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.


Patriotism and Partisanship in America

Give me back my country!

“I do not believe that any two men, on what are called doctrinal points, think alike who think at all.  It is only those who have not thought that appear to agree.” – Thomas Paine

“I am a Democrat.”  What does this mean?  “I am a Republican.”  What does this mean?  Does anyone even know anymore?

I contend that I have never met a Democrat or a Republican.  I have met Americans, and I have met aristocrats.  Almost every American I know is exactly the same in political philosophy, differing only in historical knowledge (or lack thereof) and political application of that knowledge (or ignorance).  The typical American approach to politics, at its root, is this: always do what is best for our nation and our freedoms.  This is the basic political thought of the majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, and it matches the intent of our founders. 

There exists, however, an opinionated and vocal minority that will not rest until our freedoms are stamped out, our nation is unrecognizable, and our humanity is enslaved under the self-destructive goals of maximum employment and minumum wage.  This powerful minority has already succeeded beyond measure.  If Jesus Christ returned today, he would not recognize the religion that bears his title, because most of its members ignore his simple teachings; nor would Jefferson, Madison, or Washington claim the nation they helped to create, because it now resembles the opposite of what they intended during the revolution, before the rise of the new tyrannical minority.  The minority to which I refer is the corporate political establishment–the new aged robber barons–repackaged with mythical concerns for the community and environment, and freedom.

The corporate version of freedom is carefully defined.  Everyone should know that freedom is the absence of government coercion, but that definition of freedom does not do much to support government plunder.  It takes a very careful explanation indeed, for a people to understand why they must work five days every week and then receive pay for working only three, especially if the practice is to be perpetuated for fifty or more years of their lives.  This is why the definition of freedom must be skewed, and the process still requires what Orwell branded “doublethink,” because we all know, as individuals, that no one is better equipped to make decisions about our money than ourselves.   Liberty’s central thesis is this: no authority will ever be able to meet my needs better than I can (with the help of nature or nature’s God).  “Liberty or death” is the battle cry of the able American patriot, whether fighting the British crown in the eighteenth century, or the United States Congress in the twenty-first.

I believe it is time once again for the American people to unite against a tyrant that does not meet the nation’s basic human needs for civil liberties and free markets, and does not even give them the option of choosing leaders who actually do believe in these things, as the corporate media sees a peoples’ statesman as a serious threat to their own control over the political process.  Even media types will complain about apathy and blame themselves for it, but as soon as citizens get excited about the process, you can bet the media will call them whackjobs and undermine their efforts. 

If you don’t believe this, research Ron Paul’s presidential campaign.  Look him up on youtube or meetup, and you will see what I’m talking about.  By far the most popular candidate, Paul was intentionally crushed by the media for telling the truth too often and getting credibility amongst real people (he received more donations from military members than every other candidate in both parties combined).

Partisan economics: no liberals in America

A sticker for every conversation you don't care to have.

The term “liberal” is misused among Republicans.  What they dislike is not true or classical liberalism.  Classical liberalism defends individual freedom, and actually advocates a free market. The Democrats the GOP complains about are far from liberal; they are socialists. The “liberal socialist” Democratic party contradicts its own character, because socialism and liberalism cannot naturally coexist. Socialism cannot be implemented without using methods that deny basic liberties.

Americans widely misunderstand their nation’s socioeconomic problems, which have come about because of monopolization and socialization of industry–the steady dismantling of the free market.  Democrats have economics all wrong, but so do Republicans.  Neither of them actually wants free market capitalism.  Both do whatever the corporate lobbyists want them to do.  Neither reads the corporate-manufactured, bipartisan legislation–legislation that stifles free market competition, and hurts the individual market participant.

Democrats use a superficial argument that has always appealed to the lowest common denominator: they blame the rich. Those who wield power and have not been elected, according to Democrats, cannot have good intentions. To them, there is nothing noble about employing a hundred people if the employer profits from it. This faulty notion is frighteningly crossing party lines, and socialist sentiment is growing among the leaders of both parties now.

If society rejects profit, private business has no reason to exist, and the state must plan the economy.   When profit is stolen by the government, the liberal socialist may momentarily feel triumphant, but this subsides upon the realization that an even larger and more coercive group of elites that were not elected must start forming–this is the group of “experts” that plan the economy private enterprise abandoned.  These experts cannot be restricted by the electorate, because the economy is too complex for the people and legislators to agree on its directives. For a socialist nation to be productive, liberty and democracy must necessarily be sidelined–scoring goals in socialism requires totalitarianism.

Democrats should be heard, but cannot be taken seriously on economic policies. Their disdain for corporations is not irrational, but it is partially misplaced, because collective power is naturally corruptive and malevolent, whether it exists in monopoly or in government.  Blind faith in government only exists because the faithful are too far removed from democratic government’s historic evils. 

Don’t worry, Republicans.  I have not forgotten you. 

Republican herds argue that corporations naturally become powerful monopolies in free market capitalism, but anyone who has observed the lengths to which corporations go to influence public policy, sees nothing natural about these monopolies.  Republicans are but a baby step ahead of socialist Democats; they oppose socialism, but see nothing wrong with corporatism, which may be more productive than socialism, but is perhaps more hostile to individual liberty and almost as destructive to individual prosperity.

Democrat and Republican leaderships should both understand–and we assume they do not, because if they do, we can only conclude that they wish ill upon our nation–that it does not do the nation good to insult the flawed socioeconomic policies of one party, if it is only for the benefit of the flawed socioeconomic policies of another.  They should both do what neither is yet willing to do: reject corporatism and maximize competitive forces of the market.  In doing so, they will have to sacrifice much power–not an easy thing for a politician to do.

Fox News propaganda for aggressive war

Paul raised money from real people--not corporate lobbyists
From January 12 (so that we may not forget the blatant propaganda allowing America’s crimes against humanity to perpetuate).  After being left out of Fox’s NH debate, Ron Paul is allowed back into a discussion, to the disappointment of cold-hearted corporatists and governors everywhere.  No stone was left unturned in the establishments disgusting effort to destroy the only powerful person in America who actually cares about the original American cause of freedom.  When they realized they could not refute his argument, that his Presidency would be a blow to socialism and corporate power, and that he was picking up momentum faster than any of their chosen candidates, the media ignored him and made fun of him, and called him “cultish,” when all he did was tell people the unadulterated truth.

From the freakish opening anthem to the head-nodding post-debate “focus groups” led by the perversely coercive “F*** You Frank” Luntz, Fox News’ coverage of the South Carolina GOP Debate Thursday looked more like Hitleresque propaganda than news.

The debate was preceded by a rendition of the Star Spangled Banner, which is traditionally sung artfully by a single individual, only this time it was a sung quickly and forcefully by a group of men in stiff black suits and Stepford-like women in white dresses. They were unnaturally spaced and robotic as they sang. “This is weird,” I said aloud as I watched.

The debate itself was, by professional and political standards, a complete failure. The most important issue to Americans is the economy. The greatest threat to the economy is the fiscal gap, and no candidate–with the exception of Ron Paul–laid out any sort of plan to cut spending. There was one mention of the possible reinstatement of the line-item veto, something Republicans worked against during the Clinton years. Both parties have adopted the attitude that ignoring the Constitution is okay if their own party is doing it.

Fox News welcomed Congressman Ron Paul back to the unseemly surreality of second-rate cable news network debates, but if they missed the voice of reason in New Hampshire, they did not show it. The questions asked of Congressman Paul were anything but welcoming. He was asked whether or not he believed America attacked itself on 9/11, the answer to which the inquirer already knew was “no,” so his only motive was to connect Dr. Paul to this “truther” movement, as they call themselves. “Electability: do you have any?” was one of the questions proposed to Dr. Paul. He handled it elegantly by his standards, but the question lacked the respect and substance the setting of political discourse requires. For the contemplative person, these discredited Fox’s entire slew of pre-determined events. Never in United States history has a statesman been treated with such improper abhorrence. Never has such nationalist thoughtlessness been so easily accepted by the democratic American people, who have always been known for individuality.

While Ron Paul was given questions designed to make him look like a kook, his opponents laughed confidently, knowing that their lies would be more palatable than his truths. Such a mentality, and the media’s shocking acceptance of it, is the same one that gave the Nazi Party overwhelming leverage in Germany after the Reichstag fire.

Perhaps most concerning was not the heir of bigoted supremacy displayed by Fred Thompson and John McCain, but the fact that the once correctness-obsessed news media let their anti-Muslim jests slide completely. Thompson joked about Iranian seamen meeting their virgins. This is the equivalent of a Middle East leader saying he would like to shove a cross up a dead American soldier’s ass, but news organizations only reported how funny it was, completely ignoring the insensitivity of the comment. When addressing the issue of trade with certain Middle Eastern countries, John McCain said he isn’t interested in “trading burkas” with them. This too was ignored by the press. The way these men went uncriticized for these comments is similar to the way Nazis went uncriticized for anti-Semitic remarks. Simply delete Jew and insert Muslim, and the beginnings of National Socialist Germany fit neatly into contemporary American society.

After the debate, Frank Luntz was, well, Frank Luntz. Everyone in his focus group acted the way they were supposed to, with no original thoughts. I thought I heard one of his drones say, “Napoleon is always right,” but I could have imagined it. Frank would ask for a show of hands, “who thinks Fred Thompson won the debate?” All the hands shot up. “Who thinks Ron Paul lost the debate?” The hands shot up with passion, without a thought, in blind agreement with Frank’s suggestions. “I, Frank” they seemed to say. “Heil, Hitler” is what they unwittingly invoked, just following orders.