leadership.

Peter Schiff hopes to replace Democrat Chris Dodd of Connecticut in 2010.  Senator Dodd has seen much face time in the media lately for three reasons: he chairs the Senate Banking Committee, which is overactive during economic downturns such as the present one; he was recently diagnosed with early and non-life-threatening prostate cancer; and he is strongly suspected of benefiting from improper mortgage practices–perhaps a political bribe.

Schiff is best-known for his remarkably accurate economic forecasts.  Several youtube videos, entitled “Peter Schiff Was Right”, have gone viral across the Internet, and have shown Schiff to be an economic genius.  On the other hand, Dodd has been an economic dunce over the past decade, defending policies and entities that economists across the political spectrum agree invited the economic crisis.  From an economic standpoint, the choice is a no-brainer: Schiff wins.  But in politics, being right does not guarantee victory, and Schiff knows he has a very tough fight ahead of him.

Like Dr. Paul, Schiff is expected to have a big fundraising day.  His is on August 7th, on which he hopes to raise $1 million.  In my opinion, that’s a pipe dream.  He will be lucky to raise half of that.

Despite fundraising concerns, both Paul and Schiff are forces to be reckoned with in the 2010 Senatorial elections for one reason: their message of limited government, free people, and free markets resonates with an American citizenry that is fed up with the federal government’s never-ending interventions into a society that never seemed very broken to begin with.

For further information or to lend your support to their campaigns, Paul’s and Schiff’s websites are: http://www.randpaul2010.com/ and http://www.schiffforsenate.com/ 

B.J. Lawson: a common sense conservative

A Congressman who cares

Remember when Republicans were elected to downsize government? In 1994, the American people were inspired by the prospects of economic freedom to vote Republicans into office. In 2001, George W. Bush was expected to come in and aid them in that effort. It did not happen. Under Bush and the Republican Congress from 2001 to 2006, the U.S. federal government grew tremendously, and fiscal conservatives everywhere were left shaking their heads in disdain. What happened to the small government Republican?

Remember when Republicans were elected to end wars? The time may be returning. Democrats were elected to Congress in 2006 to end the war in Iraq, but the war goes on. Now, a new breed of Republican has emerged–or more properly, an old breed of Republican has returned–to end draining wars that are, upon full investigation, little more than a product of power and greed, an excuse for higher taxation, as well as a cause of rising inflation–not to mention the leading cause of brutal death among American youths. When we elect policymakers, we will do well to remember that “the most unprofitable of all commerce is that connected with foreign dominion. To a few individuals it may be beneficial, merely because it is commerce; but to the nation it is a loss. The expense of maintaining dominion more than absorbs the profits of any trade.”

In two paragraphs, I have acknowledged the two most important goals in the minds of American voters over the last 15 years: to decrease the size of government, and to end the war in Iraq. These two goals have been the major deciding factors for the partisan power shifts in Washington in recent decades. Neither has yet been accomplished, and it seems that those who desire one of the two, are willing to concede the public goal for another benefit that is less important to the people. However, there is a new breed of Republican, modeled after the 18th century intellectual, who makes both of these primary intentions of the American people the top priorities in policymaking. Who is this dream candidate? B.J. Lawson of North Carolina’s Fourth District.

Despite his facing a multiple-decade incumbent of Washington’s bureaucratic old guard, there is, in my opinion, little doubt that Lawson will win a seat in Congress this year. If he were to lose, it would be an insult to the intellect of North Carolina’s Fourth District. He is as vivacious as his opponent is ancient, but his energy is not a product of his youth, but of his enlightenment; there is a sense that has been awakened in him, which will soon be awakened in all of us–it is as Paine described it: “a mass sense lying in a dormant state, and which, unless something excites it to action, will descend with us, in that condition, to the grave.”

My advice to the Fourth District of North Carolina is simply this: do not vote again for a ruler; vote instead for a leader. On this, our Independence Day, remember that men who shared David Price’s political philosophy were among those that favored the British Crown in 1776; but men who shared the philosophy of B.J. Lawson, who believed whole-heartedly in liberty, pledged to the American cause their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. If the citizens are informed and intelligent, and vote their consciences, B.J. Lawson cannot fail to be elected.

McCain thinks like a dictator

the new Bush

I believe the Supreme Court made a very good decision last week in the case of Boumediene v. Bush. McCain calls the decision to extend the writ of habeas corpus to detainees at Guantanamo “one of the worst decisions in history.” Perhaps he would rank it along the lines of the Court’s support of slavery prior to the Civil War, or even worse, considering his hyperbolic characterization of the dangers the U.S. currently faces. By simply drawing McCain’s words to their logical conclusion, he would treat black people like farm animals before he would treat America’s suspected enemies like humans.

The Senator’s cognitive retardation is highlighted by his own experiences as a prisoner of war. He would do well to remember his own past situation, and then imagine that he had been captured by a foreign army while in his own country, and then transported to a prison in another country, without notice to his family or friends, without rights to counsel or a presentation of evidence, without his home country having the knowledge or ability to even put political pressure on his captors, and without any end to his situation in sight.

Sometimes mistakenly-anointed “experts” who share McCain’s reasoning deficiency argue that the controversial detainments in Guantanamo are perfectly legal and acceptable, because the prison there is a state-of-the-art facility, and that the prisoners are treated well, and allowed a more than reasonable level of comfort. This is no different than the argument that slavery is acceptable, so long as the slaves are treated well, and allowed a reasonable level of comfort.

“My friends, there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people,” McCain tells us of the detainees at Guantanamo. How does he know this? There has been no evidence presented that would tell him this. McCain “reasons,” against every argument history offers humankind, that because they have been arrested, the prisoners must be guilty. The American people cannot allow this mentality to lead our policies against terrorism. This is precisely the allowance the German people gave to Hitler after the Reichstag fire, and it enabled him to detain and kill prisoners without cause.

As for the morally empty argument of precedence in this case, I will only point out that every moment of human history like this one, in which a powerful group decided it safest to detain certain people it considers “dangerous,” has in reflection become a source of embarrassment to the perpetrating nation, whether it be Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or the United States. Just because a mistake has been made before without serious legal ramifications (i.e., encampment of Japanese Americans during WWII), does not mean that mistake should be made again. There is nothing wrong with opposing a precedent, especially when that precedent is clearly unjust.

While they may draw attention, I don’t expect these assertions to draw much argument, as it is difficult to even begin an argument against the truth. When one decides to argue against truth and reason, one cannot win; falsehood wilts, or imposes itself by force, but truth stands with God, on its own clarity and goodness.

Let me get this straight, neoconservative freak

A continuation of my education of the neocon: 

Let me get this straight. You think a tall slender man in the mountains of Central Asia is orchestrating the end of American freedoms. Okay. Assuming that true, we must also admit that Bin Laden has received help in this pursuit from the Bush administration. Are we not losing civil liberties because of Bush’s fear of Osama Bin Laden? Bush and Bin Laden: working together against American freedoms.

I did not mention personal responsibility, but I really don’t see how “the absence of government coercion” can exist without personal responsibility. Personal responsibility should be an assumption in America. There is no need for a nanny state. Also, you forgot the definition of the word “liberal.” I dislike progressives and socialists–not liberals, but liberals gone wild, progressives who seek to correct past grievances by creating more of them (like affirmative action or welfare) in the opposite direction, i.e., Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or just about every Democrat politician. This is why I can’t vote Democrat-because they are not really “liberals” but progressives and socialists. They pay lip service to liberty to get the anti-war and anti-surveillance state vote. The grocery list of complaints belongs to these people, but I can claim none of them–I would request earplugs if I had to spend more than a few moments listening to whatever crap the media has told them to worry about lately. True, they share my discontent with the war, but they have no idea why. I dislike unjust war. They just dislike war.

My guide is nature. “My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.” My common ideal is individualism–the belief that a human is a human, and should be free from government-forced collective ideals. Individual freedoms used to be a Republican Party stronghold. So did claiming that there is no need for the nanny state. Apparently the party now believes individual freedoms are not as important as some greater ideal (this is the opposite of the Reagan conservatism that carried Republicans to Congress in 1994). We have fallen into the trap of believing that, if we become a little bit more like the militants and totalitarians, it will be easier to beat them. But without liberty, what is America? Oh well, this year’s media-anointed Republican candidate is only the straw man anyway. His only hope of winning is if a terrorist attack occurs before the election (he can cross his fingers and hope).

It is unfortunate to read that even our most promising youth recite party ideals instead of practicing personal responsibility and thinking for themselves–that they mangle the meanings of simple words like “freedom” and “liberty,” and misfortune turns to fright on the realization that energy and aspiration are combining with falsehood. What falsehood, you may wonder. Only this: “Americans do not incite violence.” This is your opinion, and it will remain the same regardless of what the facts are. Perhaps you did not read the 9/11 Commission’s report. Perhaps you misunderstand human nature. Perhaps you misunderstand the historic social revelations of the 20th century. But you should understand that your ignorance (assuming not ill will) combines with your democratic influence to “plunder seas and ravage coasts,” and yes, incite violence.

In Iraq’s Diyala province, Specialist Jerry Ryen King wrote, “I thought it was pretty comical that I shot at a guy a long ways out but missed, and later after taking his house and using it as a patrol base, he offered me Chai and rice.” In the insanity of war, this does seem comical, but what if he King had not missed? Might the killing of a gentle, peaceful Iraqi incite violence from his friends, family, and countrymen? Might they even become associated with the dreaded Al-Qaeda? It makes some sense. Such, I realize, are the necessary realities of war, but they are also the reasons unnecessary wars should not be waged.

I would, if I could know the facts, give Bush credit for preventing the attacks since 9/11, but his government is so secretive that I cannot know whether his preventative measures have done much good. Has he saved 5,000 American lives to make up for the 5,000 he has sacrificed? Has he saved only a few? One can only wonder. Moreover, his solution to terrorism is like pulling the leaves off of a tremendous tree, only to see them multiply faster than he can remove them. In order to down the beast, we must lay the axe to the root, and he seems quite unaware of that simple truth. He seems not to even know the root of terrorism-why in the early 1990s Osama Bin Laden and his contemporaries began professing their hatred for America. If the President does know these reasons, he is careful to ignore them and focus on “democracy,” the esteemed political process that gave the coercive powers of government to Stalin, Hitler, Ahmedinejad, and Hamas. Democracy: not the solution. Constitution is the solution.

Your interpretation of Osama Bin Laden’s quote is reminiscent of National Socialist Germany’s claims about their enemies-at least they had the luxury of lying about nations with real military power–the American neoconservatives’ cause is much more difficult, because they are forced to try to convince our nation that an obscure figure living among mountain goats on the other side of the world is our greatest threat to national security. Maybe you forgot that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia-nearly every nation we now blame for terrorism-also hated Osama Bin Laden before 9/11. Maybe you haven’t noticed the exponential increase in Al-Qaeda’s numbers since we went to Iraq. Indeed, everyone in the Middle East seems to be allied with Al-Qaeda now, when on September 11, their numbers were no more than a few hundred. How, on the battlefield, do we know they are Al-Qaeda? Quite simply, if they are dead, they are Al-Qaeda-excuse me, were Al-Qaeda. Maybe I don’t know the facts on the ground as well as you do, but I think it noteworthy that more troops (who know the situation better than both of us) donated to Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign than to all the other campaigns combined, Democrat and Republican. They must be confused about what is going on in Iraq, right? Perhaps they are only victims of their unfortunate oath to the Constitution-those poor misguided young souls who promised to defend something that their Commander in Chief does not believe in. That’s alright. We showed the troops. They want Ron Paul as Commander? We’ll give them John McCain! May they fight in the Middle East for a hundred years, regardless of the situation on the ground!

It is the claim of the socialist, the fascist, the corporatist, the sycophant, the Democrat, and the Republican that the Constitution is antiquated. “They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong.” They often base this thinking on the fact that many of the framers owned slaves, as if that makes all of those men’s intellects repulsive. It has become too common in this country to disregard all of a man’s principles because of one of his practices, and view politicians as semi-gods, cowering in shock anytime they humanly misstep. I know you only mean well for your country, as nearly all do, but men of your nature, who believed in their country but not in constitutional liberty, were hung at Nuremburg despite their good intentions. If we choose to continue to ignore the Constitution even when we are aware of the results of our errors, the United States of America will soon be compelled to proclaim, in the words of the poet, “a long farewell to all my greatness.”

The response I got from the letter above was something along the lines of, “I don’t have time to think about all this.  I am busy with more important things.  I just want to be a career politician.  Leave me alone.  Please go back to not thinking, like the electorate is supposed to do.  Thank you, and don’t write again.”  If the author makes an attempt at public office, I will sell my condo to donate money to the other guy’s campaign.  I like to think politicians do not know that what they are doing is causing all sorts of problems for their country, but this guy is just an insensitive bastard.