To lead us on this journey, who better than Paul Krugman to act as our guide. For in the fantasyland of paper money, only a distinguished professor of his caliber can win a Nobel Prize in Economics. Such a feat is equivalent to Barack Obama (who routinely kills innocents with drones) wins the Nobel “Peace” Prize! In paper money fantasyland, everything is turned upside down.

The bureaucrats, media, and financial gurus are all in a frenzy because of yet another ‘debt ceiling crisis’. The crisis is not that the debt ceiling has been reached (for something like the 95th year in a row)…No, the crisis is that it may not be raised!! Remember now…fantasyland thinking.

Ivory tower Krugman looks down on Earth and does not like the ramifications of this crisis:

Financial markets have long treated U.S. bonds as the ultimate safe asset; the assumption that America will always honor its debts is the bedrock on which the world financial system rests…

Normal thinkers will find it interesting that a U.S. bond would be the “ultimate safe asset”. In other words, they would find it fascinating that an instrument of debt from government would be considered an asset at all.

This debt is not from private individuals or companies, who have to voluntarily provide a good or service in order to pay it back. No…no…no…the government must forcefully extract the money from the shrinking number of productive Americans in order to pay it off. So not only is the “ultimate safe asset” an instrument of debt, it’s also immoral to boot.

The immorality extends way beyond direct taxation. The government also “honors its debts” by creating money out of thin air. So not only are Americans taxed directly, they’re also taxed again in a much sneakier manner. They’re taxed indirectly, by having their purchasing power taken away when more money is created.

Americans see the results of the theft later on, with incessantly rising prices. However, they’re trained to blame other things like “greedy businessmen” or wars, or whatever else. They also have the government constantly telling them that price rises are only an illusion. “Two-percent” is the mantra. If you’re seeing more, you must be the crazy one.

A clear thinking person would think to him/herself: “Wait a second. Aren’t the debtors getting the shaft as well? Whenever the government prints money, the debtors get paid back in depreciating money. Aren’t they the crazy ones?”

And the answer is “Yes, the lenders are crazy.” But this is fantasyland, where everyone thinks and acts in very bizarre ways.

What happens if everyone starts to wake up from this bad nightmare?Well, that causes concern for Nobel Krugman:

Now suppose it became clear that U.S. bonds weren’t safe, that America couldn’t be counted on to honor its debts after all.

Notice the words “suppose it became clear”. Truth and clarity are the enemy in fantasyland. Krugman’s job is to keep the smoke from the clearing. He and his Keynesians are a never-ending fog machine.

This is what happens, should the fog clear:

Suddenly, the whole system would be disrupted.

Ahh yes, “the system”. I spoke about elites and “the system” just yesterday. Status quo is King (when you’re the King).

Krugman tries to stay positive though, should there be a disruption:

Maybe, if we were lucky, financial institutions would quickly cobble together alternative arrangements.

No!

The world has suffered enough from all of the cobbling together. We’ve had enough of getting together and forming one failed “system” after another.

It’s time for these self-proclaimed Einsteins to get out of the way! It is time for the marketplace to (once again) determine what shall act as currency.

For thousands of years, people all over the world freely chose to transact in gold and silver. Chances are excellent that the market would choose to uphold that tradition, especially with the technological advances that have exploded over the last 50 years.

No longer would people have to lug around gold and silver coins or bars. Our digital world can function beautifully with sound money that cannot be created at the whims of the professors.

The banks would have their role to play. They can go back to acting as lawful warehouses of our money. They store our money and charge a fee for the service. They may not lend what has not been explicitly been granted to them to lend. And they may not lend a single ounce beyond that. Our digital technologies can monitor any banker much better than ever should they try to break their contracts.

Like the separation of Church & State, there absolutely must be a separation of Bank & State. The rewards of the latter will be just as spectacular as the rewards we’ve reaped from the former. We could escape the paper money fantasyland that has spun completely out of control.

But we cannot rely on “luck” for honest money to return. It takes strenuous effort to spread the ideas that clear away the fog. Luck is surely welcomed, but the focus is education. People must understand.

Spread the ideas!

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

While most Americans don’t like big government, Americans revere our system of government.

Ok, right off the bat, it must be stated for all the new people, that the U.S. government is the biggest government to ever occupy the Earth. It’s not even close. So the “system” that Reich thinks Americans “revere,” has produced that.Do Americans really “revere” it? I’m not so sure about that claim either. I’ve never heard a regular person in my daily life sing hosannas about the government. They definitely love the results of themarketplace. They love the abundance of goods and services that are available. But that’s not a result of the “system” of government by any stretch of the imagination. That’s despite it!The imagination cannot even ponder how much bigger the abundance of goods and services would be if we didn’t have the government albatross on our backs.

Government itself has never been popular in America except during palpable crises such as war or deep depression.

That’s a very telling statement, considering that just about my entire life, the U.S. government has been at war. And when I look back at the decades that preceded my birth, it was at war then as well! So, if that’s when the government is “popular,” it has obviously been the King of The Prom for a very very long time.

The nation was founded in a revolution against an abusive government…and that distrust is in our genes. The Constitution reflects it. Which is why it’s hard for government to do anything very easily.

The Secession (not Revolution…the American colonists were not trying to overthrow the British Crown) of 1776 was against a government that was a peanut compared to ours. King George III couldn’t even fathom the level of taxation and intrusion into American daily lives that our current government exerts.The Constitution, which was written up in secret in the Philadelphia coup, was not a representation of 1776 Secession. Some of the biggest patriots from 1776 were witnessing their revolution of Libertyturned into an instrument of Power. Needless to say, just a couple of hundred years later, they were right.And who is Reich trying to kid when he says The Constitution makes it “hard for government to do anything very easily”? Does his audience consist of 2nd graders?The government seems to do whatever it pleases, almost all of the time. Resistance may appear from time to time (as in the recently thwarted attack on Syria) but those instances are very rare.And massive public resistance doesn’t always work either. The opposition to TARP was just as strong. No one wanted it, and the phones were ringing off the hook in Congress. But guess what? The bankers got their bailout. The public be damned.

No one likes big government. If you’re on the left, you worry about the military-industrial-congressional complex that’s spending zillions of dollars creating new weapons of mass destruction, spying on Americans, and killing innocents abroad. And you don’t like government interfering in your sex life, telling you how and when you can have an abortion, whom you can marry. If you’re on the right, you worry about taxes and regulations stifling innovation, out-of-control bureaucrats infringing on your freedom, and government deficits as far as the eye can see.

For Robert Reich to say that “No one likes big government” is the pinnacle of irony. Read his column and you’ll quickly see why. And the left/right facade that he constructed there is all smoke and mirrors, designed to make it look like there’s a difference between the two.The reason? People like to believe that they have a choice when they vote. It’s human nature not to resist a single individual telling you what to do. But if the appearance of choice exists, it pacifies that resistance.Contrary to Reich’s claims, it is extremely obvious to many (though not enough) that both Republicans and Democrats expand all of Reich’s listed abuses. They’re a tag-team that switches up every few years.Watch out when someone different comes along; and especially if they sound like someone from the secession of 1776….like Ron Paul?…..BLACKOUT…He doesn’t exist.

While most of us distrust government, we’re indelibly proud of our system of government. We like to think it’s just about the best system in the world. We don’t much like politicians but we canonize the Founding Fathers, the Framers of the Constitution. And we revere the fading parchment on which the Constitution is written. When we pledge allegiance to the United States we bind ourselves to that system of government. Anyone who seeks to overthrow or undermine that system is deemed a traitor.

Lots of good stuff to finish this off.First, when the government has the kids until they’re 18 years old in their “schools,” is it any wonder that people think that this is the “best system in the world”. Then, when everyone comes home at night and turns on the FCC licensed media that spout the same line, should there be any surprise?Here’s a tip about “systems” by the way. If it works to increase and concentrate power, then the elites will latch onto it. And they can call the system whatever they want. History shows that every name and combination has been tried. Evidently, since the U.S. government is the biggest and most powerful ever, it must mean that “democracy” and “representative republic” are fantastic!!Finally, there’s a reason why Reich focuses on one “fading parchment” (the Constitution) and completely ignores the other (The Declaration of Independence). You see, in the Declaration, there are no signs of “pledging allegiance” to anything, and if you fail to do so, it means you’re a “traitor”.In the Declaration it states:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…

Reich is not into those ”Founding Fathers”. Those guys can go into the dustbin.Fortunately, there is a silver lining. As long as libertarians keep spreading the message of liberty,those ”Founding Founders” will not be relegated to the dustbin, and their libertarian secession will not be a flash in the pan in the long history of tyranny.We have a tool that was not available to libertarians in the past, known as the Internet. This lifejacket does an end-around the government’s “schools” and FCC licensed media. However, the powers-that-be are coming for it hard, so it should not be taken for granted.If the U.S. government is ever to change in the direction of liberty, it surely will not be through the force of arms (nor should it be since libertarians believe in peace). The far more powerful and lastingway is to spread the ideas of liberty.We have the tools to do just that….Seize them!

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

Giuliani made the great mistake of confronting Ron Paul on the idea that maybe foreigners don’t like having their lands occupied by the U.S. and use violence as a method to kick them out.

Giuliani played dumb. He’d never heard of such unpatriotic thinking, and actually asked Ron Paul to apologize!!

You can reminisce for 3min below:

Giuliani may have received thunderous applause from the war-seething Republican peanut gallery, but Ron Paul would be the one who would make the lasting impression. To this day, I still hear from people (who don’t live and breathe politics) that Ron Paul made so much sense in the debates.

Neocons still don’t utter peep about blowback from U.S. foreign entanglements. They will never write or speak one word about it.

However, with the current smackdown that the American public is delivering to Obama on his drive to war in Syria, at least one Neocon fears “blowback” of a domestic sort.

Peter Wehner warns his fellow warmongers (my emphasis):

Those who favor an active role by America in the world – hawks who have spent their lives rightly resisting the “America Come Home” siren call – need to be wise in their counsel. Because if the next military engagement isn’t well thought out, well executed, and doesn’t lead to a relatively swift and decent outcome, the blowback could be intense.

Wehner isn’t speaking about “blowback” from foreigners (He wouldn’t dare.) He’s referring to the non-interventionist voices in the U.S. that have grown by leaps and bounds since Ron Paul’s campaign. The American public waking up, and not remaining in a woozy stupor as the war machine tramples on, is the type of “blowback” that Neocons do understand.

That kind of “blowback” can be spoken of, and in neocon eyes, must also be addressed.

It’s all the more reason to keep spreading the message of peace, commerce, and no foreign entanglements!

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

In the blink of an eye, our every move is now up for grabs to be monitored; and unfortunately prying eyes are not the limit. Prying hands grab and grope our most intimate spots at airports….Stop-and-Frisk campaigns in NYC…Military Lockdown in Boston….checkpoints while driving…

So much liberty lost, in such a short period of time. How can the ideas of liberty succeed in such an environment?

Well, there are some lessons of history that can provide some encouragement. For things are not always as they seem. We may actually be living in a time that has never been better for the ideas of liberty to break through and sweep the world.

Massive changes often happen when they are least expected.

Let’s go back to the year 1763.

The British Empire had soundly defeated the French around the globe, and the French and Indian War came to an end. As the Annual Register recorded of Britain,“In no one year since she was a nation has she been favored with so many successes, both by sea and by land, and in every quarter of the globe.”

Horace Walpole, an English letter writer and chronicler of English life and politics wrote: “Victories come so tumbling over one another from distant parts of the globe that it looks like the handiwork of a lady romance writer…The park guns will never have time to cool. We ruin ourselves with gun-powder and sky-rockets.”

The British were the Kings of the World. Nothing like it had been seen since the days of the Roman Empire.

And yet, just 13 years later, the ideas of Liberty would shake the planet like never before in human history. The seemingly all-powerful British Empire would lose its most prized possession named America.

The saying “Pride cometh before the fall” fits the bill perfectly here. One can only imagine the response that King George III had when hearing of the “Declaration of Independence” from a bunch of his libertarian-minded subjects. We today can imagine Nancy Pelosi having the same type of response.

But ideas are more powerful than even the largest military empires. Enough minds were made up in America, and nothing would stop the birth of “the land of the free”. To top it off, in a sign of poetic justice, the secession from Britain would occur with the help of the French; the very same French who were soundly defeated just 13 years before.

It’s important to distinguish that not all minds were made up in America. There were plenty of loyalists to the British Crown, and more than a plenty number of people who didn’t care what happened one way or another.

There’s a major lesson hidden in that fact. Only enough people are necessary for an idea to take hold and become dominant. How many people qualifies as enough is unknown.

In this world, all good is naturally attacked. Everything that is good must, as a matter of nature, face obstacles, challenges, and resistance. Liberty is achieved when it is intensely desired; and you cannot desire something unless you have the opposite challenging and resisting you.

So it should come as no surprise that the ideas of 1776 would be mercilessly attacked. It began immediately, like weeds attacking a garden.

The ideas of liberty held by the American public were so strong though, that it would take until the beginning of the 1900′s for public opinion to noticeably turn in the opposite direction. I stress that this is when public opinion noticeably turned. The attitudes of U.S. government officials turned long before that. They just had to achieve their goals piecemeal.

But from the early 1900′s on, the speed of the belief in government control began to take off. Let’s go back to the tipping point that occurred over 100 years ago.

It was not an easy time for the idea pushers of government control. Battling liberty was a difficult task. They probably felt very similar to the way we feel today. It was no doubt hard to for them to forsee how they could possibly succeed.

Ludwig Von Mises wrote:

The ideal of liberty seemed to be so firmly rooted that everybody thought that no reactionary movement could ever succeed in eradicating it. It is true, it would have been a hopeless venture to attack freedom openly and to advocate unfeignedly a return to subjection and bondage. But antiliberalism got hold of people’s minds camouflaged as superliberalism, as the fulfillment and consummation of the very ideas of freedom and liberty. It came disguised as socialism, communism, and planning.

Mises also wrote (my emphasis):

Thus, about the middle of the nineteenth century, it seemed that the ideal of Socialism had been disposed of. It was at this moment that Marx appeared.

In other words, it sure seemed like liberty was unstoppable in America, just as it seemed like The British Empire was unstoppable prior to 1776.

But, once again, things are not always as they seem. Massive changes often happen when they are least expected.

America tipped in the early 1900′s thanks to a small group of individuals who intensely desired complete government control. Once again, it only took enough people to get on board. The rest would be taken on a very nightmarish ride.

During the 1900′s, the world would experience hundreds of millions dead at the hands of their own governments, two World Wars; and America would turn itself into a military empire that would be at almost constant war (with very short breaks) up to the present day.

So what are the major lessons to be learned? And how can we look positively at what seems to beinsurmountable odds?

First, the world is run by ideas. The ideas that dominate take the day; which is another way of saying you shouldn’t fret if your cousin or neighbor don’t embrace the ideas of liberty. Having others who believe the polar opposite should be looked on as proof that the liberty to think your own thoughts still exists. It’s actually a good thing.

Next, champions of ideas always seem to appear at the most opportune moments. In 1776, there was Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson. In the 1800-1900′s there were Marx, Engels, and Keynes who convinced the world to go backwards for awhile.

And today we have the great Champion of Liberty named Ron Paul, whose influence is not confined to the U.S., but who has inspired millions all over the globe. Ron Paul has preached for 30+ years, and continues to this day, that our struggle is one of ideas, and not of armed conflict and violence. The prior 100 years have seen enough violence to last 1,000 lifetimes. Peace is long overdue.

Ron Paul’s timing and impact are a very good sign.

We also find ourselves (despite government spying on all of us) with an Internet that connects everyone together. Ideas now move at the speed of light. How easy is it to send an email to family and friends about the ideas you’ve learned from Ron Paul and many others like him? How easy is it to start a blog, or post sound ideas on Facebook and Twitter?

Ron Paul may be the public figure associated with libertarian ideas, but the rest of us have incredible tools at our disposal that never existed before. The goal is to convince enough people, without knowing how many that may be. Life is mysterious like that.

Who knows?

If you can convince some, and I can convince some, and those people convince some, the day may not be too far off that public opinion may tip once again, and head back in the direction that began 237 years ago.

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

Apple co-founder, Steve Wozniak, is a person who has truly helped to change the world for the better. This brilliant man, in my mind, deserves to be placed in the same camp as say Thomas Edison. The fruits of his labor have changed life dramatically for the good.

And Wozniak did it the right way, as a private individual working for a private company. So you won’t see his face on the front of the funny money, or hanging up in a classroom, or carved into Mount Rushmore.

Yet despite Wozniak’s brilliance, when it comes to understanding the nature of The State, he’s as clueless as a child. Like most Americans, his heart is in the right place, but his mind has accepted the government propaganda that has been fed to him his entire life.

Wozniak was on Piers Morgan’s show, talking about his disgust at the U.S. government’s spying:

“Read the facts: it’s government of, by and for the people. We own the government; we are the ones who pay for it and then we discover something that our money is being used for – that just can’t be, that level of crime.”

The only truth in that statement is ”we are the ones who pay for it”.

That’s it!

The rest is 100% incorrect.

When Morgan suggested the government would not be able to keep such a close eye on citizens without the work of innovators like him, Wozniak acknowledged: “I actually feel a little guilty about that – but not totally. We created the computers to free the people up, give them instant communication anywhere in the world; any thought you had, you could share freely. That it was going to overcome a lot of the government restrictions.

We didn’t realise that in the digital world there were a lot of ways to use the digital technology to control us, to snoop on us, to make things possible that weren’t.

In my opinion, Wozniak should not feel guilty at all. Tyranny thrives when individuals are unable to communicate with one another. The tools that have been created are bringing people together like never before. Geography no longer prohibits one individual from understanding others who may be different.

With communication tools, people on one side of the earth are able to think outside of government’s propaganda that those on the other side are just a bunch of “gooks” who need to conquered and remade.

Wozniak should sleep with a clear mind. The creation of good should never be suppressed for fear of what evil will do with it. The creation of good should always flow out of creative minds; for in the end, the good will always win out.

“All these things about the constitution, that made us so good as people – they are kind of nothing.

“They are all dissolved with the Patriot Act. There are all these laws that just say ‘we can secretly call anything terrorism and do anything we want, without the rights of courts to get in and say you are doing wrong things’. There’s not even a free open court any more. Read the constitution. I don’t know how this stuff happened. It’s so clear what the constitution says.”

This is one of the most common errors that Americans make.

When one truly understands the nature of The State, he/she realizes that there’s no restricting it. You can write down some rules, and they may last for awhile. But the rules will be as effective as telling a bunch of cancer cells that they have to stay put, and are not allowed to spread.

Put a barrier in front of a group of men who have a lust for power, and they will spend every waking moment thinking of ways to get through it.

The evisceration of The U.S. Constitution began immediately (even though it was supposed to chain down The State). We are now over 200 years in, and the last vestiges are being removed; but the power hungry went to work right away, before the ink was even dry.

In fact, for the real history nerds amongst us, many of those who created the Constitution did so to increase their power. While there are some good elements in the document (The Bill of Rights), the whole ordeal was no doubt a coup against liberty.

So Wozniak rightly hates what the government is doing, but because he doesn’t understand what government is, what its nature is, he’ll most likely join the multitudes in seeking solutions that are equivalent to a dog chasing its tail.

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

The Best of Chris Rossini

Recently by Chris Rossini: Americans Are War Weary … and the Neocons Don’t Like It

I remember so vividly, people with libertarian leanings cheering passionately that a new breed was coming in to change The Republican Party. The Tea Party was taking Washington…small government, the Constitution…you know the rest… Many of the cheers were coming from the younger generation, who really don’t understand how twisted politicians really are. That, yes, they will lie to you just to get your vote and support. But, that’s what experience is for…the young, oftentimes, must learn their lessons the hard way. We all go through it. Two politicians that really stick out in my head that received abundant cheers were Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Both are of Cuban descent (which is supposedly a big deal in Politics-land), and both were talking Constitution, small government, beating back Obama’s big spending ways, etc. They were Tea Party darlings. Here’s Matt Kibbe, President of the Tea Party group FreedomWorks, back in 2011 on Cruz: “After evaluating the candidates in this race, we believe that Ted Cruz will best serve the interests of hardworking Texas taxpayers by advocating the principles of lower taxes, less government and more individual freedom,” he said. Jim DeMint, now head of The Heritage Foundation had this to say: “He’s proved himself an effective advocate for the founding principles that made our nation great: personal freedom and responsibility, local control and adherence to the law as it is written, not the way some politicians wish it was written,” wrote DeMint. Cruz was providing lots of rhetoric himself: “It’s easy to be demoralized, to look at these elections and throw up your hands in despair. Things can change very quickly,” he said. “It took Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan, and I am convinced the most long-lasting legacy of Barack Obama is going to be a new generation of leaders in the Republican Party standing up and defending liberty and getting back to our values.” Nice, happy and fluffy stuff. What young Ron Paul supporter could resist? Ron was leaving the political stage, why shouldn’t the GOP scoop up the kids? You can’t just leave them there for the Democrats. Then there’s Rubio: Here’s Marco giving the same BS rhetoric in thanking The Tea Party Express for their endorsement:

So what’s going on now that the smoke has cleared? Well, the tune has changed. Here’s Ted Cruz now on Social Security and Medicare: “I’m encouraged by any steps that President Obama is taking to save and preserve Social Security and Medicare.” “I think it should be a bipartisan priority to strengthen Social Security and Medicare to preserve the benefits for existing seniors and to enact fundamental reform to ensure that those programs remain strong and vital for generations to come.” Wow….talk about lower taxes, less government and more individual freedom. What a turnaround! And here’s Marco Rubio now on The Military Empire: “While the President’s budget attempts to address some of the defense cuts imposed by sequestration, I am concerned that it does nothing to reverse the damaging impact that cuts have already had on our military readiness.  America is becoming less capable of projecting power and deterring conflict wherever it arises. For example, despite almost daily evidence of the increasing threat to the United States posed by rogue states with ballistic missiles, the president’s budget cuts spending on missile defense.” Way to go Tea Party-ers, you picked a real humanitarian! It’s reached the point where you have to actually agree with DailyKos!! Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) are supposed to be the new faces of the Republican Party—young, Latino, and a living symbol that the party can change. But when it comes down to it, on matters of substance, they are no different than the same old Republicans.

Yes, politics has not changed, politicians have not changed, The Republican Party has not changed. The only thing that has changed, is a bunch of young, libertarian, Ron Paul supporters find themselves actually supporting the big government monster.

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

The Best of Chris Rossini

Are the American people war weary? Yes, to some degree. Could there be a worse prescription for American foreign policy than giving in to popular war weariness? No.

…there are many politicians all too willing to seek power and popularity by encouraging weariness rather than point out its perils. Foremost among those politicians is our current president. It’s hard to blame the American people for some degree of war weariness when their president downplays threats and is eager to shirk international responsibilities. The rot of war weariness begins at the top. One can’t, for example, be surprised at the ebbing support of the American public for the war in Afghanistan years after the president stopped trying to mobilize their support, stopped heralding the successes of the troops he’d sent there, and stopped explaining the importance of their mission.

That task of Republicans is to confront Obama on his irresponsibility, not compete with him. The task of a serious opposition party is to rally the nation to its responsibilities and long-term interests. The task of GOP political leaders is to educate the public about the dangers of the world and to inspire people to rise above their weariness.

Recently by Chris Rossini: Copy Ron Paul

Neocon Bill Kristol, writes: Are the American people war weary? Yes, to some degree. Could there be a worse prescription for American foreign policy than giving in to popular war weariness? No. It must be frustrating to be a warmonger these days. So much effort has been made in creating worldwide U.S. hegemony. So much energy spent….so much engineering.

Lets make a checklist:

• Is the American public, in general, living in a sheltered cocoon; unaware of the disgustingness of war? Check….After the Vietnam War loss, the warmongers decided that never again would the press be allowed to report what was going on for all to see. From then on, war would be something that goes on “over there”.
• Are Americans sufficiently occupied, and without the time to even worry about what goes on “over there”? Check…Taxes are everywhere, two incomes are needed, what isn’t taxed is inflated away…The worker bees are sufficiently occupied.
• When the worker bees come home, are they sufficiently entertained so as to not worry about what goes on “over there”? Check…If there’s one thing Americans are swimming in, it’s entertainment.
• Do the warmongers have what Cicero called “the sinews of war…unlimited money”? Check…They have The Federal Reserve to supply whatever money is necessary.
• Can the warmongers do whatever they want with their unlimited money, without public oversight? Check…the Pentagon may not be audited.
• The circuses are taken of, what about the bread? Check…America has the biggest Welfare State in the history of the world.
• Even though Americans are sheltered from what goes on “over there,” are they reminded to keep up their support? Check…war propaganda is everywhere (sporting events, television, cereal boxes, etc). They even let government agents touch their genitals at the airport.

With such a setup, that took so many years to perfect, what could possibly be going wrong?

Bill Kristol blames Obama: …there are many politicians all too willing to seek power and popularity by encouraging weariness rather than point out its perils. Foremost among those politicians is our current president. It’s hard to blame the American people for some degree of war weariness when their president downplays threats and is eager to shirk international responsibilities. The rot of war weariness begins at the top. One can’t, for example, be surprised at the ebbing support of the American public for the war in Afghanistan years after the president stopped trying to mobilize their support, stopped heralding the successes of the troops he’d sent there, and stopped explaining the importance of their mission. Obama apparantly isn’t cheerleading enough; and whipping the worker bees into war fever.

I have a different take.

Americans may not know what’s going on “over there” or even know where “over there” is on a map. But they do know that it’s very expensive. Ron Paul and the Internet have told them (at least) that much.

Americans also know that the U.S. economy is a total disaster.

CNBC can wave their pom-poms about a rising stock market, and the CPI can say 2% until the end of time. But the truth cannot be hidden. When Americans look at the unemployment surrounding them and the relentlessly rising bills hitting the mailbox, it’s not enough the only thing the propaganda machine can say is that ‘it’s only an illusion’.

The steel-tight system that the warmongers have crafted is eating itself alive.

The Neocons will never come to that reality.

Kristol continues: That task of Republicans is to confront Obama on his irresponsibility, not compete with him. The task of a serious opposition party is to rally the nation to its responsibilities and long-term interests. The task of GOP political leaders is to educate the public about the dangers of the world and to inspire people to rise above their weariness. The U.S. is following the march of every Empire that came before it. Economic Law never loses. A cheerleading President can’t help…It would only escalate the rate of decay.

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

The Best of Chris Rossini

A friend, who I consider to be a very keen observer of the libertarian “movement” emails:

Ron Paul ‘awoke’ millions, but the “liberty movement” is at least half full of half-ass pseudo-libertarian statists. I see so many of them that have little good to say about RP now. He failed in their eyes. It’s all about attaining the crown. So frustrating.

If there’s one thing that Ron Paul stressed, it’s that we’re engaged in a battle of ideas. The goal is to convince/teach people the ideas of liberty.

There are no short-cuts. It’s a long and winding road.

Let Ron Paul’s career in Congress act as a guide. How easy would it have been for him to just bend a little?

But he didn’t. He knew that the ideas of liberty cannot (and should not) be watered down.

When did the results come in?

In the first year? No.

In the first decade? No.

Try around 30 years later!

The old saying remains true: As you sow, so shall you reap.

Ron Paul stayed true to principle, and sowed the seeds of liberty for 30 years. As a result, he (and all of us) were rewarded with the mother of all bumper crops!

Now is not the time to look for shortcuts, or to trade away some libertarian ideas in exchange for statist ideas, like they’re baseball cards.

The goal is not to obtain some vicious Crown. A famous warning must be kept in mind: And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?

It’s time to take the example that Ron Paul set and live it ourselves. We’ve seen what one man with principle can achieve. Imagine multiplying that by thousands, or even millions…

But it’s a choice…and we all have to make it.

One of my favorite movie scenes came to mind that sums up the choice perfectly. It’s only 40 seconds long, but it speaks volumes:

Stay true to the message…don’t get squished.

Recently by Chris Rossini: Handling Defeat: Mitt Romney vs. RonPaul

A friend, who I consider to be a very keen observer of the libertarian "movement" emails:

Ron Paul ‘awoke’ millions, but the "liberty movement" is at least half full of half-ass pseudo-libertarian statists. I see so many of them that have little good to say about RP now. He failed in their eyes. It’s all about attaining the crown. So frustrating.

If there’s one thing that Ron Paul stressed, it’s that we’re engaged in a battle of ideas. The goal is to convince/teach people the ideas of liberty.

There are no short-cuts. It’s a long and winding road.

Let Ron Paul’s career in Congress act as a guide. How easy would it have been for him to just bend a little?

But he didn’t. He knew that the ideas of liberty cannot (and should not) be watered down.

When did the results come in?

In the first year? No.

In the first decade? No.

Try around 30 years later!

The old saying remains true: As you sow, so shall you reap.

Ron Paul stayed true to principle, and sowed the seeds of liberty for 30 years. As a result, he (and all of us) were rewarded with the mother of all bumper crops!

Now is not the time to look for shortcuts, or to trade away some libertarian ideas in exchange for statist ideas, like they’re baseball cards.

The goal is not to obtain some vicious Crown. A famous warning must be kept in mind: And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?

It’s time to take the example that Ron Paul set and live it ourselves. We’ve seen what one man with principle can achieve. Imagine multiplying that by thousands, or even millions…

But it’s a choice…and we all have to make it.

One of my favorite movie scenes came to mind that sums up the choice perfectly. It’s only 40 seconds long, but it speaks volumes:

Recently by Chris Rossini: Add ‘Gun Buy-Backs’ to the State’s OrwellianLexicon

Both Mitt Romney and Ron Paul attempted to unseat Mr. Hope & Change. Neither man succeeded. Romney ran for Power, while Ron Paul ran to eliminate and reign in as much power as he possibly could. How each man handled the defeat was as different as their reasons for running.

• Ron Paul finished out his term as Congressman and gave one of the greatest speeches ever given in Washington. Mitt Romney completely disappeared, finally coming out for his first interview in March 2013!
• Ron Paul stayed engaged with his passionate supporters on Twitter, keeping them in the loop and not forgetting about them. Mitt Romney sent (1) tweet after the election. Evidently his 1.6 million followers have no purpose if he’s not King.
• Ron Paul is saying things like: “While I certainly don’t miss Congress…” Romney is saying “it kills me not to be in there, not to be in the White House”.
• Ron Paul is planning a Daily Radio Show, and is launching a Foreign Policy Institute. Romney says: ”I recognize that I lost, so I’m not going to be the leader of the Republican Party…But I want to have influence on getting our party to a position where we can be successful.”
• Ron Paul has a blockbuster book coming out this Sept. Tom Woods has read the draft and says: “This is the book that really launches the revolution.”

Romney’s book? Buy a pack of gum instead Two men didn’t become President. Only one was defeated.

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

The Best of Chris Rossini

Recently by Chris Rossini: On Proclaiming Liberty Throughout theLand

Wherever The State extends its cancerous influence, a bizarro upside-down disaster results. One of its most important tools is the twisting of language.

• Politicians incessantly use phrases like "it’s what the American people want", when it’s most often what their cronies want. The free market, on the other hand, has something called profits and losses, specifically tailored to relay to everyone what people really want.
• The counterfeiting Federal Reserve, that pick-pockets your purchasing power, says that it’s administering an "Elastic Currency" via "Quantitative Easing."
• When The State steals from one and gives to another, the recipient refers to it as a "benefit". The more bolder sucklings are now starting to call it a "right".

There are surely many more that can be added to the list, and feel free to leave them in the comments if you’d like.

But, since "Gun Control" is at the top of The State’s power grab list these days, we can add Gun "Buy-Backs" to the list.

If the government is buying the gun back, are we to presume that they were the original owner to begin with?

Are we merely just giving them their guns back?

And isn’t it ironic to give your guns to government?…an institution that has brought more mass death than any other gang on earth. Just in the 20th century alone, governments killed hundreds of millions.

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but didn’t the U.S. government drop two atom bombs? Aren’t they the only nation on earth to ever do such a thing?

They’re supposed to be in charge of "gun control"?

The State twists everything into a bizarre upside-down disaster.

Don’t get sucked into its linguistic black hole.

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

The Best of Chris Rossini

Recently by Chris Rossini: Fill Your Christmas Stockings With Stacks of Benjamins! Join the FEMA Family!

This morning’s edition of “Morning Coffee with Murray Rothbard” covered the importance of educating the general public. High theory and scholarship are not be enough for liberty to carry the day. The importance of the free market needs to be understood by everyone.

The intention of this post is to further elaborate on this very important topic.

Early Americans

Let’s start with early Americans, like Thomas Jefferson, who knew that the spirit of liberty that took root in America would certainly be challenged (as it has been since day one):

“We are destined to be a barrier against the return of ignorance and barbarism.”

Ben Franklin echoed:

“It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.” Unfortunately, government has had a tight grip on the education process in America; and the ignorance of liberty is built-in to the curriculum. Fortunately, the Internet and home schooling have arrived, and will ultimately win the day.

Finally, the Liberty Bell’s inscription states what needs to be done to hold back the downward pull of tyranny:

“Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.”

Modern Times

Now let’s move forward to our times.

Here’s Ludwig Von Mises:

“If the small minority of enlightened citizens who are able to conceive sound principles of political management do not succeed in winning the support of their fellow citizens and converting them to the endorsement of policies that bring and preserve prosperity, the cause of mankind and civilization is hopeless. There is no other means to safeguard a propitious development of human affairs than to make the masses of inferior people adopt the ideas of the elite. This has to be achieved by convincing them. It cannot be accomplished by a despotic regime that instead of enlightening the masses beats them into submission. In the long run the ideas of the majority, however detrimental they may be, will carry on. The future of mankind depends on the ability of the elite to influence public opinion in the right direction.” and:

“Everything that happens in the social world in our time is the result of ideas. Good things and bad things…We must substitute better ideas for wrong ideas…Ideas and only ideas can light the darkness. These ideas must be brought to the public in such a way that they persuade people…Our civilization will and must survive. And it will survive through better ideas than those which now govern most of the world today, and these better ideas will be developed by the rising generation…I myself have full confidence in the future of freedom, both political and economic.” But what if the common man doesn’t latch on to sound ideas? Do we blame him alone?

We do not, Mises said:

“the fault is not theirs alone. It is no less the fault of the pioneers of the good causes in not having succeeded in bringing forward their thoughts in a more convincing form.” In other words, if you and I are passionate about liberty winning the day, but we are not doing our part to spread the ideas, a portion of the blame falls on us. Mises concluded;

“The favorable evolution of human affairs depends ultimately on the ability of the human race to beget not only authors but also heralds and disseminators of beneficial ideas.” Educate Privately

If we understand the importance of spreading ideas of liberty and free markets, what is the best method to do this work?

Well, we should first make sure that we don’t put the cart before the horse. We must first, with great intensity, advance our own understanding.

Leonard Read put it this way:

“If a person advances his own understanding of the true and the false, the understanding thus acquired will be sought by others. Reason recommends that a person get the horse before the cart; that first one must learn; that influencing others will take care of itself.” For a fantastic read (or listen) on this subject, do not miss Isaiah’s Job, by Albert Jay Nock.

Once we have a firm grasp, and we’re confident enough to spread the ideas of liberty and sound economics, should we seek to make a Glenn Beckian public spectacle? If we don’t have an attention grabbing charade, like a million man march on Washington, are we doomed?

No way.

Here’s Lew Rockwell:

“Why meet on enemy territory, where you have to get a permit to assemble or even to speak? [Where] peaceful, unarmed people were viciously harassed, violently arrested, and jailed in chains for dissing the little god in the white house. [Demonstrators are] surrounded at all times by heavily armed, paramilitary cops, who [keep] their weapons pointed in the direction of the crowd. How much better to meet, teach, learn, organize, and plan on private property? If you want a mass demo, rent a convention center or a farmer’s field or other private land. You say this won’t get you press coverage? The state media will always pretend you do not exist…We can and must ignore and circumvent them. A good first step: stay out of DC.” Dr. Albert Schweitzer also commented on educating others in private:

“A new public opinion must be created privately and unobtrusively. The existing one is maintained by the press, by propaganda, by organization, and by financial and other influences which are at its disposal. The unnatural way of spreading ideas must be opposed by the natural one, which goes from man to man and relies solely on the truth of the thoughts and the hearer’s receptiveness for new truth…” No Central Plan

Central Planning is a tool of the State.

Everyone acts as a cog in the wheel, taking orders, and operating on what Hayek called The Pretense of Knowledge:

Statists never learn.

It is no surprise that history is littered with the failure of one state after another. The believers in power keep trying to devise a way to make it work…with Constitutions, checks & balances, democracy, etc…but the failure rate remains at a firm 100%.

On the other hand, decentralization is the tool of Liberty. For liberty to emerge, we know not to look for an idol to worship, who will pass down the instructions. We are not cogs in a wheel, but creative individuals, using our own skills and talents to spread ideas in our own ways:

Who better than Lew Rockwell, to drive home this point, and the conclusion of this article:

“There is a reason we are born when we are. Everyone in this room dropped into this long trajectory we call time for a precise purpose. You were all given talents, unique talents. You have all been called to use those talents for something. For what? For doing right, promoting good, keeping evil at bay, advancing the well-being of society. To the extent that we enjoy prosperity and peace today it is because those who came before us did what they were supposed to do on our behalf.

Today, it is our turn, and we must bear the burden. We must do what is right, while we still have time. There is not a moment of our lives to waste. We must contribute whatever we can and however we can. Freedom is a rarity in the history of the world, and it comes about only when it has champions. Let us be those champions today, for as long as we are granted breath on earth.”

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

2012 Economic Policy Journal

Recently by Chris Rossini: A Brit Propagandist and the Japanese Attack on PearlHarbor

Job market getting you down? Let the suckers look for productive work. You should come on down and join the FEMA Family:

FEMA is hiring. For a listing of positions available in New York, go to newyork.us.jobs/results.asp?si…. #Sandy #job #NY twitter.com/FEMASandy/stat… — FEMA Sandy (@FEMASandy) December 9, 2012 The above photo must be the teaching of a new salute. I know it can’t be individuals swearing to uphold that fairy tale Constitution. That would be as worthless as every President’s first official lie: In any case, head on down to FEMA to satisfy your cravings for authority and cash. Join the fun! Let’s get those civilians!

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

2012 Economic Policy Journal

Recently by Chris Rossini: The Pearl Harbor ‘Surprise’

It has been brought to the attention of EPJ that a very interesting book was published in 1938 (<– notice the date) in London (<– notice the place). The book is titled Propaganda in the Next War and was written by Sidney Rogerson. Amazon.com has 1 used copy for sale…but it’ll cost you 335 US fiats.

So who is Sidney Rogerson? Well the dust jacket of the book states that he: “has been engaged in commercial propaganda for twenty years and is a leading authority on the subject.” A Google Search brought up the following:

• Born 22nd of October 1894. 
• Son of the Reverend S. Rogerson. 
• B.A. in Modern History 1916; 
• Served in the European War; 
• Commissioned in the West Yorkshire Regiment 1916-1919. 
• Demobilised in 1919. 
• 1923-30 was Publicity Manager for the F.B.I (Federation of British Industry); 
• Joined I.C.I (Imperial Chemical Industries) in 1930; 
• Publicity Controller I.C.I Ltd., 1932-1952. 
• Publicity and Public Relations Advisor to the Army Council, War Office, 
• 1952-3-4. Hon. Col. 44th (Home Counties) Infantry Division. 
• Signals Regiment T.A., 1955.

With that kind of publicity experience, it appears that Rogerson was the Don King of British military propaganda. What’s interesting, is what Rogerson wrote on Page 148 of Propaganda in the Next War  that, again, was published in London…3 years before Pearl Harbor. Sidney Rogerson wrote: “Though we are not unfavourably placed, we shall require to do much propaganda to keep the United States benevolently neutral. To persuade her to take our part will be much more difficult, so difficult as to be unlikely to succeed. It will need a definite threat to America, a threat moreover, which will have to be brought home by propaganda to every citizen, before the republic will again take arms in an external quarrel. The position will naturally be considerably eased if Japan were involved and this might and probably would bring America in without further ado. At any rate, it would be a natural and obvious object of our propagandist to achieve this, just as during the Great War they succeeded in embroiling the United States with Germany.” EPJ has been told that there used to be a copy of this book in The Library of Congress, but it disappeared before WWII began: In any case, Pearl Harbor propaganda, like a dusty old book, has a long shelf life. We are now at the 71st Anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack, and Americans still have the wool firmly placed over their eyes.

(Special thanks to Robert W. Reading for his contributions)

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

2012 Economic Policy Journal

Recently by Chris Rossini: The U.S. Has Perfected Good Cop / BadCop

There’s much more to the “date which will live in infamy” than the U.S. Dept. of Education would like to you know about.

Along with Lincoln, one of the most exalted Presidents in the land of the free is FDR. Is there a town in this country that doesn’t have a street named after either of them?

According to the Dept. of Education, FDR not only had the messianic task of saving all of us from the ravages of “capitalism”, but he had the added burden of dealing with a “surprise” attack from a bunch of crazy Japanese people.

It’s during those trying times that the greatness of an FDR is needed.

Give him three terms if necessary!

Let’s now close the schoolbooks, turn off PBS and The History Channel, and come back to reality.

Murray Rothbard, in his amazing work America’s Great Depression, crushed the first part of the fairy tale into a fine powder.

The Federal Reserve created the boom/bust of the 1920′s, and the Hoover/FDR tag team turned, what should have been a short downturn, into a tortuous and long “Great” one. Hoover got the ball rolling. He said: “We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever involved in the history of the Republic.” FDR, then took over the grand experiment from the “laissez-faire” Hoover and…well, you know the rest.

The second part of the FDR fairy tale was recently addressed in a great talk given by Robert Higgs. I highly recommend that you listen to the whole thing, but I transcribed a few excerpts below.

Tuck them away for the next time that you’re debating a worshipper of one of America’s “Great” Presidents.

Here’s Robert Higgs:

Consider these summary statements by George Victor. And, by the way, George Victor is by no means a Roosevelt basher. It’s the other way around. He greatly admires Roosevelt and entirely approves of the actions Roosevelt took to bring the United States into the war. So that’s why I think he makes a good source for my purposes. You know he didn’t set out to provide grist for my mill.

He has a very nice book out called The Pearl Harbor Myth, which I believe is completely honest and well done in its documentation. I’m going to read a long excerpt from that book by George Victor: “Roosevelt had already lead the United States into war with Germany in the spring of 1941; into a shooting war on a small scale. From then on, he gradually increased U.S. military participation. Japan’s attack on December 7th enabled him to increase it further and to obtain a war declaration.

Pearl Harbor is more fully accounted for as the end of a long chain of events, with the U.S. contribution reflecting a strategy formulated after France fell in the spring of 1941. In the eyes of Roosevelt and his advisors, the measures taken early in 1941 justified a German declaration of war on the United States; a declaration that did not come, to their disappointment.

Roosevelt told his Ambassador to France, William Bullet, that U.S. entry into war with Germany was certain, but must wait for an incident, which he was confident the Germans would give us. Establishing a record in which the enemy fired the first shot was a theme that ran through Roosevelt’s tactics.

He seems, eventually to have concluded, correctly as it turned out, that Japan would be easier to provoke into a major attack on the United States than Germany would be.

The claim that Japan attacked the United States without provocation was typical rhetoric. It worked because the public did not know that the administration had expected Japan to respond with war; to anti-Japanese measures it had taken in July 1941. Expecting to lose a war with the United States, and lose it disastrously, Japan’s leaders had tried with growing desperation to negotiate. On this point, most historians had long agreed.

Meanwhile evidence has come out that Roosevelt and Hull persistently refused to negotiate. Japan offered compromises and concessions, which the United States countered with increasing demands. It was after learning of Japan’s decision to go to war with the United States, if the talks “break down” that Roosevelt decided to break them off.

According to Attorney General, Francis Biddle, Roosevelt said he hoped for an incident in the Pacific to bring the United States into the European war.” These facts, and numerous others that point in the same direction, are for the most part anything but new. Many of them have been available to the public since the 1940′s. As early as 1953, anyone might have read a collection of heavily documented essays on various aspects of U.S. foreign policy in the late 1930′s and early 1940′s, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes, that showed the numerous ways in which the U.S. government bore responsibility for the country’s eventual engagement in World War II. It showed, in short, that the Roosevelt administration wanted to get the country into the war and worked craftily, along various avenues, to ensure that sooner or later it would get in; preferably in a way that would unite public opinion behind the war, by making the United States appear to have been the victim of an aggressor’s unprovoked attack.

As Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, testified after the war: “We needed the Japanese to commit the first overt act.” At present, however, 70 years after these events. Probably not 1 American in 1,000; maybe not 1 in 10,000 has an inkling of any of this history. So effective has been the pro-Roosevelt, pro-American, pro-World War II faction, that in this country it has utterly dominated teaching and popular writing about U.S. engagement in the so-called “Good War”…

American leaders knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Toyota had communicated to Ambassador Nomura on July 31st. I read from that message: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”

This was a message U.S. leaders read as of the end of July 1941. They knew the position Japan was in perfectly well. Because American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington also knew that Japan’s measures would include an attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet, they withheld this critical information from the Commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves better to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the toxin, makes perfect sense. After all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time.

As Stimson confided to his diary, after a meeting with the War Cabinet on November 25th 1941:

“The question was how we should maneuver them into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” After the attack occurred, Stimson confessed that: “My first feeling was of relief, that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.” “It has been the policy of the cabinet at almost all cost to avoid embroilment with Japan until we were sure that the United States would also be engaged.” ~ Winston Churchill to The British House of Commons on Jan. 27, 1942 

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

2012 Economic Policy Journal

Recently by Chris Rossini: Plan on Seeing the Movie ‘Lincoln’? Keep This in Mind…

The U.S. government has perfected the Good Cop / Bad Cop routine.

For those who aren’t familiar with the technique, two cops (usually when interrogating a suspect) cooperate with one another, in order to achieve a result. However, the cops make it appear that they are at odds with one another.

One acts as the Good Cop, by nicely talking with the suspect, and making it look like he’s on the suspect’s side, while the Bad Cop acts as if he’s ready to wring the suspect’s neck. They’re working towards the same goal, but the presentation to the suspect appears otherwise.

Well, the U.S. government does the same thing, but it operates on a much larger scale, against 300 million cash cows Americans.

And boy, do they have it down to a science.

The routine consists of two parties, Republican and Democrat, working together towards a mutual goal (the strengthening of the welfare/warfare state) while constantly appearing to be at odds with one another.

Go ahead, turn on a talk show right now. A Republican and Democrat are probably bickering at one another right this second.

It’s really a brilliant system (in an evil way) because the routine is cloaked in the veneer of democracy. "The People" get to pick their poison. That they’re picking poison, no matter what, doesn’t matter to them. What’s important is that they’re picking it.

Call the whole thing freedom…wave a few American flags…and it’s game, set & match!

To break the routine down into more detail, it works like this: The party that is out of power acts as the Good Cop. The party in power is the Bad Cop who’s blatantly crushing your freedom and individuality.

So right now, Obama is running wild, and the innocent little Republican lambs are sympathizing with the victims. They feel your pain. But be sure, they’re working their tails off for a "smaller" and "more limited government". While Obama runs wild, their trying to do their best to laso him in.

Rewind back to 2008…

Bush was running wild, and the innocent little Democrat lambs were nestling up to the victims. They felt your pain. But be sure, if you put Obama into power, he would end the wars….he would curb the abuse on your civil liberties and your privacy.

Just pick Obama the next time that you have the opportunity to "make your voice heard". There’s still "Hope" that you can make a "Change".

You can take that to the bank:

The whole thing works like a charm.

And no matter who is elected, and no matter which party is chosen, the end result, that both parties work for, is reached….The size and scope of the welfare/warfare state is increased.

If you’re skeptical, and need a visual confirmation, just look at the Federal Budget and Debt. And keep in mind that that both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for it:

That’s called a "one-way ticket".

Now…the good-nature of many people will kick in here, and they’ll think to themselves, "Well, we just need to elect the right people. The wrong people keep getting in."

I hate to break it to them, but we’re not dealing with two teams here. It’s one team, working towards the same goal of increasing the size and scope of its power.

The moment anyone even thinks of messing with this beautiful structure, they get "the treatment":

Furthermore, there can be no such thing as the right person to wield power. The problem is the power itself.

In my view, the best that a single person can do is to live according to the non-aggression principle, spread the ideas of liberty as far as you can, and for heaven’s sake, get out of the Good Cop / Bad Cop scam … Don’t vote!

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

2012 Economic Policy Journal

Recently by Chris Rossini: Yaron Brook: When Rothbard Died, Libertarianism Should Have Died With Him

1832 – Lincoln begins his political career in the Illinois legislature

“I presume you all know who I am. I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the legislature. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank…in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff.” Lincoln hits the ground running with central banking, corporate welfare, and high taxation. We are still living with all of them…only the players have changed.

1838 – Lincoln’s corporate welfare brings Illinois to its knees

William H. Herndon, Lincoln’s law partner and one of his closest friends, wrote:

“Every river and stream…was to be widened, deepened, and made navigable. A canal to connect the Illinois River and Lake Michigan was to be dug…cities were to spring up everywhere; capital from abroad was to come pouring in; attracted by the glowing reports of marvelous progress and great internal wealth, people were to come swarming in by colonies, until in the end Illinois was to outstrip all others, and herself become the Empire State of the Union.”…

“The internal improvement system, the adoption of which Lincoln had played such a prominent part, had collapsed, with the result that Illinois was left with an enormous debt and empty treasury.” Not much has changed. Today, Illinois is a financial train wreck waiting to happen.

But back to Lincoln. You’d think that after such a disaster, one would lose all credibility and trustworthiness.

Nope! When it comes to government, nothing succeeds like failure.

1858 – The Great Emancipator on the black & white races

Lincoln’s words from the famous Lincoln vs. Douglas debate on Sept. 18, 1858:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause] — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.” 1861 – Abraham Lincoln – The First Republican President

The dreadful political party that we’re still battling today began with Lincoln.

Please don’t fool yourself into thinking that somehow The Republican Party, that was born in tyranny, will end up getting taken over by Libertarians; and the country will return to the freedom-loving days of the founding fathers.

No.

It surely can’t happen that way.

The Republican Party, since day one, and all the way up to today, is no friend of liberty. The saying “by their fruits, ye shall know them” speaks volumes here. It reminds you to look at the root.

The root of The Republican Party tree lies here in 1861. Don’t ever expect it to grow the fruits of liberty.

Before moving on, let’s not skip past Lincoln’s first inaugural address. He touched on the question of slavery and quoted one of his earlier published speeches:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” 1861 – Lincoln refuses a peaceful Southern Secession

Many Americans (educated by their government, of course) believe that “The Civil War” was fought to free the slaves. This is just not true. This was a war over Southern secession.

The war is misnamed. It was not a Civil War. The South had no interest in taking over the Northern government.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis wanted to make clear to the North that the Confederates did not constitute a threat to the government in Washington:

“We seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind…all we ask is to be let alone.” President Davis appointed three commissioners to negotiate with the North. The commissioners reached Washington on Mar. 5, 1861, the day after Lincoln’s inauguration.

Lincoln’s response? He outright refused to see the commissioners, and also refused to recognize the Confederate government.

Whether the South wanted conquest or not made no difference. It was the economic policies of the South that enraged the North.

You see, the Confederate Constitution created, in essence, a free trade zone with opposition to protectionism. It stated:

“but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importation from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry.” Davis, in his Inaugural Address stated that he was “anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations,” and that “our policy is peace, and the freest trade our necessities will permit.” 

This was in stark contrast to the North’s high-taxes and protectionism. And remember what Lincoln said when he entered politics: “I am in favor of a national bank…in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff.”

Free Trade? Ha!

The North was in no way going to allow the South become an attractive market for the rest of the world, while at the same time, pricing out the North.

On Apr. 2, 1861 The Newark Daily Advertiser, warned ominously that Southerners had apparently “taken to their bosoms the liberal and popular doctrine of free trade” and that they “might be willing to go…toward free trade with the European powers” which “must operate to the serious disadvantage of the North” as “commerce will be largely diverted to the Southern cities.”

This is America…the “land of the free”…and if there’s one thing that will not be tolerated, it’s free trade.

When Lincoln was in Congress, he had no problem with secession. In a speech on Jan. 12, 1848, he said:

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” But as President, Lincoln’s words went out the door as fast as George W. Bush’s “humble” foreign policy.

As President, Lincoln called secession the “essence of anarchy.”

In other words, if the South wanted free trade, then it was time for Lincoln to invade.

Now the fun begins….

1861

• Apr. 19, Lincoln imposed a blockade on Southern ports of South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Did Congress declare war? No. Constitution violated. 
• Apr. 20, Lincoln ordered the Sec. of Treasury to spend public money for defense without congressional appropriation, violating the Constitution. 
• Apr. 27, Lincoln made the unprecedented move of suspending, through an unconstitutional order, the writ of habeas corpus, or the protection against unlawful imprisonment.
• Lincoln signed a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because the Judge rendered an opinion that Lincoln acted unconstitutionally by suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
• Lincoln had U.S. Rep. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio arrested for “disloyal sentiments and speeches.” Vallandigham opposed the Morrill Tariff and the central bank. 
• An estimated 13,000 Northern citizens were detained for merely expressing opposition to the war. This group contained hundreds of newspaper editors and owners. None of these people ever heard evidence against them and were never brought to trial.
• During the war, adult male civilians in the South were compelled to take a loyalty oath to the federal government or be shot. In the words of Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, Lincoln had established “a military despotism.”

1862 – What’s war without paper money to pay for it?

In the Legal Tender Act of Feb. 1862, Congress authorized the printing of $150 million in new “United States notes” (Greenbacks) to pay for the growing war deficits. “In God We Trust” was also introduced on the U.S. dollar in 1862 when it’s gold backing was dropped.

2012?…No change…Worldwide military empire…constant war….all financed with electronic digits and enforced with legal tender laws.

Here’s a heads up though…Eventually (like Lincoln’s Greenbacks) the money becomes worthless.

1862 – The Great Emancipator on freeing slaves

Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” Lincoln’s America

In the interest of brevity, I’ll end with a quote from H.L. Mencken. He talks about Lincoln’s absurd claim, in The Gettysburg Address, that Northern soldiers fought for the cause of self-determination:

“It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. The Confederates went into the battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision of the rest of the country.” The “Union” was saved…geographically. The spirit of self-determination and decentralization was crushed.

Sadly, for generations to come (including us) the power of centralized government in America had only just begun.

If the above has piqued your interest, and you want more, I highly recommend the following from Thomas J. DiLorenzo: The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked.

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

2012 Economic Policy Journal

Leonard Peikoff, the leading advocate of Ayn (there are no innocents in war) Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, recorded a podcast with Yaron Brook, the president and executive director of The Ayn Rand Institute. The topic? Libertarianism. Both Peikoff and Brook express their opposition to the whole concept. But the following statement from Brook really jumped out at me (my emphasis):

“Even though it [libertarianism] might have initially been adopted innocently by certain people who were advocates of free markets, it was very quickly, in the 1960′s and 70′s co-opted by the anarchists and by the complete philosophic subjectivists. And they dominated the movements throughout that period of time. Even though I believe that today the libertarian movement is fragmented, it’s disintegrating. It is tragic that many people are still using the term, and not letting the term kind of pass with the passing of the guy who really led this movement – Murray Rothbard. When he passed, the whole concept should have passed with him.” Ok…I’ll agree that the libertarian movement is fragmented. But so what? I see no reason reason that it should be any other way. We don’t all have to be cogs in a wheel parroting the same lines. The fact that there is diversity within the libertarian movement says to me that there’s liberty within the movement. There can, and should be disagreements, that should be debated. The great danger I see is when the rejection of The Non-Aggression Axiom creeps in like a weed. When warmongers go on TV, like Peikoff here, and make Bill O’Reilly look like a peacenik. And this is the gang that is rolling its van into Cato! What a shame… Furthermore, for Brook to say that libertarianism is “disintegrating” is preposterous! Has Brook never heard of Ron Paul, who has spread these very ideas, creating possibly millions of Rothbardians? And the train hasn’t stopped now that Ron is leaving politics either. Check out this crowd from Oct. 18th, when Ron spoke at Utah Valley University:

Are you getting the sense, by looking at the above picture, that libertarianism is “disintegrating”? Show me another former Presidential candidate that can draw these types of crowds.

Ron is also a big international hero, loved around the globe. Couple that with the fantastic growth of The Mises Institute, and the international Mises Institute’s that are cropping up all over the world.

Libertarianism, of the Rothbardian tradition, is thriving!

Viva Murray Rothbard!

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

2012 Economic Policy Journal

Prior to The War for Southern Secession (what many mistakenly call The Civil War) confederate President Jefferson Davis appointed three commissioners to negotiate with the North. The commissioners reached Washington on Mar. 5, 1861, the day after Lincoln’s inauguration. Jefferson Davis wanted to make clear to the North that the Confederates did not constitute a threat to the government in Washington:

“We seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind…all we ask is to be let alone.” Lincoln’s response? He outright refused to see the commissioners, and also refused to recognize the Confederate government. Whether the South wanted conquest or not made no difference. It was the economic policies of the South that enraged the North. You see, the Confederate Constitution created, in essence, a free trade zone with opposition to protectionism. It stated: “but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importation from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry.” Davis, in his Inaugural Address stated that he was “anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations,” and that “our policy is peace, and the freest trade our necessities will permit.” This was in stark contrast to the North’s high-taxes and protectionism. The North was in no way going to allow the South to become an attractive market for the rest of the world. On Apr. 2, 1861 The Newark Daily Advertiser, warned ominously that Southerners had apparently “taken to their bosoms the liberal and popular doctrine of free trade” and that they “might be willing to go…toward free trade with the European powers” which “must operate to the serious disadvantage of the North” as “commerce will be largely diverted to the Southern cities.” Free Markets had to be crushed, even if it meant 600,000 deaths. The Great Emancipator was just the man for the job:

1941

Throughout the 1930′s, Japan waged war with China; a war in which the U.S. had no stake. However, Japan was almost totally reliant on oil from the U.S.

Keep in mind, that Japan was not at war with the U.S. at all.  FDR, in an attempt to find a “back door” into World War II, froze Japanese assets, and prohibited Americans from furnishing oil to the Japanese. In an unprecedented diplomatic move for the Japanese, they offered to send Prince Fumimaro Konoye, the Prime Minister and a member of the royal family, to the U.S. to negotiate personally with FDR in a desperate effort to preserve peace.  FDR’s response? He refused the meeting. The “back door to war” worked:

2012

The Iranian story is yet to be written, but the press is now reporting that the U.S. and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. Republican Senator Lindsay Graham wants none of it, stating that “The time for talking is over.” After all, just take a look at all the U.S. military bases surrounding Iran:

Sadly, the above graphic, combined with the U.S.’s history of not negotiating peace, it’s not looking so good for those of us who don’t want more foreign wars. If only they’d listen to Ron Paul …

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

2012 Economic Policy Journal

Reprinted with permission from Economic Policy Journal.

2012 Economic Policy Journal