He sent it to me because he knew I had devoted a number of years in my career to alternative medicine, and was responsible for starting the most extensive and successful line of alternative health newsletters, back in the days of print.

He commented to me:  “I defer to your expertise in this area.  What do you think?”  This article is my long-winded attempt to answer him.

First, let me deny any expertise.  I have no medical education or background.  I am just a layman, with the proviso that I have read thousands more articles and attended hundreds more conferences and worked with dozens more medical practitioners than the average layman.  I am tempted to say that I must be doing something right, since I am now 75 and do not take a single prescription for any physical condition.  That is so unusual today that when I go into a hospital for a routine age-related checkup, such as a colonoscopy, my attending doctor will put me on exhibit to other doctors and nurses as some sort of medical oddity.

But I dare not brag, for who knows what tomorrow may bring.  My good health may be just a result of picking a family with the right genetic history to be born into.  And I never smoked nicotine in my life, thanks to a mother who hated smoking and our father’s addiction to it, and successfully preached total abstinence from cigarettes to her three sons.  Then again, my good health—so far— may just be due to substituting lots of sex and vodka for the weed.  That’s my favorite explanation.

The Atlantic’s article starts out:

“Nutrition experts contend that all we need is what’s typically found in a routine diet. Industry representatives, backed by a fascinating history, argue that foods don’t contain enough, and we need supplements. Fortunately, many excellent studies have now resolved the issue.

“On October 10, 2011, researchers from the University of Minnesota found that women who took supplemental multivitamins died at rates higher than those who didn’t. Two days later, researchers from the Cleveland Clinic found that men who took vitamin E had an increased risk of prostate cancer.”

What nonsense.  There are hundreds of variables in studies like that.  Unless we know how these two studies accounted for variables (and most do a pretty poor job), that statement is meaningless.

I have given up reading these articles, pro and con, about vitamins.  It’s the same old, same old.

The problem is that there is very little pure research done today without an agenda.  Whether the agenda is pro-vitamin or anti-vitamin, pro-alternative medicine or anti-alternative medicine, that agenda has been (at most) bought by the industry promoting that viewpoint or (at least) influenced enough by that industry to make me somewhat skeptical of the results.

Note that The Atlantic’s author refers to an “industry” behind the promotion of vitamins, while the “good guys” consist of “nutrition experts.”  That in itself is a joke in the way he presents it.  Yes, the vitamin industry has grown into a formidable one today, but it is still David to the Goliath that is the government-pharmaceutical-Establishment medicine industry.  Mentioning David without Goliath reveals your bias, Mr. Offit.

America today has become a fascist nation.  Every aspect of our public life is governed by the collusion of Big Government and Big Corporations—i.e., corporatism—and corporatism is just a nice word for fascism.

In the area of health and medicine, the participants in that fascist collusion include the federal government (the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, etc.), which sets the agenda; the American Medical Association (AMA) and the other, more specialized doctors unions; the licensing boards at all governmental levels; Big Pharma, the industry behind all those highly lucrative pills that have made Americans the most drugged people in history; the United Nations, which seeks to destroy the independent alternative movement through CODEX;  the medical schools that train young recruits; and of course the corporate media, like The Atlantic.  And that’s just for starters.  I apologize to the other participants in the Fascist Medical Complex that I haven’t recognized.

See what I mean by David and Goliath?

Dr. Linus Pauling

Ironically, The Atlantic’s article zeroes in on Dr. Linus Pauling, the popularizer of vitamin C (and much more).  I say ironically because Dr. Pauling was the Lone Ranger battling the Fascist Medical Complex in the 1970s and 80s.  There was no alternative medicine industry back then; just a few valiant but lonely folk-medicine writers, and Prevention magazine.  The Fascist Medical Complex, while it has grown over the years like every aspect of fascism, actually controlled the agenda in that pre-Internet era more than it does today.  It was due to the force of Dr. Pauling’s independent research and ideas, not to mention his courage, that he ignited the vitamin revolution.

I first became familiar with Dr. Pauling—irony of ironies—when I was on the editorial staff of National Review and Bill Buckley went after Pauling for alleged pro-communist views.  (Pauling won two Nobel prizes in his lifetime, one of them in chemistry and the other the Nobel Peace Prize.  The communists and conservatives were united in considering “peace” to be a communist doctrine.)  I was barely out of my teens, I idolized Bill Buckley, and of course I took the National Review line.  Shame on me; President Obama will understand how impressionable we are in our “youths.”  Some day I will revisit that controversy.

My next encounter with Pauling was on the medical front.  I was the editorial partner in a health newsletter start-up called Modern Health Report.  The publisher partner was Dan Rosenthal, whom I had met when we both worked (with other distinguished alumni like Lew Rockwell) at Neil McCaffrey’s original Arlington House and Conservative Book Club.

I was a medical virgin, having never even seen a doctor for any serious medical problem, and so my foray into health writing followed the prevalent allopathic (drugs and surgery) medical line.  My unexpected conversion to alternative medicine was a result of two things: my re-introduction to Dr. Pauling and the now-forgotten DNEA controversy.  (But that’s another story for another day.)

I interviewed Pauling regarding his first general-audience blockbuster, Vitamin C and the Common Cold.  I became so fascinated that the interview finally extended into three issues of my monthly newsletter.  For his part, he was utterly generous with the time he extended to an unknown writer with a start-up newsletter.  His only requirement was that he be given prior approval regarding my presentation of his health views; he wanted no misinterpretation.  I had no problem with that.  I was further impressed when he came back with no substantial changes in my writing, but some prescient (and embarrassing) grammatical corrections.  Any editor can appreciate the awkwardness of being corrected in your area of supposed expertise by a famous scientist, but this only increased my appreciation for Dr. Pauling.  If he had not become one of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century, he would have made a great copyeditor.

Reflections on the Health Field

This is supposed to be an article, not a book, so let me jump to some conclusions as an amateur in the field of health.

After a decade of starting and editing alternative health newsletters, I became somewhat jaded.  Alternative practitioners start at a financial disadvantage compared to those who follow the Establishment line, so understandably they look for supplemental income, which usually comes from selling alternative pills or products.  Everybody wants to sell you something.  Most of the time this is legitimate, but there is always the temptation—after coming to an agreement with a vitamin company, say—to hold back any criticism of their products you don’t like.

Even when alternative practitioners give in to this temptation, I point out that at least they are just wasting some of your money on unnecessary or subpar products and services.  They are not killing hundreds of thousands of patients each year, as allopathic practitioners and treatments do.

Hippocrates, the founder of medicine, famously said:  “First, do no harm.”  I would add, “Do not be sold anything.  Do your own research and decide on the right treatment.”

Besides, I have made the transition, in large part, from allopathic medicine to alternative health to more of a mind-body outlook.  When I look at a friend or acquaintance with a pessimistic personal outlook on life, no zest for life, I usually also see a person who then succumbs to all sorts of medical problems. This is not a scientific conclusion, but a personal and anecdotal observation, though I have attended some illuminating seminars on this subject by brilliant practitioners, including a top researcher for the National Institutes of Health (I know, I dissed them earlier) and a prominent surgeon at Yale Medical School, who told me:  “Every surgeon usually has a good idea of how successful the operation will be, based on the patient’s attitude beforehand.  The surgeon doesn’t understand why that correlation exists, but he knows it does exist.”

The good part of mind-body therapy is that it minimizes selling products.  The bad part is that it’s so difficult to quantify scientifically.  It is easy to dismiss as a blame game:  “If you get sick, it’s your fault”—which is not true, and is not believed by mind-body practitioners.  I have not become a Christian Scientist by any means, but my lifelong anecdotal observations are too pervasive to dismiss.

So, What’s a Person to Do?

Here is where I presently stand, always open to change based on new evidence or experiences.

First, I attempt to remain as actively engaged in life as possible, every step of the way.  I may be a political doomsayer based on the evidence, but I try not to let that discourage me from leading a personal life full of challenges and excitement and anticipation.

Second, in addition to an active life, I try to make wise food and environmental choices.  Those usually are not the ones hawked by the Fascist Medical Complex, but that, too, is another story for another day.

Third, with any health problem, I first seek the least invasive and most “natural” solutions.

And fourth, when those don’t work, I do not hesitate to utilize allopathic solutions, even surgery (but not chemotherapy) when absolutely necessary.

For example, when I was diagnosed with serious prostate cancer several years ago, I did not hesitate to use allopathic solutions because of my family’s pervasive history of prostate cancer, which killed my otherwise healthy father, among other things.  But I went to the best facility for prostate cancer in the world—Johns Hopkins—and few people realize how easy it is to get the best, rather than just the closest and most convenient.  Even there, I researched the doctors and chose the one I wanted because he did not seem to be wedded to one particular kind of treatment, like operations.  The result was radiation with no chemo or surgery, and the results have been excellent so far.

Fifth, and finally for now, I believe in preventive nutrition, and, in our toxic environment (another result of the Fascist Medical Complex at work), I believe in the wise and selective use of vitamins and supplements.  As always, do not be sold vitamins and supplements, but do you own research and experiment.

For me, that brings me back to Linus Pauling and vitamin C.  The great thing about vitamin C is that there are no negative side effects and you cannot overdose.  When you have reached the limit of what your unique body needs to utilize, you will start getting diarrhea.  Cut back a little and stay at that level.  For me, that’s 10,000 mg a day.  Most of my friends laugh and consider that a colossal overdose and waste of money, but then I don’t get colds or the flu and who knows what else—and they do.

Besides vitamin C—the closest thing to a “miracle pill” that I know of—learn what else your unique body really needs.  From early childhood on, I’ve always been plagued by fever blisters on my lips.  From my research in alternative medicine, I learned that this is due to a deficiency of L-Lysine in the body.  I started taking 1,000 mg of L-Lysine a day.  No more fever blisters.  And recently I took a very comprehensive series of blood tests at the authorization of an alternative M.D., and it showed I was on the borderline of magnesium deficiency, so I now take 200 mg of magnesium daily.  I have not been “sold” these three supplements by advertising.  I take them on the basis of experience, results, and scientific testing.

I’m sure almost every reader of an alternative inclination has a couple of “must take” supplements to add to my three.  But be aware that any supplement can be made to look like a necessity.  I have a friend who goes nowhere without his briefcase.  It is filled not with office papers but with dozens of supplements, probably 50 or more, that he takes on precise schedules.  I don’t want to live like that.  I’m going to die someday no matter how many pills I take.

Well, time to stop preaching and return to the business of planning the second half of my life.

 One thing’s for certain, kids.  This is not your grandfather’s “Lone Ranger” radio show (the medium that got me hooked on him), and it’s not your father’s television show.  This is a wild and wacky and fun pastiche of the myths and lore of the Old West, but not as cerebral as History by Mel Brooks.  Think History by Captain Jack Sparrow, uh, Johnny Depp, with the budding American Empire and corrupt railroad barons replacing the British Empire and the East India Company as the embodiment of evil.

 Anal critics, especially from Establishment outlets like the Washington Post and New York Times, hate it.  (Another reason to see it, not that you need one.)  They’ll tell you the plot is confusing and impossible to follow.  Nah—I had no trouble figuring out the story line, and if I can, any other idiot can.  They’ll tell you it is Bad History.  As if the history you got from your government-school textbooks can be believed.

 But see this romp on as big a screen as you can find near you.  I saw it on an IMAX-sized movie screen.  It can’t get better than that.

 John Reid (played by Armie Hammer), who becomes the Lone Ranger, did not start out as an anarchist.  He’s returning to his West Texas home town after picking up an Ivy League law degree.  On the train west, some pixilated Presbyterians try to get him to join their camp meeting, but he brandishes a black book on his lap and responds, “This is my Bible”—John Locke’s Two Treatises on Government.  He does not carry a gun because he looks forward to the triumph of the Rule of Law.

 In other words, he’s sort of a conservative, though of the non-interventionist Old Right variety rather than the twentieth-century neocon and imperialist (but I repeat myself) variety.

 Without going into all the details (see the movie), Reid is one stubborn (read: dimwitted) idealist.  Tonto is the Comanche sidekick who tries to educate him about the realities of power around him, namely that the railroad baron and the U.S. Army and the hypocritical Christians in town are in cahoots.  The baron is in it for money, the Army because—well, what use are guns if you don’t use them, preferably on terrorists (savages).  And the Christian Rightists’ unholy bible tells them that the only good Muslim, uh, Indian, is a dead one.

 Finally the light goes on in John Reid’s head.  About the only honest person he’s known is his older brother, head of the local Texas Ranger contingent, and he was killed because he was trying to stop a war of extermination against the Comanches.  How can there be rule of law when the federal government on the frontier (the U.S. Army) and big business (the crony capitalist railroad baron) are joined together at the hip, and they have the support of the public by appealing to their baser instincts?  The only way to fight them, he tells Tonto, is to fight them as outlaws outside the system.  He puts on a gun belt and his mask, the mask (as in “V for Vendetta”) of an outlaw for justice.  Cue in “The William Tell Overture” on the soundtrack.  The fun is just beginning.

 In a final scene, the townspeople now want him, the surviving Texas Ranger in the area, to take off his mask and stay to protect them, but he turns them down.  He’s had his epiphany.  He says goodbye to the woman he loves, and he doesn’t have to explain—she understands that a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.  The masked Lone Ranger and Tonto ride out of town into the sunset, and the rest is history.  (May there be many sequels!)

David Franke [send him mail] was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s. He is the author of a dozen books, including Safe Places, The Torture Doctor, and America’s Right Turn.

Copyright © 2013 David Franke

Television’s Adrian Monk had it right. You scaredy cat Americans have a lot to be afraid of, so start making up your list of phobias. Monk had his list, and it was long – 312 fears in all.

Just don’t include terrorism among them. I don’t recall Monk ever mentioning a fear of terrorism. Fear of milk, fear of ladybugs, fear of harmonicas, fear of food touching on his plate, yes. But don’t worry – you can be more rational than Monk in compiling your list. I’m going to give you a list of 18 types of fatal accidents and killings, and 41 health problems and diseases that are more of a real threat to you than terrorism. My sources are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its National Vital Statistics Reports. You can’t get more Establishment-vetted than that.

Oh, I think you should be concerned about terrorism – just not obsessive-compulsive about it. And most Americans do seem to be obsessed about it. That is no accident. Since 9-11, the Bush and Obama administrations have done everything they can to make Americans so scared of terrorism that they are willing to give up their freedoms and their Constitution for supposed security at the hands of government bureaucrats. (And, thanks to Edward Snowden’s revelations, we know how much they can do to us law-abiding citizens, and thanks to the Boston Marathon bombings, what they cannot do despite those powers – namely, prevent terrorism.)

First, how many Americans have died because of terrorism?

Americans’ attitudes about terrorism can be accurately separated as pre-9-11 and post-9-11. That is understandable. The horror of 9-11 is forever ingrained in our memories, with 2,997 Americans dying at the World Trade Center, in a Pennsylvania field, and at the Pentagon.

To get perspective, I went to Wikipedia’s “List of Terrorist Incidents in the U.S.,” now appearing as “Terrorism in the United States.” It may not be completely accurate, but it’s the most exhaustive listing I can find, and a few omissions will not alter my overall thrust.

I considered only incidents since the beginning of the 21st century, because of the centrality of 9-11. I found 87 incidents or planned incidents. Motivations included jihadism, white supremacist and anti-Jewish ideologies, animal rights and anti-abortion extremism, and unknown motivations.

Of these, 15 incidents resulted in 3,046 American deaths inside the U.S. – 2,997 (98%) on 9-11 and 49 (2%) in the other 14 incidents. Once again, the emotional impact of 9-11 is obvious. But all 87 incidents or planned incidents are important because “terrorism” is always front-page news and the feds use all of them to instill fear in the populace, no matter how many are FBI entrapments or the daydreams of delirious (and hapless) wannabe saviors for a cause.

When we factor out 9-11, there have been 49 deaths from terrorism since then, or an average of 4 per year. We will see how that compares with deaths from injuries and deaths from health problems and diseases. It will be obvious how minor a threat terrorism has been (apart from 9-11).

The government’s neat Catch 22

The initial response of Big Brother (aka Uncle Sam) is always: “But you don’t know how many attacks we have prevented with our Surveillance State. Our surveillance powers are the reason there have been so few deaths from terrorism since 9-11.”

Big Bro’ continues: “But of course we cannot tell you how many attacks we have prevented, because that would involve giving away secrets to future terrorists. So, just shut up and accept the surveillance state as the price you pay for security.”

That’s Big Brother’s Catch 22, meant to force citizens into silence and obedience. We are not supposed to question whether American policies abroad are contributing to the rise of terrorism in the first place. And we are not supposed to distinguish between constitutionally limited police powers and today’s total surveillance state, despite the fact that those surveillance powers have been in place since 2007 and utterly failed to stop two alleged terrorists in Boston in 2013. Just shut up and obey without questioning anything the government does.

If we Americans fall in line, we do not deserve any freedom.

Appendix I:

18 types of injuries that kill more Americans than terrorism

We have seen that, on average since 9-11, 4 Americans die from terrorist acts per year. Compare that to these threats to your life. The government’s latest statistics are for 2010, so here are how many Americans died of these threats in 2010. I have put all suicides and homicides in their own categories, so the other figures are for “unintentional” deaths.

• 38,364 suicides
• 16,259 homicides
• 105 deaths from cuts and piercings
• 3,782 drownings
• 26,009 deaths from falls
• 2,845 deaths from hot objects or hot substances
• 2,782 deaths from fires or flames
• 606 deaths from firearms
• 590 deaths from machinery accidents
• 10,246 deaths as an occupant of a motor vehicle in an accident
• 4,177 deaths as a motorcyclist in an accident
• 551 deaths as a bicyclist in an accident
• 4,383 deaths as a pedestrian in an accident
• 10 deaths from overexertion
• 33,041 from poisoning
• 788 deaths from being struck by or against an object
• 6,165 deaths from suffocation

Incidentally, there is also a cryptic category called “legal intervention,” with 344 deaths. Is that Big Brother’s discrete way of saying “being killed by a cop”? If so, that sounds suspiciously low to me but you are still 86 times more likely to be killed by a cop than by a designated “terrorist.”

Appendix II:

41 types of health problems and diseases that kill more Americans than terrorism

Again, death figures are for 2010, the last year for which we have statistics. Compare these with 4 annual deaths, on average, from terrorist incidents since 9-11.

• 780,213 heart and cardiovascular problems (all types)
• 574,743 cancers (all types)
• 28 salmonella infections
• 10,276 certain other intestinal infections
• 569 tuberculosis
• 26 whooping cough
• 79 meningococcal infections
• 34,812 septicemia
• 28 syphilis
• 9 arthropod-borne viral encephalitis
• 7,564 viral hepatitis
• 8,369 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
• 10 malaria
• 5,805 other and unspecified infectious and parasitic diseases
• 4,852 anemias
• 60,071 diabetes mellitus
• 2,948 malnutrition and nutritional deficiencies
• 608 meningitis
• 22,032 Parkinson’s disease
• 83,494 Alzheimer’s disease
• 4,241 other disorders of circulatory system
• 500 influenza
• 49,597 pneumonia
• 138,080 chronic lower respiratory diseases, including bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma
• 213 other acute lower respiratory infections
• 845 pneumoconioses and chemical effects
• 17,011 pneumonitis due to solids and liquids
• 31,187 other diseases of respiratory system
• 2,977 peptic ulcer
• 415 diseases of appendix
• 1,832 hernia
• 31,903 chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
• 3,332 cholelithiasis and other gallbladder disorders
• 50,476 nephritis, nephritic syndrome, and nephrosis
• 489 hyperplasia of prostate
• 137 inflammatory diseases of female pelvic organs
• 825 pregnancy, childbirth, and the puerperium
• 12,128 certain conditions originating in the perinatal period
• 9,673 congenital malformations, deformations, and chromosomal abnormalities
• 38,360 symptoms, signs, and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified
• 269,844 all other diseases (residual)

The Best of David Franke

There’s a lot of squirming going on among conservative “neocons.” (I take a broad view and count as a neocon everyone who supports the American Empire and the Patriot Act, and who supported the Iraq War from the beginning – in other words, almost all “conservatives” today.)

They are caught between a rock and a hard place:

(1) If they support Edward Snowden, they are supporting someone who has exposed the true nature of the surveillance state that they have built and supported from day 1. Also, how can they support Snowden and not Wikileaks and Bradley Manning? Oh, they can spin distinctions, but it’s awkward.

(2) On the other hand, if they do not support Snowden, it’s final proof that they don’t give a damn about Americans’ civil liberties, the Constitution, and limited government. In other words, they have junked the reasons for being a conservative in the first place. (Granted, we already knew their true colors, but this brings it out in the open once and for all.)

This is no problem for Karl Rove, to no surprise. At least give him credit for being an open fascist, and defending the government’s surveillance programs, which, after all, he (as Bush’s brain) helped to start. If there were any justice, he and Dick Cheney, along with Bush and Obama, would be expelled to Guantanamo, all sharing a cell together, with no air conditioning, and forced to sleep naked like Manning (“for their own protection, so they don’t commit suicide”).

What I am most concerned about is the lack of public outcry from Congress. Who besides Senators Rand Paul and Ron Wyden have you heard from? I fear that most Americans will continue to sleep-walk, more concerned about their reality shows; the press will become concerned for a while, then turn back to inane topics of greater public interest in the pursuit of “ratings”; and Congress will continue to stalemate, with Republicans blaming Democrats and Democrats blaming Republicans for “excesses,” not the core powers government has assumed.

The result: There will be no serious repeal of the Patriot Act and the government’s powers. And if that happens, we are indeed Germany post-1933 (when the Enabling Act gave Hitler the power to make laws without consulting the Reichstag).

The Best of David Franke

By now, most people would answer “of course it was terrorism.” We now know about the older brother’s trip to Chechnya and his seeming conversion to jihad afterwards, and we have the younger brother’s mute “confession,” although most of the important questions remain unanswered. But the establishment media were quick to label the bombings terrorism from the moment the two brothers’ photos were posted on TV, without any of this background known. Why the rush?

Glenn Greenwald in The Guardian asks an important question: When can an act of mass violence be deemed “terrorism”? Our establishment media quickly defined the Boston bombings, in the public’s eye, as terrorism, whereas Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson, and Columbine were not so defined. Repulsive acts of murder, of course, but not terrorism.

President Obama at first refused to define the Boston bombings as “terrorism.” Good for him. At that point he didn’t know why the violence took place, although the establishment media obviously thought they knew, and didn’t need any facts to back up their claim.

Then President Obama changed course and referred to “acts of terrorism.” What is going on here? Did he get some information in a briefing from the intelligence community that caused him to now link the bombings to a terrorist plot?

Here we are standing firmly on the quicksand of conjecture, of course. But that is all we can do – try to figure out what is going on – because as American citizens we are not being told what is going on. And probably never will be. One of the joys of being a citizen in a world empire in its late decadent stages is that you cannot possibly know what really is going on. The best you can do is conject: try to connect the dots. The invisible government – the CIA and other intelligence agencies, the information gathered by the FBI and the rest of the Homeland Security snoops, the secret deliberations of the President and the Executive Branch, the private discussions and real motives of the Federal Reserve, the off-the-record deals between Wall Street and Washington – all that is none of our business as citizens, we are told. And that invisible government is what really runs our government. It is obvious that our elected “representatives” in Congress are not in charge – that’s laughable. That is just a fig leaf to make the gullible believe that we are a “democracy” and our participation as voters counts.

But I digress. Back to Glenn Greenwald. He thinks a key factor is that two Muslims were involved in the Boston bombings. No identified Muslims were involved in the Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson, and Columbine murders. We have been conditioned by government leaders and the establishment media to think of the “war on terrorism” as a “war on Muslim terrorism”

I think Greenwald has a point. As much as I am opposed to the government/establishment media line, the very first thought I had when I saw that side profile of “Suspect No. 2″ on TV was: “Look at that nose. He’s from the Middle East.” And you know what that means. (Full disclosure: I am a repeat offender stereotyper.)

But I think Greenwald’s point is only part of the answer. It tells us why the Boston bombings were so easy to sell to the public as terrorism. It does not explain why the Tsarnaev brothers committed these atrocities (what they hoped to gain from it); what happened during older brother Tamerlan’s return to Russia last year, and whether that is what changed his worldview; or why the FBI cleared him with the Russian intelligence services for that trip.

Here it is time to consider a second article of reasonable conjecture. DEBKAfile is a private intelligence newsletter, and the headline in its April 23 issue gives the plot away: “The Tsarnaev brothers were double agents who decoyed US into terror trap.”

DEBKAfile conjects that “the brothers were double agents, hired by US and Saudi intelligence to penetrate the Wahhabi jihadist networks which, helped by Saudi financial institutions, had spread across the restive Russian Caucasian [sic]. Instead, the two former Chechens betrayed their mission and went secretly over to the radical Islamist networks.”

That certainly would help to explain, in conjecture at least, some of the mysteries of this story. For example: Why the FBI had been involved with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, but apparently was taken by surprise when he engineered the bombings; why the Russians agreed to let him return to his family home for six months (it was in their interest to have more spies in the Chechen community); and the unplanned, mysterious meeting in the White House between President Obama and a Saudi representative. We can also note that there is evidence that the brothers’ uncle in Montgomery Village, Maryland, he of the front-lawn press conference, has been associated with CIA missions in the past. Perhaps this was a family affair – several members of the family had been recruited by the CIA – and the uncle was horrified at the brothers’ double-cross (and afraid for his own future, no doubt), thus explaining his nasty comments about them at the press conference.

Now for a third dose of reasonable conjecture: my own. Why is the quick labeling of the Boston bombings as “terrorism” important to all of us?

Answer: Because it justifies, in government law enforcement circles, a sweeping expansion of their powers over us lowly citizens. The word “terrorism” heightens the fear factor that they use to manipulate the public. It justifies (in their minds, at least) the lockdown of an entire metropolitan area in the manhunt – this had never been done before. It conditions us for future government lockdowns and use of martial law. And, perhaps most importantly, it gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want with anyone labeled a “terrorist” with no evidence to back up that claim. U.S. citizens still have some rights, at least in theory (Miranda rights, a lawyer, trial by jury, etc.), but anyone labeled a “terrorist” (“enemy combatant”) by the government does not. By the now-accepted precedent of actions by Presidents Bush and Obama – not by the Constitution – you forfeit all those rights when the government decides it wants to do with you as it wishes.

Granted, federal authorities have decided to try Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a U.S. citizen, not as an “enemy combatant,” and the official charges against him do not mention terrorism. No doubt they feel that the evidence against him is so conclusive that they have no fear of losing this court case. But the establishment media had already successfully established the bombings in the public mind as acts of terrorism, and in no way have the feds renounced their “right” to use the labels “enemy combatant” and “terrorist” in future cases. Public awareness of this case is so overwhelming, it is only good public relations to play it straight. The public knows virtually nothing about most people labeled “enemy combatants,” however, and in those cases the government can – and will – use whatever means it desires.

And that is why it is vitally important to you how the Boston bombings were labeled. You may be next.

Americans are being bombarded with an immense propaganda campaign that says we need tougher gun-control laws in order to reduce the number of gun murders. The evidence is just the opposite. The states with the toughest gun-control laws have 60% more gun murders than the states with the least restrictive gun laws.

And that evidence, ironically, comes from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence – one of the nation’s leading advocates of tougher gun laws.

I consulted Wikipedia to find how states rank in terms of murders per 100,000 population. I found that information in a chart that also provided gun murders per 100,000 population, plus Brady Campaign scores for each state’s gun laws. A score of 100 would be the most restrictive gun law possible, and a score of 0 would be the least restrictive.

Intrigued, I decided to see how the states with the toughest gun laws compared to the states with the least restrictive gun laws. Following the “logic” of gun-control advocates, including the Brady Campaign itself, tougher gun laws should result in fewer gun deaths. Just the opposite was the case.

I compared the eight states with the toughest gun laws with the eight states with the least restrictive gun laws. The only reason I chose eight instead of the more popular 10 is because a number of states were tied for ninth and tenth places, complicating the math. But it was easy to compare the eight “toughest” with the eight “least restrictive,” and that would work just as well to compare the results in the two camps.

Bottom line:

Average of 4.4 gun murders per 100,000 in the eight states with the most restrictive gun laws, as measured by the Brady Campaign.

Average of 2.8 gun murders per 100,000 in the eight states with the least restrictive gun laws, as measured by the Brady Campaign.

States with the most restrictive gun laws have 60% more gun murders per 100,000 than the states with the least restrictive gun laws.

About the District of Columbia

As is common practice, I list the District of Columbia as a state for the purpose of these comparisons. After all, it is a separate unit of government like the states, and it has more population than Vermont or Wyoming.

The Brady Campaign does not give a “score” for the District of Columbia, instead giving it the designation “N/A,” denoting “not available.” They might say this is because it is a federal district, not a state. A conspiracy theorist might rather suggest that they want to keep it in as low a profile as possible, given that it’s the sorest sore thumb in their theory that tougher gun laws equal fewer gun deaths.

Wikipedia has no problem listing it in “Gun laws in the United States by state.” And a comparison with the 50 states leaves little doubt that it has one of the most restrictive set of gun laws, if not the most restrictive gun law, to be found.

Bear in mind that in D.C. you need a permit to purchase both long guns and handguns (the firearms registration process also serves as a permitting process); all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department, with a background check, training, and testing of the gun owner required; ”assault weapons,” .50 BMG rifles, and magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition are prohibited; concealed carry is prohibited; open carry is prohibited; automatic firearms are prohibited; and possession of unregistered firearms are prohibited for both residents and non-residents (the “peaceable journey” provision).

Wikipedia also notes that D.C. law “also prohibited the possession of handguns, even in private citizens’ own homes, unless they were registered before 1976. However, the handgun ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment acknowledges and guarantees the right of the individual to possess and carry firearms, and therefore D.C.’s ban on handguns was unconstitutional.

“Following the Heller decision, the Washington D.C. City Council enacted a set of rules regulating the possession of handguns in citizens’ homes. In addition to each handgun being registered with the police, the rules require that D.C. residents undergo a background check and submit fingerprints. The firearms registry photographs the applicant. Residents must take an online gun safety course, and pass a written test on the District’s gun laws. Residents must also declare where it will be kept.”

In other words, D.C. government did everything it could to nullify – in effect – the Supreme Court decision, treating would-be gun owners more like criminals.

Compare all these gun restrictions in the District of Columbia with those of California, which gets a score of 80 (out of 100) from the Brady Campaign, and it is disingenuous, to say the least, for the Brady Campaign not to give a score higher than 80 to the District of Columbia.

Recently by David Franke: LRC Faux Poll for the Weekend

Americans are being bombarded with an immense propaganda campaign that says we need tougher gun-control laws in order to reduce the number of gun murders. The evidence is just the opposite. The states with the toughest gun-control laws have 60% more gun murders than the states with the least restrictive gun laws.

And that evidence, ironically, comes from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence — one of the nation's leading advocates of tougher gun laws.

I consulted Wikipedia to find how states rank in terms of murders per 100,000 population. I found that information in a chart that also provided gun murders per 100,000 population, plus Brady Campaign scores for each state's gun laws. A score of 100 would be the most restrictive gun law possible, and a score of 0 would be the least restrictive.

Intrigued, I decided to see how the states with the toughest gun laws compared to the states with the least restrictive gun laws. Following the "logic" of gun-control advocates, including the Brady Campaign itself, tougher gun laws should result in fewer gun deaths. Just the opposite was the case.

I compared the eight states with the toughest gun laws with the eight states with the least restrictive gun laws. The only reason I chose eight instead of the more popular 10 is because a number of states were tied for ninth and tenth places, complicating the math. But it was easy to compare the eight "toughest" with the eight "least restrictive," and that would work just as well to compare the results in the two camps.

States With the Most Restrictive Gun Laws Top 8 Brady Campaign score Gun murders per 100,000 population District of Columbia “N/A” (See end of article) 16.5 California 80 3.4 New Jersey 72 2.8 Massachusetts 65 1.8 New York 62 2.7 Connecticut 58 2.7 Hawaii 50 0.5 Maryland 45 5.1 ~ ~ 35.5 total Average of 4.4 gun murders per 100,000 in each state States With the Least Restrictive Gun Laws Top 8 Brady Campaign score Gun murders per 100,000 population Alaska 0 2.7 Arizona 0 3.6 Utah 0 0.8 Idaho 2 0.8 Kentucky 2 2.7 Louisiana 2 7.7 Montana 2 1.2 Oklahoma 2 3.0 ~ ~ 22.5 total Average of 2.8 gun murders per 100,000 in each state

Bottom line:

Average of 4.4 gun murders per 100,000 in the eight states with the most restrictive gun laws, as measured by the Brady Campaign.

Average of 2.8 gun murders per 100,000 in the eight states with the least restrictive gun laws, as measured by the Brady Campaign.

States with the most restrictive gun laws have 60% more gun murders per 100,000 than the states with the least restrictive gun laws.

About the District of Columbia

As is common practice, I list the District of Columbia as a state for the purpose of these comparisons. After all, it is a separate unit of government like the states, and it has more population than Vermont or Wyoming.

The Brady Campaign does not give a "score" for the District of Columbia, instead giving it the designation "N/A," denoting "not available." They might say this is because it is a federal district, not a state. A conspiracy theorist might rather suggest that they want to keep it in as low a profile as possible, given that it's the sorest sore thumb in their theory that tougher gun laws equal fewer gun deaths.

Wikipedia has no problem listing it in "Gun laws in the United States by state." And a comparison with the 50 states leaves little doubt that it has one of the most restrictive set of gun laws, if not the most restrictive gun law, to be found.

Bear in mind that in D.C. you need a permit to purchase both long guns and handguns (the firearms registration process also serves as a permitting process); all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department, with a background check, training, and testing of the gun owner required; "assault weapons," .50 BMG rifles, and magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition are prohibited; concealed carry is prohibited; open carry is prohibited; automatic firearms are prohibited; and possession of unregistered firearms are prohibited for both residents and non-residents (the "peaceable journey" provision).

Wikipedia also notes that D.C. law "also prohibited the possession of handguns, even in private citizens’ own homes, unless they were registered before 1976. However, the handgun ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment acknowledges and guarantees the right of the individual to possess and carry firearms, and therefore D.C.’s ban on handguns was unconstitutional.

"Following the Heller decision, the Washington D.C. City Council enacted a set of rules regulating the possession of handguns in citizens’ homes. In addition to each handgun being registered with the police, the rules require that D.C. residents undergo a background check and submit fingerprints. The firearms registry photographs the applicant. Residents must take an online gun safety course, and pass a written test on the District’s gun laws. Residents must also declare where it will be kept."

In other words, D.C. government did everything it could to nullify — in effect — the Supreme Court decision, treating would-be gun owners more like criminals.

Compare all these gun restrictions in the District of Columbia with those of California, which gets a score of 80 (out of 100) from the Brady Campaign, and it is disingenuous, to say the least, for the Brady Campaign not to give a score higher than 80 to the District of Columbia.

David Franke [send him mail] was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s. He is the author of a dozen books, including Safe Places, The Torture Doctor, and America’s Right Turn.

The Best of David Franke

The third and final presidential debate of 2012 will take place Monday, October 22. It will be on foreign policy. How many wars do you think Mitt Romney will suggest we pursue during the course of the evening?

• One: Afghanistan
• Two: Afghanistan and Iran
• Three: Afghanistan, Iran, Syria
• Four: Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, China
• Five: Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, China, Russia
• Six: Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, China, Russia, (back to) Libya
• Seven: Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, China, Russia, (back to) Libya, (back to) Iraq
• Eight: Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, China, Russia, (back to) Libya, (back to) Iraq, Mali
• Nine: Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, China, Russia, (back to) Libya, (back to) Iraq, Mali, Venezuela
• Moderator: Your time is up, Gov. Romney! No more – the debate is over! We're shutting off the lights! Good night, Gov. Romney….

David Franke [send him mail] was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s. He is the author of a dozen books, including Safe Places, The Torture Doctor, and America’s Right Turn.

The Best of David Franke

Recently by David Franke: The Good Old Days: LiberalVersion

Living in a swing state like Virginia in 2012 guarantees you will be stalked with obscene phone calls ("Mitt really cares for you, David, he wants to see you this Wednesday in Leesburg," etc.) from the Republican National Committee and every other assorted elephant front. I have never experienced anything like this. Literally, at least 10 calls a day….

What gets me — why am I only getting calls from the Republicans? Don't the Democrats care about me? I mean, I get emails every day from Barry, Michele, Joe, the entire membership of MoveOn, and that hot Debbie chick from Miami, but nothing says "I love you" like a telephone call. Okay, as they reminded me yesterday, "Your contributions so far this year are $0" and maybe that has pissed them off. Debbie, call. There are ways you can get me to vote for O. Call and start talking dirty to me, I know you're good at that. I watch you on MSNBC.

And why do the Republicans think I'm fair game? I haven't voted Republican in November since 1984. That was in the last century! Since then I've voted for the Democratic presidential candidate twice, for the Libertarian three times, and for Ralph Nader once. Don't they ever give up? What's this nonsense about elephants having such good memory?

Oops. Could it be that I'm on Republican lists because I was a Republican delegate in my city during this year's primary? Could the Republicans be that good at record keeping, when they were so terrible at keeping the books during the eight years of Dubya? Guys, that indiscretion during the primary was for Ron Paul, not for any run-of-the-mill corrupt Republican politician like Mitt. And the day after Ron Paul's campaign folded, I left the Republican Party again and took a hot shower for two hours. Have mercy — isn't there some way you can stop the stalking and cross me off your sucker lists?

It's either that or I move 20 miles west to West Virginia.

David Franke [send him mail] was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s. He is the author of a dozen books, including Safe Places, The Torture Doctor, and America’s Right Turn.

The Best of David Franke

Conservatives have their version of the good old days: the years graced by the sainted Ronald Reagan. But liberals are no less nostalgic. They long for the good old days when the American people were public-spirited and their politicians were ever ready to compromise. You know, the days before Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Party spoiled paradise.

A typical example of such liberal hogwash is this article, "What happened to America's community spirit?" by BBC News correspondent Justin Webb. It's an especially delicious piece of nostalgic irony since it comes from the land of soccer hooliganism, race riots, and tabloid hackers.

I have no knowledge of Justin Webb's personal political beliefs, but that doesn't matter much since nostalgia syndrome affects individuals of all known ideologies. And I'm not picking on him specifically, since in 2006 he had the guts to accuse his own BBC of anti-Americanism and treating the U.S. with "scorn and derision." (Maybe Webb liked George W. Bush's cowboy imperialism — I do not know — in which case I would have been on the side of the "anti-American" BBC.) The point is that the poppycock Webb presents in this September 21 article is typical of what we're hearing from every live liberal in the land, from Republican former Sen. Alan Simpson to the denizens of MSNBC.

Webb starts by recounting an auto trip in Florida where he hears, on the car radio, a congressional candidate accusing his opponent of benefitting personally from the bank bailout. "Basically he's accusing his opponent of being a thief."

Well, maybe this candidate's opponent IS a thief. And if he is a thief, he needs to be outed. The problem is how to get the facts, not to bemoan the divisiveness. But to Webb this is "bile," whether or not it is true, and "it has real consequences. It leads, in Congress, to deadlock. A nation beset with urgent issues to confront — of which the size of the national debt is probably the most serious — cannot find the cross-party consensus necessary to act."

Funny, I thought our national debt was the result of a cross-party consensus to spend money we don't have.

Webb goes on to interview people he deems authorities "from across the political spectrum" on what went wrong. Of course all of those authorities agree with Webb's general thesis and assumptions, they just have different explanations.

The first one blames “the sheer number of sources of information on offer to the average American in the digital age….A maelstrom of fact and opinion and sheer nonsense. All mixed up."

Oh, boo hoo. The liberals want to go back to the days where we got our news — and our liberal "consensus" — from three establishment TV networks. I agree there’s a problem today with people choosing to hear only their viewpoint, but that’s less of a problem than being offered only one viewpoint. And actually, most libertarians and conservatives hear plenty of liberal viewpoints every day — from their politicians, the networks (still with us), and most cable channels; they just choose to get refuge among their own media, where they can get “the rest of the story,” as Paul Harvey used to put it.

We are next treated to groaning about the rise of “Americans [who] don’t see us as having basic obligations to our fellow citizens,” versus those who are “public-spirited.”

This is the core of the liberal crap. It’s using semantics to load the deck in your favor before the argument begins. If you don’t agree with my liberal agenda, you are mean-spirited, not public-spirited. We need more “community spirit.”

What is public-spirited about forcing your neighbor to pay for YOUR political and social agenda? What is public-spirited about loading our debt on our children and grandchildren? Hey, while you’re at it, what is public-spirited about calling Tea Partiers “racists” and worse, with no evidence to back it up, as liberals do at every opportunity?

If there is more devisiveness in American politics today than in the past (a debatable proposition in itself), it is because the government has become so gigantic, both dollar-wise and in terms of intruding on our lives. This BBC correspondent is complaining that Americans aren’t totally zombies yet, and are reacting against these intrusions. My complaint, on the other hand, is that far too many Americans ARE zombies. I agree with Thomas Jefferson that “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing.” It’s been far too long since our last rebellion.

Finally, I would warn Webb, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. The math behind our present contentiousness is that, as more and more of federal outlays are consumed by entitlements and interest on the public debt, less and less is available for the domestic programs that are the subject of most of our political discourse. This becomes even more the case when “defense” spending is treated as an entitlement (for the Military Industrial Complex) and is taken off the table, as most conservatives insist.

That relatively small slice of the pie allotted to domestic programs is only going to get smaller and smaller each year, at least proportionately, meaning that the competition for those dollars will become more and more fierce from all the supplicants for taxpayer bailouts. And there will be more and more resistance from the fleeced taxpayers. That, in turn, ensures that our political discourse will only get louder and meaner, and no amount of liberal nostalgia for the good old days will change that. Only drastically smaller government will restore civility.

David Franke [send him mail] was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s. He is the author of a dozen books, including Safe Places, The Torture Doctor, and America’s Right Turn.

The Best of David Franke

I urge you to see the epic movie The Hunger Games.” I also urge you to read this review of the movie first, before heading to the theater. I saw the movie on the first day of its release, without benefit of Raven Claybough’s excellent review in New American magazine, and was mystified by certain aspects that are clarified by Claybough.

I will assume you have not read The Hunger Games trilogy by Suzanne Collins. They apparently are best sellers among middle-school and high-school students – an encouraging sign of the times, in an era when positive signs are rare. Perhaps this is another aspect of the same youth phenomenon known as the Ron Paul Revolution. The kids seem to be ahead of their elders in their intellectual rebellion against the centralized and evil State. After seeing the movie, you may be inspired to order the books from Amazon, as I was.

Jennifer Lawrence has been getting rave reviews – justifiably so – for her depiction of Katniss, the main character in the book and film. I saw her previously in Winter’s Bone, for which she also received critical acclaim – even an Academy Award nomination for best actress. She turns 22 this summer but looks believably like a teenager in both movies. These books and these movies give us an interesting cultural phenomenon – a scrappy survivalist girl in dire circumstances who manages to retain her compassion and humanity throughout the tribulations she faces. Imagine that the historicalized heroines of the American Girl series have now attained their teenage years and face challenges that are the contemporary or future equivalent of life on the Western frontier or on a slave plantation.

Maybe I’m just not aware of them, but when will we have equally powerful heroes portrayed for young boys? I don’t mean boys fighting alien galaxies or video game warlords, but boys fighting for their family and their independence against the intrusions of the State. Let’s hope that comes soon. Meanwhile, Peeta, Katniss’s fellow Tribute from District 12, and a guy she has a crush on, is a good start.

David Franke [send him mail] was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s. He is the author of a dozen books, including Safe Places, The Torture Doctor, and America’s Right Turn.

The Best of David Franke

Society as we know it will break down and collapse in a five stage process outlined here. While it can be accelerated by certain events like war, a natural disaster, pandemic, terrorist attack, or even an impending asteroid impact, history has shown that economic collapse will essentially happen in this five stage process. To survive the collapse, it is important to read and interpret the signs and understand what assets are important to the current situation so you can be prepared for the worst thereby allowing you to survive intact and with as little damage as possible.

STAGE 1. The Decay Begins

Everything is good and the economy is thriving. A high standard of living has been achieved. This is the way things should be. Goods are cheap and readily available. Everything seems to be in abundance. Stores are filled with retail items ready to be purchased. Life in general is good. The nation’s working infrastructure is solidly intact and working well. However, the idea that everyone is entitled to have what others have earned now permeates society. Redistribution of Wealth Policies are implemented and quietly woven into the fabric of society. Unchecked and under the guise of fairness and equality, these policies slowly decrease productivity and increase dependency on government entitlement and welfare programs.

Primary Assets:

1. Career
2. Home Value
3. Savings
4. Investments – Stocks and bonds
5. Health Insurance
6. Lifestyle Image
7. Good Credit Rating for Debt Accumulation

STAGE 2. The Slippery Slope

The economy goes into a slow but steadily increasing decline. Unemployment is on the rise. Ever increasing numbers of people receive government assistance in one form or another. People are paid not to work. Government spending has increased dramatically. The price of gold, silver, and other precious metals rise to prices unheard of just a few years earlier. Inflation reaches the double digit levels.

Primary Assets:

1. Cash
2. Precious Metals, Gold and Silver coins
3. Job Stability
4. Elimination of debt
5. Health Insurance
6. Home Equity
7. Automobile with good MPG
8. Acquiring secluded land more than 40 miles from densely populated areas

STAGE 3. It is Going to Get Worse

The total collapse of the economy begins after a significant and prolonged decline. The government implements price controls. Shortages on essential goods become widespread. Foreclosed houses sit vacant and deteriorating by the tens of thousands. Middle class neighborhoods begin to look like slums. The government begins to print currency to pay its bills and support the tens of millions on public assistance. Inflation increases even more and unemployment exceeds 25%. Banks and businesses fail at ever increasing rates. Nobody seems to have any money. Many are now homeless. Labor unions instigate strikes, civil unrest, and large scale riots. Government services are interrupted and unreliable. Local and national infrastructure is in decay. Violent gangs begin to appear and assert themselves. The government begins confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens. Violence is everywhere. Cities and urban areas become very dangerous places to live.

At this stage, the country seems pretty much beyond the point of no return. However, things can still be reversed even at this stage if the right person at the top really believes in the basic fundamental concepts of Freedom, Independence, Liberty, and Individual Rights and is not afraid to do what is necessary to reverse the current trend. He will be vilified and hated because of his attitude toward personal responsibility, cutting entitlements, and ending welfare programs. Of course, if the right person were in power and did what needed to be done, none of this would have happened in the first place.

Primary Assets:

• Gold and Silver coins
• Cash
• Job
• Automobile
• Home
• Short term food supplies
• Short term fuel stores
• Firearms and ammo
• Plans to relocate to a secluded rural hideaway
• Small livestock – chicken, rabbit, fish…
• A close network of like minded people
• Survival knowledge and skills

STAGE 4. The Grab for Power

The collapse can transition to this stage at any time after Stage 3. Most of the middle class have lost everything. What used to be well manicured middle class neighborhoods are filled with the carcasses of empty houses damaged and destroyed by vandals. The nation’s infrastructure has been seriously neglected and is in need of a major overhaul. The power grid becomes unreliable. Rolling blackouts are a daily occurrence. You can no longer buy or sell gold or own foreign currency. Inflation is out of control. Now the economy collapses. There is a rush for everything and the shelves go empty in a matter of hours. Society falls into chaos. The control of urban areas shifts when violent gangs takeover control of the streets and urban neighborhoods. The government issues restrictive measures in an attempt to control the economy. Everything is in short supply and heavily rationed. Food and gasoline is very expensive and there are very long lines to get them when they are available. Affordable quality health care is non-existent and your job is a distant memory. You will do without what you are unable to provide for yourself. You will discover what it is to live in a third world country.

Primary Assets:

1. Relocation to the rural hideaway
2. Firearms and ammo
3. Long term food supplies (1 year minimum)
4. Adequate fuel stores
5. Security plan to protect the group and assets
6. Trained dog for security
7. A working knowledge of survival gardening
8. Survival knowledge and skills

Once all of the above has come to pass, the realization of the current circumstances at this moment must be all too obvious. It is too late to prepare at this point. What you did not acquire earlier, you are not going to possess now. Anything of value necessary for your survival has already been claimed. The situation gets worse… much worse.

Stage 5 is next… and it is not pretty.

STAGE 5. Freedom, Liberty, and Independence is Lost

The government implements martial law. Fighting between civilians and government forces break out nationwide. Maintaining more than a 30 day supply of food is considered hoarding food and is illegal. Severe poverty and starvation become a common sight. The government offers marginally acceptable food, water and shelter in exchange for your Freedom, Liberty, and Independence. Democracy ends and a Socialist form of government takes over under the guise of fixing society’s problems with the false promise that peace and prosperity will return better than it was just a few years ago. A Totalitarian regime assumes power and the individual freedoms and liberties once enjoyed by the people are completely eliminated.

Primary Assets:

1. Rural Hideaway
2. Security plan to protect the group and assets
3. Living below the radar in a community of like minded people
4. Firearms and the ability to use them
5. Guard dog for security
6. Survival knowledge and skills
7. A working and producing garden capable of feeding 150% of the group
8. A stable supply of clean water
9. Vegetable seeds for long term food production and barter
10. The will to live and survive in a harsh political climate

As you can see, priorities change as the world changes. Your most prized assets of today – your good credit, luxury automobile, and career are no longer important after the economy collapses.

FAILURE TO PREPARE TODAY WILL INCREASE THE MAGNITUDE OF YOUR SUFFERING TOMORROW.

It is better to prepare 10 years too early than 10 minutes too late. Many who lack vision will say that it will never happen and for those who decide to live unprepared should consider the following statement.

LACK OF PLANNING ON YOUR PART DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN EMERGENCY ON MY PART.

This article has been contributed by David Meyer. You can read more of his editorials at the Target of Opportunity web site.

Reprinted from TargetOfOpportunity.com.

The Best of Mac Slavo

As the U.S.S. Titanic [American Empire] steams full speed ahead for New York harbor [the November 6, 2012 elections], we find no need to provide a deck chair for Captain Barack Hussein Obama. He has no desire to socialize with deck-chair scum.

Captain Obama is having too much fun socializing with his most prominent first class passengers [Wall Street], while criticizing his opponents for ignoring the second-class passengers and scuttling the third-class passengers he himself is about to imprison below deck. The captain realizes his first-class cigar partners are really in charge, so why not just enjoy the perks. Missus Michelle is having too much fun lording it over the ladies, so he can enjoy his cigars safe from her scrutiny.

On board deck, therefore, are chairs for eight would-be replacements for Captain Obama. Note: The U.S.S. Titanic is a "democratic" (lower-case "d") ship, where the passengers vote for their choice of captain. This organization plan has never been proven to work well, although, as Winston Churchill noted, none of the other plans seem to work any better.

The question remains, then, how to arrange the deck chairs of the "opposition" to Captain Obama. While the top first class passengers will still remain in control, this is a matter of endless fascination to the media passengers who convinced their bosses that this is a story worth covering (and paying for, with their expensive cabins).

We suggest a three-part organization of those deck chairs.

1. The establishment candidates
2. The "anti-establishment" candidates (aka conservative clowns)
3. The prophet (we are required by law to provide him with a chair, but our solution will be to just ignore him and pretend he doesn't exist)

The establishment candidates

Front chair occupied by Mitt Romney. Back chair (perilously near the ocean edge of the deck) occupied by Jon Huntsman.

The "anti-establishment" conservative clowns

These seats are occupied by Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and – oh, yes – Rick Santorum. These seats rotate according to the media's boredom factor. When they get tired of one clown, switch the chairs and the next "flavor of the month" gets the front chair. Except that Santorum, with his Google problem, who never seems to get that front seat.

The "prophet"

There's no doubt who sits in this chair, all alone: Ron Paul. But is he Captain Barr of the Cunardia Caronia, warning of icebergs ahead? Or the captain of the Greek steamer Athinai warning of the same iceberg danger, only closer? Or, finally, the California, warning u201CWe are stopped and surrounded by iceu201D? No matter. We will just ignore him.

To listen to the prophet, you see, would require the Titanic to change course. And nobody really wants to do that because the Titanic is on the fastest path across the Atlantic, and this is a cruise for addicted gamblers.

If the u201CTitanicu201D wins the race across the Atlantic, the first-class passengers stand to win a bundle of derivatives upon disembarkation in Lower Manhattan.

The second-class passengers are told they will be taken care of until death with pension derivatives and medical-care derivatives.

And the third-class passengers – well, they have been convinced they cannot make it across the Atlantic on their own and must depend on smarter people to get them there. Plus, one of them stands to win the lottery and get a bundle of derivatives like those in first class. Lotteries are very popular in third class.

The media passengers? Well, none of them has studied navigation, so they think the Titanic's course is the only way to get across the Atlantic.

The only way to deal with Prophet Paul, therefore, is to ignore him. And so he is ignored by the establishment media. He gets just 90 seconds in the GOP presidential debate on foreign policy on Saturday, November 12, for example. Old Testament prophets have never been faves on TV, anyway, unless they are safely ensconced in the historical past.

Of course the next step is Titanic lookout Frederick Fleet's chilling and to-the-point message: "Iceberg ahead!" But by then it is too late.

David Franke [send him mail] was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s. He is the author of a dozen books, including Safe Places, The Torture Doctor, and America’s Right Turn.

The Best of David Franke

The Tea Party began as a protest against the bailout of Wall Street.

Now the Tea Party is, in effect, coming to the defense of Wall Street.

Conservatives never learn.

Let me explain.

I'll begin with a trip into Washington, D.C. a few years back. I was accompanying one of the legendary leaders of the conservative movement, who had been invited to speak to a group of visiting Wellesley political science students. They were in town for a week of exposure to a potpourri of political viewpoints, and he thought this trip into D.C. would be a good opportunity for us to catch up on each other's lives. Perhaps he also didn't want to be burned at the stake alone. He knew I was a good bet because I never pass up an opportunity to be in the company of young women, even a bevy of future Hillary Clintons.

On the way in, he asked me a question he knew he would be asked at the meeting: "What do you think is the main mistake made by the conservative movement, or the main opportunity lost?" What an embarrassment of riches to choose from, and before I could settle on just one, he gave me the answer: Our failure to get involved in the civil rights revolution. In hindsight, he said, we should have helped black Americans obtain justice, and in the process seek to influence the movement in a constitutional direction.

I've thought about that conversation many times in the passing years, each time noting how conservatives continue to make the same mistake. "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned" is a lot easier to acknowledge than "Forgive me, Father, for I am sinning again, and I don't want to stop."

The latest example is this whole Occupy Wall Street brouhaha.

As I maintained in a previous article here, the Tea Party is losing impact because it has lost its focus. What began as a single-issue revolt centered on our fiscal crisis has morphed into the usual litany of conservative issues in an election cycle. Put another way, the Tea Party has been co-opted by the conservative movement, and since the conservatives have never been able to prevail over the Republican establishment, both Tea Partiers and conservatives are sinking together.

Now the Tea Party has found another way to slide into irrelevance, with its negative response to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Ordinary Americans sense that we have been screwed by Wall Street every bit as much as by Washington, D.C., but instead of fighting together we have fallen into the perennial Right vs. Left trap of letting the ruling establishment divide us. The conservatives say Washington caused our meltdown, the progressives say Wall Street caused our meltdown. Only the Ron Paul Revolution understands that they are one and the same, with the Federal Reserve representing and empowering both Washington and Wall Street against the people.

When the protests first began, conservatives and Tea Partiers should have descended on New York to seek to influence the movement in the right direction. From what I have read and seen, some members of the Ron Paul Revolution have been trying to do just that. But the Tea Partiers have reacted like, well, conservatives. And now the opportunity has probably been lost. Occupy Wall Street has been taken over by the liberal branch of the establishment — the labor unions — just as the Tea Party has been taken over by the conservative branch of the establishment — Washington insiders. The union bosses and conservative power-brokers saw their opportunity and took it.

I urge you to watch this short Occupy Wall Street video. Like the Ron Paul campaign's antiwar ad, it is one of the most powerful political statements I have seen since the advent of the YouTube revolution:

David Franke was a founder of the conservative movement in the late 1950s. Coming next from him: "Why Conservatives Deserve to Lose in 2012."

With Chris Christi and Sarah Palin eliminating themselves from the presidential race, we are at a turning point in the GOP sweepstakes. Barring divine intervention, there will be no new cast members in this election season's rollout of "Survivor." We are likely stuck with what we already have.

And just what do we have?

In answering that question, let me first state my personal perspective on all this drama.

I am a committed Ron Paul supporter. (And some would say we should all be committed.) I do not believe Paul has a chance of being the GOP nominee, however, for reasons I give below, and therefore I effectively have no horse in this race. I will not be voting Republican in November 2012, thus I have no emotional attachment to any of the remaining candidates. What I say about all of them is my "objective" analysis of the political situation as I see it, not as I wish it to be.

The Might-Have-Beens

I will miss Chris Christi. He would have made this race so much more fun. On the one hand, he would have split the establishment GOP vote, giving Rick Perry a better chance despite Rick's own proclivity for self-destruction. On the other hand, Christie has a spine — unlike the other notable establishment candidate — and his combative style would have attracted more Tea Party grassroots support than the self-designated spokesmen of the Tea Party would like to admit. Who knows how he would have done. We cannot go by the media, which was simply pandering for a new story.

I will not miss Sarah Palin. Her 15 minutes of fame was over a long time ago, but she had super-glued herself to the stage floor and nobody could drag her away. By the time she finally got tired of her Madam Hamlet act, nobody in the race was paying any attention to her. Her only fans were in the media. Ironical, isn't it!

Ron Paul

Despite that "(R-TX)" after his name, Ron Paul is not really a Republican — he is far too principled and too intelligent for that. He stands above factions the way George Washington did. In 2007 he wisely decided that he had to run as a Republican rather than a Libertarian because of the way the game is stacked today. That was the only way he could get the TV debate time to reach the public, and the results have far exceeded my expectations, if not enough to get him the nomination.

You may wonder why he can be beating or trailing President Obama by one or two points in the one-on-one polls, and at the same time have a ceiling of 10% to 15% in the polls of Republican voters, matched against the other GOP candidates. Well, polls have their limitations and are unreliable, but they're not that bad. The answer is in the details (the part nobody reads) of the Washington Post/ABC News poll, which revealed that two-thirds of his ardent supporters are not Republicans.

Many of the Republican candidates have adopted a Ron Paul Lite stance on issues like the Federal Reserve and deficits, but the GOP is still the War Party, which limits his appeal there. As a result he would do much better in the general election, picking up sizeable support from Independents and Democrats. But you have to win the nomination first, and the GOP is too sick and corrupt for that to happen.

Rick Perry

Rick Perry's political success in Texas, and his failure so far on the U.S. stage, only proves to me that Texas should still be its own independent Republic. I would move back home tomorrow if there was a chance of that happening.

Not that I think Perry is a "good" politician. There are no good politicians in Texas, except for that one congressional misfit from the Gulf Coast. The state government is still relatively small enough in Texas, however, compared to the other 49, so that Texans can enjoy Perry's antics and get some laughs while downing a few beers. Americans are too wussy for that.

Perry has to learn that he's not in Texas anymore when he flies over the Red River. He has to learn to speak half-way recognizable American English, he has to learn to talk about the state he's currently in, not just Texas, and in the remaining debates he has to learn to ignore what the other candidates are saying about him, ignore what the media hosts are trying to trap him into saying, and just speak from his heart about what he would do as president.

Perry still counts, because he's raising more money than even Romney, but he will waste all that money unless he can "grow" in these ways.

The Others

Only Perry, Romney, and Paul are raising enough money to be viable contenders to the end. Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain are also constantly losing staff. That's not supposed to happen until the third year of your presidency, so that's not a good sign. Jon Huntsman has an unlimited supply of Daddy's money, not that it does him any good. Gary Johnson was added to the show — I can only guess — to distract libertarian-leaning voters from Ron Paul, but has had no noticeable effect. And Rick Santorum is the male Sarah Palin, who refuses to leave the stage even after all the lights in the auditorium have been turned off.

I know, Herman Cain is currently the "flavor of the month." (By his own admission to Jay Leno, that would be Haagen-Dazs R Chocolate Walnut — the guy does have a sense of humor.) But that just means that now, for the first time, he is going to be taken seriously as a candidate — and scrutinized. Once Republican primary voters realize that his Fair Tax plan is really a Massive New Taxes plan, it will be all over. His perfect record of never having won an election will remain intact.

(Next: "Why Conservatives Deserve to Lose in 2012.")

David Franke [send him mail] was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s. He is the author of a dozen books, including Safe Places, The Torture Doctor, and America’s Right Turn.

The Best of David Franke

David Franke was a founder of the conservative movement in the late 1950s. This is a sequel to his previous article, "The Conservative Horse Race at Mid-Point.")

"This is the most serious financial crisis we've seen, at least since the 1930s, IF NOT EVER."

There goes that perennial doom-and-gloomer, Gary North, again.

Oops, no, it isn't him.

Well then it must be that grumpy old man, Ron Paul.

Oops, no, it isn't him either.

Who is it, then?

None other than Sir Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England. He said this last week, and he wasn't talking about just England, he was talking about our global economy. He's not some sort of insider oddity, either. The Bank of International Settlements — the central bankers' central bank — sounds like Sir Mervyn. An advisor to the International Monetary Fund warns that the global economy could collapse "in two to three weeks." I could go on.

But here in the United States, it's politics as usual. Which means that the president is blaming Republicans for everything, the Republicans are blaming the Democrats for everything, Ben Bernanke is digitizing money 24/7, a bunch of protestors on Wall Street are making the New Left of the 1960s look like Nobel laureates by comparison, and conservatives are concerned about their neighbors' sex lives or views on evolution.

Our options

Today the Republican Party has three options, and conservatives have two options, as they try to make Barack Obama a one-term president.

The conservatives have a choice between Ron Paul and any of the others. (They are essentially the same — what I call conventional conservatives.) The third choice for the Republican Party is the GOP establishment's candidate, now Mitt Romney after a process of elimination. Since this is not an establishment-friendly site, I will concern myself with just the first two categories for the rest of this article.

As I explained in my previous article, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul are the only Republican candidates with the money and troops necessary to prevail through the primary season until a decision is made. At this point in time, that makes a lot of you — perhaps a majority of you — unhappy. You are just going to have to learn how to deal with the hand you're dealt. And you can take this article as one Ron Paul conservative's Epistle to the (conventional) Conservatives.

Why do I say you conventional conservatives deserve to lose? Because you have come up with a pathetic list of candidates, and you tear down the ones you do have over nonessential matters. Most important, at a time of real emergency, you are playing politics as usual.

The Rick Perry Conundrum

On the one hand, Rick Perry is too clumsy to know how to explain himself. On the other hand, today's conventional conservatives seem to want to tear away at their only hope for winning the nomination and perhaps the presidency. To illustrate my point, I will limit my observations to the immigration issue. This is the chief issue that is losing Perry the support of conservative and Tea Party activists.

On the matter of the Texas "dream act" (whatever), Perry defended it and accused his detractors of being heartless. Big-time wrong move, and he had to apologize for that. What he should have said, and has yet to say properly, is: "Look, Texas is a border state and we decided we didn't want the young undocumented Mexican kids to become an uneducated welfare class. You may disagree with our methods, but I had the support of all but four of the 100-plus conservative politicians in the great state of Texas. If you don't like it, don't enact it in your state. But don't you clowns believe in state's rights?" If he had said this in his first debate, it would (hopefully) no longer be an issue.

Then there is the issue of the "fence" on the U.S.-Mexican border. It's a ludicrous idea and a boondoggle, and Perry is on the right side, but again he doesn't know how to explain himself.

He should elaborate on his half-explanation: "Look, Texas makes up 800 of the 1,200 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border. And all of those miles are the Rio Grande River. Where, exactly, are you going to put your darned fence? On the Mexican side of the river? Get ready for another war, one as difficult to pursue as the one in Afghanistan. In the middle of the river? That's ridiculous on the face of it, and I suggest you talk to any engineer to find out why. On the Texas side of the river? So you want to deny access to the river for all Texans? I thought you so-called conservatives believed in property rights!"

Of course we didn't get answers like that from Rick Perry. No wonder Mitt Romney doesn't want to say anything. He would rather just look "presidential" and let his opposition self-destruct.

The Rise and Fall of the Tea Party

The rise of the Tea Party was an example of true grassroots spontaneity and as such it was truly inspiring. It gave me hope of a renewed conservative movement. But that was then, and today the situation is quite different. The movement still consists of millions of ordinary Americans with the right instincts, but as a political force much has been lost. The main cause of that decline is the loss of focus.

The Tea Party rose as a response to the suicidal fiscal policies of the Bush and Obama administrations. It had a laser-like narrow-gauge focus on two related things: fiscal responsibility and reducing the size of our out-of-control government. The Washington Post interviewed some 850 local Tea Party groups across the nation, and it found that those two related issues totally dominated the Tea Party agenda. That sort of narrow-gauge and dedicated focus radically increases the impact of any political or social movement. The rest of the world wanders about in a morass of many issues and concerns, while millions of citizens focus on one issue. That dramatically increases the impact of that one-issue group — and so it was with the Tea Party.

With the move to the presidential debates, that focus has been lost. Instead of a concentrated focus on fiscal reform, we have all sorts of "social" issues claiming veto power over conservative politicians, all sorts of pledges to be obeyed at risk of expulsion from acceptability. We are once again mired in the politics of special interest constituencies. Instead of focusing on the fiscal crisis, conservatives are once again distracted by their neighbors' sexual practices and beliefs on evolution and politically correct attitudes on immigration.

When the Tea Party had one issue — fiscal accountability — as its banner, it had 70% to 80% of the American people nodding in agreement, and that explained its overnight rise to political power.

Now that the Tea Party is associated with a litany of conservative issues, it has to struggle — along with the conservative movement — merely to get a candidate on the ballot who represents its views, meaning a candidate who is not Mitt Romney, against an unpopular and weak president at a time of unsustainable spending, bottomless deficits and debt obligations, and 16% unemployment. That's pretty pathetic. It should be a slam dunk for a "movement" that's been in existence for more than a half century.

I understand that people have many interests and concerns, and that's good and proper. Take them up with your neighbors, your dogcatcher, your city officials, your state and national Senators and Representatives. But don't demand that your presidential candidate be 100% pure (unless you want to join the Ron Paul Revolution — and welcome!). For one thing, you're not going to get that purity in any event. Any number of the candidates, Herman Cain among them, supported TARP, for example.

It's fine to want to know a candidate's position on leading issues of the day, but don't demand that he or she take a litmus test pledge on them. Look at how they arrived at their positions, for evidence of an underlying conservative philosophy. And look for a willingness to fight for their conservative principles.

Why Governors Have Priority

Conservatives repeatedly make the mistake of looking to Representatives or Senators when picking a presidential candidate to back. Then they look for the purest of all. That's fine when electing someone to the Congress, but not so good when selecting a president. A successful president has to have managerial and leadership skills not necessarily found in the Congress. For the best proof of that, look at the present occupant of the White House. What little experience he had consisted of making speeches that inspired his followers. Ask one of those followers today what they think of his leadership skills in the White House, and you'd better have a hanky handy.

In a policy-neutral sense, the kinds of skills that make for an effective governor are pretty much the same as the ones required for an effective presidency. But of course conservatives want more than executive ability. The right political principles, and the willingness to fight for them, are also essential. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both had prior gubernatorial experience, but their lack of conservative principles made their presidencies a disaster from a conservative viewpoint.

So, the right governor as presidential candidate is going to have executive and leadership skills, the right philosophy, and the resolve to fight for his conservative program. But be aware that no governor is going to be 100% pure ideologically. Have you ever seen a state legislature in action? It doesn't matter whether they are of the governor's same party or opposite party, there will be compromises to get anything done. You look for the best, but don't expect the perfect.

Looking at the pickings in 2011, two governors stood out in my mind — Rick Perry of Texas and Chris Christie of New Jersey. Rick Perry is definitely more consistently conservative, but I think Chris Christie has the better fighting skills needed in Washington. But that's now beside the point since he has definitely ruled out a candidacy.

My advice to you conventional conservatives, therefore, is to unite behind Perry as your best bet to beat Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, then Barack Obama. Once you get past the primaries, it might be a good idea to surgically implant some tape over his mouth, and then feed him food and liquids intravenously. He can just appear mute on stages as the not-Obama — a winning platform.

But Ron Paul doesn't meet your own criteria!

But Ron Paul doesn't meet your own criteria, you complain to me. He's a congressman, with no experience as a governor. And he's not the best speaker around.

True, but Ron Paul is not competing as a conventional conservative. You might say he has a different "business model."

The goal of the conventional conservatives is to win the current election. That would be nice, but the primary goal of the Ron Paul Revolution is to open people's eyes to what is going on in the nation and give political voice to this audience. It is a continuing revolution that does not disperse after the election.

Conventional conservatives are poll watchers, so their issues fluctuate with the polls and the political charges of the opposition, which is just as poll-obsessed. The Ron Paul Revolution concentrates instead of the most critical issues facing the nation. This is why, for example, the Federal Reserve was not on the political radar before 2008, but has become a game-changing issue today thanks to one man, Ron Paul, as more and more people have been educated to understand what he's been talking about. Ron Paul creates polls rather than responds to them.

Conventional conservatives are flip-floppers, and are constantly trimming their principles in order to be "electable." Ron Paul is ridiculed for being too rigid and "ideological," but his consistency has created a growing audience who appreciate his unyielding adherence to principle. "He's not like all the other politicians" is a decided plus when politicians are one of the most hated professions in America.

Most important of all, conventional conservatives and their candidates do not have a clue about what needs to be done in this time of worldwide financial crisis — or if they do, they don't have the courage to level with the American people. We know who does.

For all these reasons, conventional conservatives do not deserve to win — but may win anyway, given an opposition that is even less palatable to the American public. Ron Paul deserves to win, but won't. But the movement he has created will continue to grow, in numbers and in impact, until the American people are ready to listen to the truth-teller. The irony is that, in the end, the extremist, ideological, rigid Ron Paul Revolution will have more impact that the conventional conservatives. The conventional conservatives, after all, are merely interested in changing the deck chairs on the Titanic.

David Franke [send him mail] was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s. He is the author of a dozen books, including Safe Places, The Torture Doctor, and America’s Right Turn.

The Best of David Franke

The winners in Iowa were (1) Ron Paul, (2) Rick Perry, and (3) Michele Bachmann, in that order.

Michele Bachmann is the winner of record, and will always be listed that way in the history books. But in terms of the dynamism and impact of the race, she has been hurt by the Iowa Straw Poll results. Behind closed doors, she and her campaign managers cannot be happy tonight.

She had the home turf advantage and she had the media for and against her in just the right ways. She supposedly had momentum on her side. Given all that, the fact that she beat Ron Paul by a mere 152 votes (1% of the total votes cast) is an embarrassment and a sign of long-term weakness.

Let me explain two kinds of media bias, and their pivotal role in the voting at the Iowa Straw Poll.

The mainstream/liberal media detests Michele Bachmann, no doubt about it. She's not the kind of person they invite to their cocktail parties. But the important point is, they treat her as a serious candidate. When they acknowledge that she can win in Iowa, and perhaps win the Republican nomination, they legitimize her. And when they are nasty to her, as with the Newsweek cover, that helps her too. Nothing earns you votes in a Republican primary or other grassroots event like a nasty attack by the liberal media.

The media attacks on Ron Paul are of an entirely different nature. They seek to de-legitimize him as a serious candidate. And the intention is to depress the vote for Ron Paul. Outside of his hard core supporters – who are ostracized as crazed political groupies, mostly college students high on ideology – who wants to "throw away" their vote for someone who "cannot win"?

The Iowa straw poll raised a couple of problems for the media. They couldn't complain that he brought in supporters from all over the nation, because only registered Iowa voters can vote in the straw poll. And they couldn't complain that he was buying votes because all the candidates do that. That's the idea, in fact — the Iowa Straw Poll is a fundraiser for the Iowa Republican Party.

Given the two types of media bias I've noted, Bachmann should have benefited from her treatment by the media, while Ron Paul's vote should have been depressed by the media's treatment of him. That's why Bachmann's grand 152-vote victory wasn't a victory at all. Yes, she is the most popular conservative candidate at this point, but such a squeaker suggests that we're in a Peak Bachmann era and she has nowhere to go but down, with Perry entering the race.

The anti-Paul media's solution (both the leftist media and the rightist media) is to ignore Ron Paul's near-victory. I watched the results come in on CNN. They had to show the actual votes on the scorecard, of course. But the rhetoric was something else. A CNN commentator said breathlessly and loudly, "The two big winners in Iowa tonight were Michele Bachmann and…[I'm not making this up] Rick Perry, with his 718 write-in votes." Yes, 718 votes trump 4,671 votes. The commentator didn't mention Ron Paul.

Then the megaphone shifted to the right, in the person of Erick Erickson of the RedState blog site. I don't know what Erickson's Ron Paul problem is, but his solution – like the left – is to just ignore Paul. Paul's not serious enough to waste analysis on him. When Erickson does one of his periodic blogs on how the Republican candidates are doing in relation to each other (u201CThe Horseraceu201D), he gives no analysis for Ron Paul. Jon Huntsman (69 votes in Iowa) gets analysis, but Ron Paul? Erickson just says month after month, like an inside joke, that u201CRon Paul will not get the nomination.u201D Ha-ha. As if Pawlenty, Gingrich, Santorum, or Cain will get the nomination True to form, tonight Erickson blabbered about how Rick Perry was the victor, rather than acknowledging Ron Paul's strong showing.

Given that the establishment media, Left and Right, treat Ron Paul in this way, it really is remarkable that his following just keeps growing and growing. CNN and Erick Erickson can huff and puff all they want, trying to blow Ron Paul out of the picture, but the Ron Paul Revolution is much bigger today than it was four years ago, and it's going to be even bigger next year than it is now.

David Franke [send him mail] was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s. He is the author of a dozen books, including Safe Places, The Torture Doctor, and America’s Right Turn.

The Best of David Franke

The Saturday night before Easter, a good time to contemplate life and death, I witnessed one of the greatest theatrical experiences of my life — Nick Dear's new play Frankenstein as performed at the National Theatre in London.

One of the extra benefits of this experience was that I did not have to undergo all the inconveniences of air travel today. Thanks to modern technology I was transported to London for two hours from one of the auditoriums of the Shakespeare Theatre Company in Washington, D.C. No waiting for hours in the terminal, no security stupidity to go through, no cramped seats aboard the plane, no long taxi ride into London. The only disadvantage was that our local Shakespeareans do not allow you to take snacks and drinks into the theatre with you; the Brits are more civilized about that.

The "creature" that made this time travel possible was a high-definition simulcast. We were watching the play along with the on-site audience at London's National Theatre, only with the best possible angle for every part of the action. And more comfortable seats, I suspect, from my experiences with London theatres. A simulcast may not sound very exciting, but be prepared to change your mind with a National Theatre Live simulcast of one of its productions to your home town. Crystal-clear visual quality, 3-D reality without 3-D glasses, and an IMAX-sized screen put you right in the action. You gasp, laugh, and rise in a standing ovation at the end along with the audience in London.

Considering that the National Theatre's production by Danny Boyle is sold out for its entire run, this is not a bad substitute.

The technological marvels do not end with the final curtain call. Go to www.ntlive.com with 3 pounds left on your credit card and you can download digital and printed versions of a detailed program. The digital version includes the trailer for the play, an interview with Nick Dear, and a video on "man-made creatures." If you are a monsterphile like me, your cup runneth over.

Why another "Frankenstein"?

That's a good question, if — like me — you have shuddered at 1915's The Golem, the Jewish predecessor to Mary Shelley's monster; if Boris Karloff has become part of your DNA; and you have sat through countless inferior productions over the years.

Two very good answers:

One is the electrifying performances by Jonny Lee Miller and Benedict Cumberbatch, who play the monster and his creator. One of the innovations of this production is that they change roles every night. I saw Jonny Lee Miller as the monster, and with his bald head he seems so much more believable as the monster; I cannot imagine the reverse role-playing. But if I have an opportunity to see this play again, I'd want to see Cumberbatch as the monster, and I will be fully prepared for him to sway me with his also considerable powers on the stage.

Second, this is not your parent's Frankenstein. Nick Dear uses Mary Shelley as mere background noise — he refers to it as "getting our parameters from the book" — and plunges ahead with a brutal and mesmerizing noir version more suitable for a day when we have seen technology advance to give us both life-enhancing robots and wars that are devastating on a scale never before possible. No Victorian subtleties in this Frankenstein.

"We're doing something which hasn't been done before," explains Dear in his interview in the digital program, "and that is to tell the story from the creature's point of view. We do start with the moment of creation, but not told from the perspective of the scientist, which is how it's usually told; we tell it from the perspective of the experiment, not the experimenter."

And what a moment of creation it is.

No words are spoken during the first fifteen minutes (whatever) of this two-hour play. Instead we see the newly created monster lying prone on the floor of the stage. Dr. Frankenstein is nowhere to be seen. Step by step, the monster writhes in newborn agony, and then learns how to turn over, crawl on his knees, lift his upper torso, and, finally, walk and run. It's not a pretty picture. The monster is bruised and bloody, and he trembles and swerves in unpredictable ways as he slowly gains confidence. The performance is so gripping, you are afraid to take a deep breath for fear of missing something.

The pressure doesn't let up for the rest of the two hours, and there is no intermission to let you go to the restroom and splash some cold water on your face.

The next major theme shows a platonic scene of a house in a clearing in a forest. A young, newly married couple (we soon learn the wife is pregnant) take care of the husband's aged, blind father, then go out to clear the fields of rocks. The old man plays the guitar, which summons the monster. A friendship ensues. Because the old man is blind, he doesn't fear the monster. He assumes his scars are the result of war injuries. He himself had to flee his university because of the war, taking only his most treasured books — Plutarch and such. He uses these classics to teach our monster how to read and talk.

Okay, so this part requires a little leap of faith. How can the blind man teach a monster to read and talk? Well, how many sci-fi or action movies do not require leaps of faith? Just enjoy this stage, as the monster becomes more and more eloquent.

But as the monster learns more, he asks more questions, and part of his learning is how to love and to kill. At one point he asks the old man, "Why do we spend so much time trying to help people — and then slaughter them?" "That is a contradiction," replies the old man, and the audience erupts in laughter.

I'll let the cat out of the bag: The monster is us. We both love and we hate. We both create and we kill. And we both rebel against our creator. This is why Frankenstein has endured in our culture. Like Pogo, we have seen the enemy, and he is us.

Fast-forward. The monster searches for his creator, and finds him. He wants answers: Why did you abandon me? When they first meet, the monster describes his plight by quoting at length from one of the books he has learned to read. Dr. Frankenstein gasps in amazement: Paradise Lost! You have learned to read and recite Paradise Lost?

"God was proud of Adam," the monster replies, "while I was tossed out [by you] like Satan. Why?"

The monster also has an overriding problem, beyond the fact that he scares the bejezzus out of everone: He is lonely. He has seen that every creature, the birds in the sky and the human beings he has watched, has a partner. He wants Dr. Frankenstein to create another monster — a wife for him. He strikes a deal with Dr. Frankenstein. Do this and my wife and I will flee to the wilds of Argentina, never to bother you again. The doctor creates a lovely mannequin of a wife-creature, then destroys her before bringing her to life, and pays a terrible, terrible price for his actions. You don't mess around with a monster.

David Franke [send him mail] was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s. He is the author of a dozen books, including Safe Places, The Torture Doctor, and America’s Right Turn.

The Best of David Franke

This has been a sad time for me, considering how important a role Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) played in my life at a young age. The faux paper organization that pretends to be YAF this weekend expelled Rep. Ron Paul from its National Advisory Board, a move that will hurt them far more than the Congressman.

It’s easy to figure out why they did this. At this past week’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll for the second consecutive year. The energy and organization behind this victory was Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), the Ron Paul youth group. YAL was leaving YAF in its dust, not that there ever was a contest. In desperation, YAF had to do something to try and make itself still seem relevant and newsworthy, so it hit upon the idea of expelling Ron Paul from its National Advisory Board.

The ploy worked well in that it gave YAF more publicity than it has received in years. But the ploy also spotlighted the severe limitations of a paper organization. The big headlines in the media were about Ron Paul winning the CPAC presidential poll. The YAF ploy was just a sour-grapes asterisk to that story.

What made the situation worse for YAF was the intemperance and incoherence of the YAF statement, and these additional temper tantrums by YAF National Director Jordan Marks:

“Rep. Paul’s refusal to support our nation’s military and national security interests border on treason (emphasis added), aside from his failure to uphold his oath to the United States Constitution…”

“Rep. Paul is clearly off his meds and must be purged from public office. YAF is starting the process by removing him from our national advisory board.”

Whoa! It's obvious who is off his meds, and it ain't Dr. Paul.

Read the rest of the article

David Franke [send him mail] one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s. He is the author of a dozen books, including Safe Places, The Torture Doctor, and America’s Right Turn.

The Best of David Franke

I am angry and frustrated at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) right now. In classic form they have once again over-reacted in an idiotic fashion. I am not saying the recent mailing of bombs in printer cartridges across the world is not serious, but it demands real solutions, not knee-jerk reactions.

In a statement released by the DHS, they state that they are banning all cargo from Yemen. Okay, this makes sense. It is not like we have a lot of imported goods coming from Yemen. However, they are also banning cargo from Somalia. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they have some intelligence that we do not know about. The release also states, “No high risk cargo will be allowed on passenger aircraft.” Okay, so far I am actually with the TSA here. Banning dangerous cargo from certain places in the world until we can figure out the risk actually kind of makes sense.

When reading, I assumed we must be talking about dangerous things like explosives, flammable items and bombs right? Think again. In the next sentence they continue with, “Toner and ink cartridges over 16 ounces will be prohibited on passenger aircraft in both carry-on bags and checked bags on domestic and international flights in-bound to the United States.” Say what?

This is stupid. I hate to call anyone names, but there is just no other way to say it. This no-thought reaction actually makes me feel less safe. This is telling me that the TSA cannot detect a bomb no matter what form it takes. Do they think that terrorist will give up since they can’t figure out anything else to put bombs in? Please. Not that I think there are a heck of a lot of people carrying around large printer cartridges in their baggage, but what’s next?

Since the ban is sort of a shock, you might have missed the part where this is only for flights within and inbound to the United States. So, it is totally fine to fly with a printer cartridge on an airline departing the US, you just can’t bring any back. What sense does that make?

It is easy to ban printer cartridges since they are not common, but what if terrorists start using items that would be difficult to ban? Would the TSA start banning laptops or stuffed animals if terrorists start using them? I wish the TSA would stop wasting time and money with pointless security measures like this. They need to be honest with the public that there is no 100% solution and be smarter about bomb detection. The airline business has seen many good and horrid changes since 9/11. However, in the last nine years 0 Americans have died from terrorism on airlines. Compare that to the about 315,000 Americans who have died in automobile accidents over the same period of time. Some might say that scanning shoes and your toothpaste is related to those 0 deaths, but I say it has more to do with this not being the huge threat the TSA and the media like to play it up to be.

When I got word of this story a few days ago, I tried to contact two different TSA sources, but no one would contact me back (and I was not this snarky). The TSA is proud of their “Talk to the TSA” campaign, but I guess you can only talk to them about stuff they want to talk about. I have tried to get the TSA’s side to things, but they just don’t seem to want to talk, which is greatly disappointing to me. If you are not happy with the body scanners and their crazy knee-jerk reactions, I highly suggest you trying to talk to the TSA. If you get a reply, let me know.

Reprinted with permission from the Airline Reporter.

To me, the issue is a no-brainer. First of all, it is clearly a matter for state and local government to handle — and as an advocate of constitutional decentralization, I think that’s the end of the story unless you live in New York City.

Beyond that, it is clear that the Muslims in question have every right to build their community center where they want to build it. They have followed the regulatory path required for approval, and received that green light. As a constitutional conservative, that, too, settles the matter for me. Two words are all that are necessary to put this aspect in perspective: property rights.

So, why has this become the No. 1 hot-button issue in the nation? I see two possible answers to that question: conspiracy, and/or political stupidity and banality.

The Case for Conspiracy

Over the decades, I have seen as many stupid issues grab the spotlight as there are repugnant politicians willing to capitalize on them for perceived political gain — from flag burning to, well, the World Trade Center "mosque." These "patriotic" and "social" issues have had one continuous effect — to divert voter anger and activity away from the biggest scandal of the past 60 years.

That scandal is the systematic looting and destruction of the American Republic and economy by the globalist elites that have risen to power over the past 60 years or more. This destruction incorporates issues such as national sovereignty, the military-industrial complex, perpetual war, an unsustainable welfare state, "entitlements," the Federal Reserve, mercantilist trade pacts disguised as "free trade," and much more.

Historians of the future will probably lump all of these issues under the general rubric of "the fall of the American Empire," as in "the fall of the Roman Empire." That dwarfs most of the issues that consume our daily political discourse. And the "mosque" is only the latest silly distraction from what the globalist elites are doing to us.

Is it an accident that this issue has risen to the forefront at the very time that the American public, finally, is concentrating on the paramount issue of our day? When the globalist economic system is falling apart, and public anger at Wall Street bailouts is at a fever pitch?

A conspiracist would have to say, Hell no, it’s no accident. From the latest war of choice to the latest non-issue, it is all intended to keep us diverted from the major issue and scandal of our times.

The Case for Political Stupidity and Banality

To make the case for stupidity and banality, let us look at two politicians — President Obama and Newt Gingrich.

The "mosque" issue was festering, but on the back burner, during the dog days of August. Most people who had strong opinions against its construction took out their anger on Mayor Bloomberg and other New York officials and bureaucracies. For once in their lives, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress became fervid believers in states rights, and used that excuse for straddling or avoiding the issue.

Until President Obama unexpectedly jumped into the fray and made it the top issue in the country, without any need to do that. The most dismayed people in the country were the Democratic politicians who no longer could straddle the issue and were now on the line: Did they agree with their President? As one Democratic Congressman angrily put it (anonymously): "We need a politician in the White House, not a law professor."

Is there a conspiratorial excuse for Obama’s action? If so, it is so murky I cannot follow it. We have to ask, does Obama’s intervention help or hurt the Democrats in November? They were already on the road to expulsion because of the nation’s economic woes. Now they are on the unpopular side of yet another issue.

This is a pattern in the case of Obama. It is actually more than ignorance. It is ideological arrogance combined with political stupidity. From elitist bailouts to health care "reform" the nation didn’t want, to (now) the "mosque," President Obama has put his leftist ideology above the will and desires of the American people. This goes beyond the typical excuse that he is politically "tone-deaf." It is ideological arrogance and disdain for the vast majority of Americans who don’t reside in leftist enclaves like Hyde Park and Cambridge.

My judgment on President Obama: stupidity and arrogance.

Now take Newt Gingrich. As the old vaudeville wife-joke goes, please take him!

He has strong competition, to be sure, but Newt Gingrich has now become the most disgusting Republican candidate for President. That torch has passed from Rudy Giuliani in the last election cycle to Newt in this one.

The signs were apparent a couple of years ago when "God" suddenly made an appearance in Gingrich’s books. That was all the proof we needed that he was running for President. This most "intellectual" of Republican leaders has since become the most banal and self-promoting resident of the fever swamps of the Right. The "mosque" issue was made to order for him. To me the most horrid of his talking points (so many to choose from!) is that we should allow the building of the "mosque" when Saudi Arabia allows Christians to practice their religion in that country. So much for American exceptionalism (the "shining city on a hill" thing), property rights, and the Constitution. America is now going to mirror the policies of one of the most totalitarian and disgusting tyrannies on Earth. Talk about the dumbing down of conservatism!

My judgment on Newt Gingrich (and others like him, of course): repulsive but to-be-expected political dirtballing.

So which is it — conspiracy, or politics as usual? You tell me. Seriously, I would love to hear from LewRockwell.com readers on this matter. At this point, I have to say it’s stupidity and politics as usual, but as such it’s also a vital part of the "bread and circuses" used to distract Americans from the looting and destruction of our country.

P.S. Two Articles for Your Consideration

Politico, in my judgment, has become the most interesting mainstream news source in Washington. Two recent articles in Politico offer intriguing insights into this "mosque" issue.

"Mosque a long shot to be built" is a detailed look — the only one I’ve seen — into the myriad reasons why this project is not likely to be completed. And those reasons have nothing to do with the current public fervor over the issue. In other words, without the public agitation this is an issue that would have died a natural death. So who benefits from making it such a hot-ticket item?

And "Mosque debate strains tea party, GOP" is a similarly incisive look at the Tea Party’s reaction to the "mosque" fracas. To their credit, large segments of the Tea Party (I would guess that these are primarily the Ron Paul elements of the Tea Party) refuse to be distracted by issues like the "mosque" and insist on keeping the spotlight on the economic crisis facing our nation. More power to them — they are the only hopeful sign I see on today’s political landscape.

David Franke [send him mail] one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s. He is the author of a dozen books, including Safe Places, The Torture Doctor, and America’s Right Turn.

The Best of David Franke

Therefore I did not “see” any of that happen in real time, and cannot vouch for what happened one way or the other. I have seen some after-the-fact coverage on CNN and MSNBC, but just a little before I could get around to changing the channel.

But now I’m concerned about the accusations of racism being hurled at the Tea Party protesters. In particular, charges that they shouted epithets at black members of Congress as they were headed for the Capitol chambers to vote.

If that charge is accurate, it points — at the very least — to pretty poor crowd control on the part of the Tea Party organizers. I do not believe they are so morally deficit as to condone something like that, or so politically tone-deaf that they wouldn’t realize how an incident like that can damage and even destroy a movement.

So, I turned with interest to an article forwarded to me, "Anatomy of a Racial Smear," by Jack Cashill. It appears to be a pretty well-reasoned article, even though it appears in a neocon rag (The American Thinker) that I don’t usually cite approvingly.

"Tea Party protesters scream u2018nigger’ at black congressman"

That’s the headline on an article Cashill says was written by reporter William Douglas, and published by the McClatchy Newspapers chain. I couldn’t believe a supposedly respectable newspaper chain would put something that inflammatory in print, so I started Googling, and here it is, right on the chain’s site.

The question then becomes, is it true? And Cashill does a convincing job of taking that headline apart, word by word, as well as the article itself. Truth, it appears, is pretty elusive. The smear, you come to believe, is everywhere in that McClatchy headline and article.

Check it out. Read Cashill’s article, and while you’re at it, definitely check out his links — a video of the Tea Party protesters shouting at the congressional Black Caucus (see if you can hear the "N" word) and an audio link of House Majority Whip James CIyburn, who walked with the Black Caucus contingent, admitting to Keith Olbermann afterwards, "I didn’t hear the slurs." (Maybe that’s because there were none?)

Use of the word "nigger" has no place in our political discourse, of course, or in protests. But so far the only place I’ve actually seen or heard use of the epithet is in that McClatchy Newspapers headline and article.

Videotapes are everywhere today. Has anyone actually seen or heard a tape where the Tea Party protesters at the Capitol used racial taunts or epithets? If so, please bring this to my attention. Short of some real evidence, all we seem to have is the “word” of members of the Black Caucus and an apparently biased reporter. I wouldn’t take the word of a Black Caucus congressman if he had both hands on the Bible, they are such propagandists. Ha, that’s probably true with any Member of Congress other than Ron Paul, so maybe I’m being racist myself in singling out the Black Caucus. But they are very conspicuous propagandists, and they’re the center of this particular story.

I’ve personally witnessed only one Tea Party gathering, the original one on Capitol Hill last year, and that was as an observer. I wanted to see how many people showed up. What I saw were very ordinary Americans. Definitely not the Beautiful People you see at Washington soires, both on the Left and the Right. Most of them probably were not exactly “sophisticated” in their way of expressing their concerns — ordinary Americans, after all, have better things to pursue with their lives than politics, things such as jobs, family, etc. But they were angry enough to get off their duffs and come to Washington to protest. That anger, however, was directed at the federal government’s messing up their lives, and our nation’s future. I certainly heard or saw no anger that was racist.

Isn’t this the kind of civic involvement all the "good government" types say we should be encouraging? Why is it (in the MSM) that only leftist rallies and demonstrations are portrayed as virtuous?

I am certain there are some racists in the Tea Party movement, just as there are in any broad-based movement. That doesn’t mean they define it, and from what I’ve seen, the Tea Party organizers have tried to weed them out. Heck, there are racists in any big civil rights gathering, only their racism is directed at whites. I see fear of homos and fear of Mexicans as much bigger problems on the Right today.

Do not mistake vehemence for something more sinister

Americans have every right to be angry at almost everything the feds do, and passions on both sides were strained as this epochal battle over health care reached the final vote. I look at the video linked in Cashill’s article, and I definitely do see anger. But no evidence of racism. What — were they supposed to stop their protesting and just smile and wave “hello” to these congressmen because they were black? That’s racism itself.

By the way, can anyone explain why the members of the Black Caucus were walking through the crowd? Where were they coming from? Since I didn’t watch the live coverage, I have no idea why they were there.

Congressmen usually take the underground Capitol Hill subway when going from their Senate and House office buildings (if that’s where they were coming from) to the Capitol for a vote. And if they are arriving by car, the car usually pulls right up to an entrance of the Capitol, so in that case they wouldn’t be walking a gauntlet through the crowd. Call me Mr. Suspicious, but it sort of looks to me like they wanted to provoke a reaction — not such a stretch for members of the Black Caucus. Call me Mr. Conspiracist, but I think I smell a set-up.

So, show me the videotape or recording evidence — not of vehemence, but of actual racism. If you produce it, I’m ready to condemn it. Short of that, I condemn the people who smear their opposition — without evidence — with such labels. That sort of group-smear may be politics as usual, but that’s why most Americans hate politics as usual.

A note to my liberal friends:

If you are uncomfortable with the vehemence of the protests, all I can say is, get used to it. It’s only going to get worse in the years ahead, on both the Left and the Right. As the nation heads toward bankruptcy, “entitlements” will be drastically cut and taxes will be drastically raised. There are going to be a lot of pissed-off people.

David Franke [send him mail] one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s. He is the author of a dozen books, including Safe Places, The Torture Doctor, and America’s Right Turn.

The Best of David Franke

It wasn’t even close. Paul got 31% of the vote, a 40% margin over runner-up Mitt Romney’s 22% of the vote. Romney was the Beltway Conservative candidate, and had won the last three CPAC straw polls. Paul and Romney were followed by a number of single-digit fringe candidates such as Sarah Palin (7%), Tim Pawlenty (6%), Newt Gingrich (4%), and Mike Huckabee (4%).

The official line is: This doesn’t mean anything, folks. Our straw poll isn’t scientific. The people who win our straw votes never win the presidency or the Republican nomination anyway, so don’t pay it any attention.

Funny. I voted for Ron Paul at CPAC and I didn’t see any notice on the ballot warning, "This poll is unscientific and stupid. But if you’re bored and still want to vote, here are your choices."

Sea Change at CPAC Mirrors Changes in the GOP and Nation

As the nation’s economic and fiscal stability deteriorates, voter priorities are changing.

In the nation at large, independents are the sexiest voters around. Both Republicans and Democrats are wooing them as if every day is Valentine’s Day. And all the polls show that the independents are "fiscal conservatives" who put economic issues above social issues.

In the GOP, the three big victors this year — in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts — placed more emphasis on economic issues than social issues, and won by capturing the independent vote. Indeed, Scott Brown has become a Republican hero for capturing "Teddy Kennedy’s seat" and returning it to the people, and got a rousing welcome at CPAC. It doesn’t seem to matter that he’s soft on the social issues.

Even in Congress — the most backward part of the nation — who would have guessed two years ago, or even one year ago, that Rep. Ron Paul would have hundreds of cosponsors for his bill to audit the Fed?

So, too, are things changing at CPAC, the largest gathering of conservative activists each year. To be sure, the neoconned are still in control — witness the applause that greeted Dick Cheney at his surprise appearance, and the emphasis given to War Party rhetoric by most of the establishment speakers. But they are meeting more and more resistance, and Ron Paul’s victory in the presidential straw poll is only the most visible sign. Let’s look at some of the undercurrents.

First, a general observation. Fabrizio McLaughlin & Associates conducts the straw poll each year, and they ask about a lot more than presidential choices. Some of the questions change from year to year, reflecting what’s in the headlines, but most questions are repeated each year, allowing us to measure trends. Only CPAC registrants are allowed to vote (your badge is checked). And the total straw polls cast this year was the highest in CPAC’s history — 2,395, up from 1,757 in 2009 and 1,558 in 2008. This no doubt reflects the "stimulus" effects of an Obama administration on the opposition.

You’ve seen this excuse from the neoconned spokesmen and media: "Ron Paul won because a majority of CPAC attendees were college students, and we know that’s his strength. But they don’t reflect the country as a whole."

The truth: The percentage of students declined this year, to 48% from 52% in 2009. And the percentage of registrants aged 18 to 25 also declined this year, to 54% from 57% in 2009. (The percentage of those under 18 stayed the same both years — 2%.) So the growth in Ron Paul’s popularity cannot be dismissed as merely a surge of college or young voters.

Young people are the future of our nation and our movement, blah blah blah, you’ve heard that endlessly from every politician in the land. So when do you start dumping on the young people? When you need an excuse for explaining away the Ron Paul phenomenon.

The pie got larger this year (more registrants), but CPAC demographics remained remarkably constant from 2009 to 2010. So the surge in support for Ron Paul cannot be explained with some sort of "takeover" conspiracy.

Mitt Romney’s fortunes at CPAC this year remained pretty much the same as last year. The neoconned establishment’s candidate got 20% of the vote last year, and actually increased his share this year to 22%. What happened was that Ron Paul gained at the expense of all the fringe candidates:

Paul
Up 18%
From 13% in 2009 to 31% in 2010

Palin
Down 6%
From 13% to 7%

Pawlenty
Up 4%*
From 2% to 6%

Gingrich
Down 6%
From 10% to 4%

Huckabee
Down 3%
From 7% to 4%

Undecided
Down 3%
From 9% to 6%

*Pawlenty’s political machine mounted a determined offensive at CPAC this year, which explains this gain. But they couldn’t fight the Ron Paul surge.

It’s now official — the race is between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Let’s get it on!

CPAC Attendees on the Issues

I mentioned at the beginning of this article that voter priorities are changing in the face of economic disaster. This is evident in the straw votes at CPAC.

Each year attendees are asked about their most important political goal, with three choices. I think there are problems with the wording of the three choices, but since that wording stays the same from year to year, we can measure trends. Those whose primary goal is to reduce the size and scope of government rose from 74% in 2009 to 80% this year. Promoting traditional values dropped from 15% to 9%. And guaranteeing American safety at home and abroad dropped from 10% to 7%.

Then they are given a list of more specific issues and asked which is most and second most important to them personally. Combining "most important" with "second most important," here are the results:

Reducing size of federal government
Up 9%
From 43% to 52%

Reducing government spending
Up 9%
From 24% to 33%

The war on terrorism
Down 5%
From 23% to 18%

Lowering taxes
Down 4%
From 22% to 18%

Doing away with abortion
Down 5%
From 15% to 10%

Stimulating the economy to create jobs
No change
9% and 9%

Restoring honesty to government
Down 2%
From 8% to 6%

Protecting gun owners’ rights
Down 1%
From 7% to 6%

Illegal immigration
Down 5%
From 10% to 5%

Improving education
No change
5% and 5%

Promoting traditional values
Down 3%
From 8% to 5%

The war in Iraq
Down 2%
From 5% to 3%

In addition, three issues were on the list this year but not last year:

Reforming Social Security
3%

Stopping gay marriage
1%

Reducing health care costs
1%

I doubt that CPAC conservatives have become more liberal, or libertarian, on social issues. What has changed are their political priorities. Addressing our economic and government spending crisis has come to the forefront, and that explains the Ron Paul surge within the ranks of CPAC. After all, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a consistent record of fighting for fiscal sanity in Washington, and now he is reaping the rewards.

David Franke [send him mail] was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s, when Democrats and liberals were the ones who believed in big government, fiscal recklessness, and an imperial presidency.

The Best of David Franke

The "revival
of conservatism" is all the rage right now in the political
media. We are told that the Tea Parties are sweeping the nation,
that the Republican Party is being forced to the Right in its attempts
to woo them, that they are either an independent populist force
or (alternatively) controlled by the GOP and Beltway Conservatives.
Pundits laugh at the lack of sophistication on the part of these
tea partiers (they are inevitably compared to McCarthyites or John
Birchers), but then ponder the Deeper Significance of this phenomenon.

Seeking to
take advantage of this explosion of grassroots vigor — and to control
it — dozens of top conservative muckamucks met on February 17 at
an estate that was an original part of George Washington's Mount
Vernon. There they signed "The
Mount Vernon Statement" with the subtitle: "Constitutional
Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century."

A companion
statement issued to the press explained that "The
Sharon Statement, signed at the home of William F. Buckley,
Jr., in Sharon, Connecticut in September 1960, helped launch and
define the conservative movement…" Now, 50 years later, "today's
leaders will unveil and sign [a new] declaration of leadership."

As someone
who was there at Sharon, and voted for adoption of the Sharon Statement,
I urge you to read and compare the two documents. Then put the two
documents into their historical perspectives.

First of all,
though, I have to note that a statement written by one competent
person will almost always outshine a committee document.

The Sharon
Statement was written by one competent person — M. Stanton
Evans, a gifted conservative journalist and leader then still in
his twenties. Given the responsibility for bringing a statement
of principles before the gathering, Carol Dawson and I made some
minor cosmetic changes, but it was 99.9% Stan Evans. And it was
a real statement, concise but comprehensive in its scope, listing
12 "eternal truths" that "we, as young conservatives,
believe." You could agree or disagree, but you knew where we
stood.

While I was
not present at the drafting and signing of the Mount Vernon Statement,
I have to believe that it is the product of a committee. (You know,
"if it quacks like a duck," etc.) It certainly is not
a series of precise principles in the spirit of the Sharon Statement.
Rather it's a short essay seeking to identify modern conservatism
with the spirit of the Constitution and George Washington. It's
not bad, given what it attempts to do. It's just that it's vague
and muddled compared to the Sharon Statement — sort of like the
conservative movement itself.

The Sharon
Statement in Historical Context

The Sharon
Statement was adopted in 1960, when the "conservative movement"
was in its infancy and was still defining itself as something apart
from the Old Right of the World War II and post-World War II era.
Bill Buckley and his National Review were trying to meld
traditionalist, libertarian, and cold warrior elements into one
movement — a tough assignment. This gathering-together of disparate
elements was called "fusionism," and its prophet was Frank
S. Meyer, one of National Review's senior editors. Stan Evans
was a student of the prophet, and the Sharon Statement was Stan's
Fusionist Codice.

Fifty years
later, the Sharon Statement has lost none of its brilliance — as
a portrayal of what it was promoting. The defects we note are
not in the statement itself but rather, informed by 50 years of
history and conservative practice, defects in the movement it was
defining.

To its credit,
the Sharon Statement gave primacy to the Constitution (and especially
the Tenth Amendment, all but forgotten today) and to "the market
economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand."
"Market economy" is much superior to the Mount Vernon
Statement's homage to "free enterprise," whatever that
is. For one thing, a "market economy" (or "free market")
by definition excludes any government intervention. "Free
enterprise," and the even worse "capitalism," tends
to change meanings with whatever is being hawked at the moment.

The great failure
of the early conservative movement, which led to even greater failures
over the past 50 years, is its belief that the lamb can lie down
with the wolf and not be eaten. Conservatives of the Sharon Statement
era, including Bill Buckley himself, knew that we were making a
deal with the devil — endorsing an interventionist foreign policy,
which the Old Right had fought tooth and nail, as a "temporary"
measure to "defeat world communism." The Sharon Statement
gives voice to this mentality with "eternal truths" 10
and 11:

"That
the forces of international Communism are, at present, the single
greatest threat to [American] liberties;

"That
the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence
with, this menace…"

Fifty years
later, it's obvious that the devil won that bet. International communism
as a political force has been dead for 20 years — the "victory"
cited as the goal in the Sharon Statement — and now we, the
American Empire, are the enemy of the Constitution that conservatives
swore obeisance to in 1960.

Which brings
us to…

The Mount
Vernon Statement in Historical Context

The great failure
of the Mount Vernon Statement is not any literary shortcoming, but
rather its utter failure to learn anything from the past 50 years,
and to accept any responsibility for what has gone wrong over the
past 50 years.

The Mount Vernon
Statement reads like a document stuck in the Sixties: "America's
principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our
universities and our politics." There is not the slightest
hint or acknowledgement that conservatives had any part in this
undermining or redefining. Nothing about people posing as
conservatives being responsible for a brutal empire that straddles
the world, the bankrupting of the nation to pay for this empire,
the justification of torture at home and abroad, an imperial presidency,
the evisceration of the Tenth Amendment, you name it. Apparently
only liberals have committed these crimes against the spirit and
the letter of the Constitution.

Granted, documents
like the Sharon Statement and the Mount Vernon Statement don't usually
name names, so we shouldn't expect to see Bush and Cheney singled
out for indictment in the latter. But there are disparaging references
like "some insist that America must change" and "this
idea of change." Gee, whom could they be talking about? Anyone
with an ounce of political savvy can figure out that this is not
an indictment of changes brought about by Bush and Cheney, but by
that scoundrel Barack Hussein Obama.

And there's
a reason why the signers of the Mount Vernon Statement are silent
today about the decapitation of the Constitution in the Bush/Cheney
era — almost 100 percent of them supported Bush and Cheney
with their votes in 2000, 2004, and (by proxy McCain) 2008. Even
if they uttered some criticisms from time to time, they ended up
voting for the Republican every time because — horrors — otherwise
a Democrat would win.

In short, they
put allegiance to party above allegiance to the Constitution they
claim to serve. And because they cannot acknowledge this, the Mount
Vernon Statement has to be seen as just another partisan battle
cry, not a statement of "conservative beliefs, values and principles."

Back to
George Washington

They were so
close to Mount Vernon, and called this the Mount Vernon Statement.
I wish they had taken the time to reflect on what George Washington
had to say about political parties and partisanship.

From Washington's
lengthy Farewell Address in 1796 I
have extracted some of the warnings he gave about "the baneful
effects of the spirit of party." He was so much more prescient
on foreign entanglements than those of us who signed the Sharon
Statement in 1960, and so much more wise than the Republicans, posing
as conservatives, who signed the Mount Vernon Statement this year.

February
18, 2010

David
Franke [send him mail]
was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s
and 1960s, when Democrats and liberals were the ones who believed
in big government, fiscal recklessness, and an imperial presidency.

As a long-time
fan of Poe, I knew, of course, that he is the father of the detective
story — that’s why the Mystery Writers of America call their annual
awards “Edgars,” which physically are small busts of Poe. But I
learned that he also invented science fiction, having great influence
on Jules Verne, who then went on to write some pioneering science
fiction himself. Poe loved to have fun with his readers — to see
what he could get away with. He wrote a story for a New York newspaper
about a man crossing the Atlantic Ocean in a hot-air balloon. People
believed it, and the newspaper sold out, so they repeated the story
the next day. I don’t know when (if ever) readers learned that this
was fiction. Calling Orson Welles!

One exhibit
exclaimed that “Poe was the first American writer to earn his living
by writing.” I took that as a cautionary tale, since Poe was impoverished
most of his life.

There was also
a lot of bragging, claiming that Poe was the first American writer
to win international fame, or something to that effect. What about
Washington Irving, I asked. “We’re talking about INFLUENCE,” Chris
answered. Irving, he claimed, echoing Poe, really wrote in the English
style, merely substituting American locales. Poe, on the other hand,
established new writing genres and styles that had great influence
on literature not only in America but throughout Europe. As just
one example, he broke with the Gothic horror tradition of having
a moralistic lesson and ending on a happy note of virtue triumphant.
Poe had no morality lessons in his tales, and often it was just
the opposite, which infuriated the leading Yankee writers. There
was no love lost between Poe and the Yankee scribes — both excoriated
the other in print. (I’m getting to like Poe more and more.)

Poe was quite
a character. In addition to being broke most of the time, he was
also a drunk, of course. He was quite a ladies’ man, and there were
some interesting stories about the lasting impact he had on a number
of ladies before and after he married his 13-year-old cousin, who
died tragically of tuberculosis at, I think, age 24. (That decade
was probably the only happy time in his life — they really enjoyed
life together.) He would write one of his romantic love poems, and
change the name of the woman in the poem to whomever he was courting
at the time. He unabashedly lied about his bio, too — saying he
graduated with honors from the University of Virginia (not!) and
that he fought in the Greek War for Independence (he never got close
to it). Fact and fiction had a way of blurring and merging with
Poe.

Interesting
tidbit: Manet illustrated one of Poe’s books before going on to
become one of the leading French artists.

I asked Chris
for his recommendation as the best biography of Poe, and he said
Edgar
Allan Poe: A Critical Biography, by Arthur Hobson Quinn.
It’s a fairly old book, but you can get it on Amazon.com.

December
5, 2009

David
Franke [send him mail]
was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s
and 1960s, when Democrats and liberals were the ones who believed
in big government, fiscal recklessness, and an imperial presidency.

It ain't because
they're "communists," no matter how persistently the Warrior
Conservatives parrot that outdated line. That China started to end
20 years ago. Today's challenge is the subject of Schell's film,
Win in China: The Story
of China's Entrepreneurial Revolution.

"Win in
China" is also the name of the world's largest and most lucrative
business plan competition, broadcast as a TV series on national
state television. A uniquely Chinese combination of "The Apprentice"
and "Survivor," and China's first reality TV show, "Win
in China" is viewed by millions of enthralled Chinese. For
most of them, probably, this is their introduction to topics like
drafting a business plan, how to get a loan from a bank, setting
market goals and strategies, and, yes, meeting the needs of your
customers. For almost all of those millions of viewers, it defines
their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations.

Over 120,000
aspiring entrepreneurs enter this contest each year — yes, truly
everything in China is bigger, much bigger. About 100 are chosen
by the show's producers to compete. These are the ones seen on TV,
with fewer and fewer survivors after each round of competition.
Finally, as suspense mounts, only a handful of winners are left
to share around U.S. $5 million in venture capital grants. Survivor
No. 1 gets U.S. $1.5 million. (But, as the filmmaker notes, even
losers can be winners. With their exposure on national TV, some
of them will pick up business partners and obtain venture capital
outside of this official contest.)

The judges
are top businessmen in China — the nation's new rock stars — but
the public also gets a vote through texting. This truly is "educational
TV," with the top competitors explaining to the judges — and
the viewing public — their visions for fulfilling a market niche
and specifically how they would use the venture capital. The businessmen-judges,
in turn, explain to the competitors — and the viewing public — what
they like and dislike about each competitor, and his or her plans.
In the process, of course, they explain how they became successes,
usually starting from scratch.

The process
can be brutal. A businessman bluntly tells a contestant, "In
my opinion, you should not be an entrepreneur because of your personality.
Entrepreneurs have to be a little bit crazy. I suggest you get an
MBA in China and hold a job for five years before you try a venture
of your own." Ouch. Millions of Chinese, including your family
and friends, now know that he considers you too much of a wuss to
be a successful entrepreneur.

But the businessmen-judges
can also be inspirational, as when one of them explains to the contestants
that it's okay to lose — that's part of being an entrepreneur, and
he himself had failed in some ventures before he became a success.
What is not okay is to give up.

And they can
give advice in a folksy way. One businessman explains: "Passion
is not enough. If you're not competent, you can end up so broke
you cannot afford a wife."

One young woman
wants to start a staffing service for the more than 50,000 restaurants
in Shanghai, asserting that the owners rarely have experience in
picking good executive help. A businessman grills her: It is very
difficult to manage and train so many people. What makes you think
you can do that? Without hesitation, she asserts boldly: "I
believe in a military style of management." The crowd in the
studio audience roars, and the businessman smiles. You have a feeling
she's going to succeed, whether or not she wins this particular
contest.

Contestants
are also expected to be involved in community service. In one of
the film's funniest segments, a competitor is trying to convince
young kids to drink milk for its supposed health benefits. No way!
Yuk! In desperation our contestant turns to greed. He announces
a running contest to follow everyone drinking their milk, and the
winner of the race wins a portable refrigerator. Suddenly all the
kids are drinking their milk and running — cheerfully and eagerly.
(Even the choice of the prize tells so much about the difference
between China and the U.S.)

Along the way,
the survivors are divided into two teams, in a contest to see who
can sell the most life insurance. This televised competitive process
is as humorous as it is fierce, and reveals so much about Chinese-style
dog-eat-dog capitalism. One woman pulls the gender card on a potential
client, also a woman: "Buy from me. I'm a woman like you. I've
just had a baby, and I'm tired…" A young man tells a potential
client: "If you don't buy from me now, I'll be calling you
every 15 minutes." The fiercest competitor, Joe You, goes by
the nickname "Wolf" because of his business style. He
gets in trouble because of some of his methods as leader of one
of the teams. Will the judges rule against Wolf, or admire him for
his aggressiveness? I won't be a spoiler — watch the film to find
out.

At the close
of the movie, we are treated to the words of Chairman Mao, emblazoned
across the screen: "The socialist system will eventually replace
the capitalist system; this is the objective law independent of
man's will. However much the reactionaries try to hold back the
wheel of history, sooner or later revolution will take place and
will inevitably triumph."

Ah, such sweet,
delicious irony!

The question
immediately arises, of course: What are the implications of all
these Chinese entrepreneurs for the United States? After all, we
like to think of ourselves as the home of entrepreneurship
in the world.

I saw "Win
in China" at a screening sponsored by the Asia Society and
the Sidwell Friends School in Washington, D.C. Orville Schell, author
of nine books on China (and the father of the filmmaker), noted
in the panel discussion following the screening: "In China,
you can feel the hunger [to get rich, to achieve] after being
deprived so many years. Then, when you come back to the United States,
you don't see that hunger."

Perhaps it's
the classic story of a mature — some would say effete — society
being challenged by a raw, expanding, and yes, hungry new
power on the global stage. The Roman Empire and the barbarians.
And we know how that one turned out.

December
4, 2009

David
Franke [send him mail]
was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s
and 1960s, when Democrats and liberals were the ones who believed
in big government, fiscal recklessness, and an imperial presidency.

DIGG
THIS

I knew I wasn't
getting the full story from the liberal/corporate/fascist (take
your pick) press.

We're obviously
experiencing a transition to a new era, something even bigger than
a New World Order, and all the media could talk about were boring
things like "subprime mortgages," "derivatives,"
"swap agreements," "forward rate agreements,"
"Turbo warrants," and "the undertaker" (Ayn
Rand's amazingly apropos reference, I gathered, to Alan Greenspan).
I never got beyond "subprime mortgages," which I figured
out were temporary house leases for Barney Frank's constituency.
But I knew there had to be a better explanation, one I could understand.

Then a friend
sent me Daily Astrology & Adventure for September 26,
and it all made sense. Well, sort of.

I did realize
that this is what John McCain should have told President Bush and
Senator Obama and all assembled at that emergency White House conference
on the bailout:

“My friends:

“Two words.
Just two words: Mercury retrograde!

“That’s why
we cannot go through with this bailout. At least not at this time.

“You see, the
planets are in Mercury retrograde, and anyone with a shred of scientific
astrological experience with Mercury retrograde knows that, at the
least, things you do under this influence generally don’t quite
work out as planned. In fact, most astrologers would advise you
to hold off buying a clock radio, much less investing in nearly
a trillion dollars worth of bad mortgages and other rotten debt
from some of the world’s most irresponsible companies….”

With that,
he probably would have been sued for plagiarism by the person who
writes that daily PlanetWaves.net column, but I’m sure he also would
have got the entire bailout matter shelved. And then he could have
traveled to Mississippi as the war hero who also saved America from
a horrendous Mercury retrograde deal.

And, given
how many secret astrologers there are in the U.S., he would be a
shoo-in in November.

Only one thing
bothers me: There’s something even scarier coming up in a couple
of weeks.

“Because a
Mercury retrograde was involved in both the meltdown and the ongoing
attempted rescue plan," I am told by Daily Astrology &
Adventure, "we will know more — a lot more, but obviously
not everything — when Mercury stations direct on Oct. 15, or perhaps
a day before. That’s when we will experience an Aries Full Moon
conjunct [with?] the new planet Eris — the goddess of chaos, among
other things.”

Ohmigosh, does
that mean the goddess of chaos will be unleashed on October 15 —
am I reading that right?

Could Sarah
Palin be Eris the goddess of chaos?

Where, oh where,
is Nancy Reagan when I need her to explain this to me!

September
27, 2008

David
Franke [send him mail]
was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s
and 1960s, when Democrats and liberals were the ones who believed
in big government, fiscal recklessness, and an imperial presidency.

DIGG
THIS

I was at the
big Jamestown 400th Anniversary Commemoration Sunday night, with
an excellent and amazingly cohesive 400-musician orchestra (400
years, get it?) and 1,607-person choir (Jamestown was founded in
1607, get it?). The politically correct Powers That Be decided to
call this a commemoration rather than a celebration, because it
might seem we were “celebrating” the killing of Indians. I guess
it’s okay to commemorate the killing of Indians, as long
as that’s coupled with endless apologies, but not to celebrate
the event. The implication is that the killing of Indians was the
only significant thing that happened in Jamestown.

At least speakers
like Sandra Day O’Connor did remark, earlier, that Jamestown was
significant for the importation of Common Law and the Rule of Law
to America, though she said this in a way that implied that we still
live under the Common Law and the Rule of Law, which, of course,
we don’t, and haven’t since at least the reign of America’s first
fascist president, FDR.

Still, there
is a reason to both commemorate and celebrate the
founding of Jamestown, and Thomas J. DiLorenzo gave us that reason
in his article in LewRockwell.com three years ago, "Giving
Thanks for Private Property." He relayed how the Jamestown
settlers nearly starved themselves to extinction under socialism,
but then survived and prospered after the institution of private
property.

One of the
other nice things about making a big to-do over Jamestown is that
it reminds everyone that Virginia was in existence years before
those first Yankees hit the shores of New England and went through
the same process of saving themselves through private property after
socialism failed. When the Yankees celebrate in 2020, we Southerners
can yawn and say, “Been there, done that.”

And then there
are the French. The City of Quebec had a tourist booth at Jamestown
this weekend where they passed out pamphlets inviting people to
come visit next year and help them “celebrate” (note: not “commemorate”)
the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City (what, were
no Indians injured in the making of Quebec?). They will also be
celebrating “the history of the first European settlers in North
America.” The clear implication is that England is not part of Europe
— well, you know, it’s just a savage island to the west of Europe.

Switching hats
from Southerner to Texan, I have to chuckle because I know that
the Spaniards were on today's American soil before the English or
the French. And, of course, the first European Thanksgiving celebrated
on present-day American soil took place in what we now call El Paso.

But wait. The
Vikings were most certainly in North America before the Spanish.
And before we get into a fight over which country can claim the
Vikings, we must note the increasingly convincing evidence that
the Chinese were here long before the arrival of any Europeans.

A few years
ago I attended a day-long conference sponsored by the Library of
Congress concerning the thesis of Gavin Menzies in his book, 1421:
The Year China Discovered America. When his book was first
published, the historians union (you know, those with a Ph.D. after
their name) ridiculed Menzies, who was only a retired British naval
officer and therefore an “amateur” historian, the implication being
that he was a modern-day Parson Weems.

Well, here
we were gathered in the Library of Congress conference room, filled
to capacity, and the theses being examined had gone far beyond Menzies.
We were treated to lectures about:

• How the
  alphabet of the coastal Indians in eastern Canada included numerous
  characters that were virtually identical to characters in the
  Chinese alphabet.
• The discovery
  of a city in the mountains of Nova Scotia that supposedly shows
  archaeological evidence of Chinese habitation.
• How the
  Indians of the Pacific Northwest, when they came into contact
  with European explorers, told about previous visits by Chinese
  and Japanese (and they knew the difference).
• And, most
  far-out of all, about a DNA study looking into the similarities
  of Chinese and Native American DNA.

I can see where
all of this is going. In a few years not only will everything we
buy in Wal-Mart be “made IN China,” but it will be established that
America itself was “made BY China.” Please don’t tell Lou Dobbs.

September
27, 2007

David
Franke [send him mail]
was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s
and 1960s, when Democrats and liberals were the ones who believed
in big government, fiscal recklessness, and an imperial presidency.

DIGG
THIS

Writing
in the imperialist and neocon National Review, Byron York
can be expected to be against impeachment of King George the Dubya.
And so he is. But if the Democrats really have assembled the goods
on how Dubya has broken some 26 laws and regulations (I haven’t
read the 350-page document yet), he can scream “leftwing” all he
wants but it won’t stop impeachment proceedings from beginning IF
the Democrats win the House in November.

All the more
reason to get out the vote for the Democrats in November!

For those (like
myself) who oppose King George from the Right, the main reason to
want divided government is to slow down the financial destruction
of the United States a bit. In recent decades the two periods of
slowest growth in the federal government have occurred when we had
divided government in the Reagan years, with a GOP White House and
a Democratic Congress, and in the Clinton years, with a Democratic
White House and GOP Congress. Both parties are evil, but at least
with divided government they spend most of their energy fighting
each other. That’s the best we can hope for in the short term.

A second reason
for wanting divided government would be to hold King George, if
not his minions, accountable for their actions in killing American
soldiers and draining the American treasury in an unconstitutional
and unprovoked war of aggression. Since I guess it’s expecting too
much for Congress to bring charges of treason, I’ll have to be satisfied
with a middle-of-the-road course of impeachment. If the Democrats
really have the balls to do this, the next two years could be tremendous
fun AND bring government growth to a relative halt!

It all seems
to depend on the House. National Journal’s latest roundup
of the races (and they follow this much, much more closely than
I do) shows the Republicans probably holding on to the Senate by
one or two seats. But while they don’t offer a prediction in the
House, they list the 50 seats most likely to change hands in November,
starting with the one MOST likely to change parties, and 40 of the
50 (including all of the top 11) are presently held by Republicans.

My congressman
is a Republican who calls himself a “conservative” but voted to
give King George unconstitutional authority to pursue war at his
whim, and voted to bankrupt Medicare still faster with the prescription
drug plan – the two most destructive votes in the GOP Congress.
I don’t even know who his Democratic opponent is, but I’ll be voting
for that Democrat. It’s the true-conservative thing to do.

My pledge of
allegiance is to the Republic (which, alas, no longer exists), not
to the deceptively misnamed Republicans.

August
9, 2006

David
Franke [send him mail]
was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s
and 1960s, when Democrats and liberals were the ones who believed
in big government, fiscal recklessness, and an imperial presidency.

Exhilarating
because the sheer size and diversity of the crowd of protesters
showed me an America that is fed up enough to spend the time, energy,
and money to come to Washington and make a statement to the world
despite the lack of any top-down leadership. Think about it. There
isn't a single notable Republican or Democratic leader with the
guts or intelligence to take a principled stand against the war
that two-thirds of the American people now oppose. So much for representative
government. But that didn't stop this crowd. We even drove King
George into retreat in Colorado Springs, which was worth the price
of admission in itself.

Exasperating
because of the gap between the hard-left ideology of so many of
the organizers and the simple, frustrated patriotism of most of
the participants – everyday Americans who cannot believe or
condone what George W. Bush has done to our country. Trying to listen
to the speeches was as numbing as it always has been, but the antidote
was to walk through the crowd and simply enjoy the creativity of
the homemade signs and buttons and stickers. More about that in
a moment.

With
a memory as hazy as mine, comparing this event to the protests of
the 1960s requires a leap of faith in my recollections. Nevertheless,
I'll hazard three comparisons. The crowd this year was much more
inter-generational than the protests of the Sixties, which back
then were comprised almost entirely of students and vaguely defined
"youths." The crowd this year, largely because of that
inter-generational quality, was much more representative of the
diversity of the American people than any Sixties protest. And the
protestors this year had a much better sense of political humor
than I remember any of us having in the Sixties.

Mind
you, there's nothing funny about the war in Iraq itself. The most
memorable visual scenes last Saturday were the crosses (nearly 2,000
of them) spread on the Mall near the Washington Monument, commemorating
the American soldiers sacrificed in this senseless and unnecessary
war. At another spot was an even more haunting chain of small photos
of those men and women, with identification attached to each one.

The
war itself is not funny, and nobody was laughing at that. The humor
enters into the politics of the situation here at home, and it keeps
us from plunging into depression over the seeming hopelessness of
trying to get the War Party that controls Washington to listen to
two-thirds of the American people. Interviewed in the New York Times
about his new show, Stephen Colbert of "The Daily Show"
said: "We're just trying to ease the pain of people who feel
the world is going insane and no one is noticing." The sardonic,
sarcastic, ironic, satirical humor on display in Washington on Saturday
was just trying to ease the pain.

It
worked for me, and here, for you, are a few of the many signs and
buttons and slogans that brought a smile to me:

• War on
  Terror
  Or
  Moron Error?

• Heckuva
  Job Bushy

• Quagmire
  Accomplished

• Overthrow
  Iraq's Brutal Dictator –
  George W. Bush

• Send the
  Idiot
  Back to his Village
  (and)
  Somewhere
  in Texas
  a village is missing its idiot!

• American
  Psycho

• More Trees
  Less Bush

• Drop Bush
  Not Bombs

• Take the
  War Toys
  Away from Junior

• Drunken
  Frat Brat
  Drives a Nation
  Into a Ditch

• Bush Lied
  Thousands Died

• Fools Rushed
  In

• Buck Fush

• Ex-Republican
  Ask Me Why

• Intelligent
  Design?
  (photo of Bush)
  I Think Not

• Look Ma
  –
  The Emperor Has No Brain

• No Soldier
  Left Behind

• Empty Warhead
  Found in White House

• Outsource
  (photo of Bush) this!

• President
  Bush is an Oxymoron

• If Bush
  is a good Christian
  Then I'm a good astronaut

• War is
  Not a Family Value

• Bush's
  Personal War is Not Pro-Life

• Our son
  was once an embryo –
  Don't send him to Iraq

• Bush took
  the Christ out of Christianity

• What Would
  Satan Do

• A Noble
  War?
  Prove It – Send the Twins

• Bush –
  Iraq – FEMA
  One Disaster After Another

• Make Levees
  Not War

• Hurricane
  Bush
  The Real Disaster

September
28, 2005

David
Franke [send him mail]
was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s
and 1960s, when Democrats and liberals were the ones who believed
in big government, fiscal recklessness, and an imperial presidency.