Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Pat Buchanan: Huck’s Hour of Power

PJB: Huck’s Hour of Power
posted by Linda

by Patrick J. Buchanan

During his speech to CPAC, among the best he has delivered, Mitt Romney suspended his campaign, so as not to imperil GOP prospects in the fall. Said Mitt,

“If I fight on…all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Sens. Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

Thus did Romney endorse the McCain view that the Democrats who intend to pull all U.S. combat brigades out by a date certain, are raising the “white flag of surrender” to Islamofascist terror.

But when Mike Huckabee, who also delivered one of his best at CPAC, was asked if he would stand down for the good of the party, as his winning the nomination is now a near-mathematical impossibility, he brusquely dismissed such demands as “total nonsense.”

“I didn’t major in math,” said the Baptist preacher, “I majored in miracles.” Good for Huck. Why should he drop out?

For too long conservatives have suppressed their convictions or meekly submitted, so as not to oppose a Republican President or get out of step with the Congressional leadership.

Because they did not wish to undercut George H. W. Bush, too many went along with his tax hikes and quota bill. And they paid the price in 1992.

Because they did not want to get out of step with their K Street contributors, too many went along with the refusal of Bush I and Bush II to secure America’s borders. Belatedly, they have awakened to what “going along” has done to their country.

Because they did not want to get out of step with Newt and Dole, too many conservatives went along with NAFTA, Most Favored Nation trade status for China, the surrender of sovereignty to the WTO.

Result: $800 billion trade deficits, de-industrialization of the nation, and a dependency on foreigners for the necessities of our national life and for the borrowed money to pay for them.

Now they all wonder why manufacturing jobs are leaving for China, why median family income no longer rises as in the Reagan era, why the Reagan Democrats are going home.

Because too many did not want to be seen as not supporting a Republican president in time of war, only six House Republicans voted to deny Bush a blank check for war.

Did the rest have no grave concern about the wisdom of invading Mesopotamia to dethrone a tyrant and democratize a nation that has never known democracy, when George H. W. Bush himself, wiser than his son, halted the Army of Desert Storm rather than take Baghdad?

Because Bush demanded it, too many conservatives went along with No Child Left Behind, Medicare funding of prescription drugs, and the largest increases in social spending since LBJ. And what did their capitulation to Big Government Conservatism do for them, except earn them the contempt of the base, which they manifestly deserved.

Thinking is hard work, said Twain; that is why so few engage in it. For too long, conservatives have not been thinking, but living on the inherited intellectual capital of the past. They have failed to see that the world has changed since Reagan’s time and we must change with it.

The truth is the prospective Republican nominee is frozen in the past. Though an invasion of his nation is taking place on the border of his own state, John McCain is still reciting Emma Lazarus on the Golden Door. Though China manipulated its currency to seize our markets and loot our industry, and the EU imposes VAT taxes — tariff equivalents — on U.S. imports, McCain is still babbling on about Smoot-Hawley.

Though the Cold War has been over a generation, McCain has become more bellicose. He warns us new wars are coming, demands the ouster of Putin from the G-8, threatens Iran. If there is a single trip wire for war laid down in the time of Acheson and Dulles that John McCain thinks we should pull up, or a single alliance he has urged us to review, this writer has not heard of it.

With the president at 30% and the party about to lose seats in both houses, conservatives should not be closing ranks but demanding to know why.

Huckabee has a chance to do himself a world of good by piling up votes and delegates and making himself a conservative alternative to McCain. But he also has a chance to serve his party and country, by putting on the table the issues neither party is addressing.

Are we as overextended strategically and militarily as we surely are financially and fiscally? Should we stick with free trade, if our rivals are rabid economic nationalists? If we let 12-20 million illegals stay, how do we stop the next 12-20 million from coming in?

For his party’s and his country’s sake, as well as his own, Mike Huckabee should keep the conversation going. Because right now, his party is looking at Hillary, Obama — or Bush’s third term.

Thursday, February 7, 2008


By Steven Yates
August 5, 2007

Back in 1996, Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington published his much-discussed The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Huntington, a CFR member, offered an elite, commanding heights perspective on the near future a half-decade after the demise of the Soviet Union which doesn't mean the book isn't worth reading (it is).

Huntington saw the West as having become simultaneously the most powerful empire in history · economically and militarily but threatened by slow, long term decline both because of the rise of energetic competitors (especially India and China) and internal problems including falling birth rates, low savings, increased crime and corruption, and social disintegration. He didn't do much to address the role of super-elite policy in bringing these about but few commanding heights treatises do.

This last offers us a good insight from which to begin. After all, a real, bona fide clash of civilizations is developing on American soil ·with parallel developments in Canada.

One of the most amazing phenomena of the past few months is the largely spontaneous explosion of grassroots support for Ron Paul's candidacy for the Republican nomination in 2008. Media talking heads wrote him off following the second so-called debate in Columbia, South Carolina, where he and Rudy Giuliani crossed verbal swords. In the eyes of We the People, though, Ron Paul won that exchange. He spoke calmly, coherently, and cogently about such matters as blowback to explain why we were attacked on 9/11 (assuming for now we can believe anything the government says on the subject).

I find it hard not to write about Ron Paul. To those of us who believe our government should stick to the letter of its founding document, the U.S. Constitution, Dr. Paul is a true American hero. He is the one Republican candidate who voted against the undeclared Iraq War now dragging through its fifth year, the number of Americans killed now rivaling the number killed on 9/11, with tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and no end in sight. His opposition to the Iraq War was/is not based on some frivolous dislike of George W. Bush, as seems to be the case with many Democrats. He voted against the undeclared war in Kosovo back when Clinton was president. He believes, on Constitutional grounds, that we should not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. He does not believe we should initiate wars to enforce nonbinding resolutions by globalist bodies (the UN). He believes our interventionist foreign policy is wrong in principle, and that it has made us more enemies tha n friends, the world over. An empire may rise and for a time hold sway by superior military might and superior resources, but the interfered-with cheer when it goes down in flames, often from its own internal corruption and dysfunction.

Dr. Paul s principled stands have won him vocal support from across the land. The more the mainstream media tries to ignore him, the more this support grows. The more the elites try to suppress his views, the more they make his case for him€ ’·sometimes better than he ever could on his own. When he was refused a microphone in Iowa, he and his supporters staged a parallel rally a short distance away. More people attended the parallel rally than came to hear the € ’³official€ ’´ Republican candidates!

Just recently we saw some major backpedaling here in Upstate South Carolina. Rick Beltram, who chairs the Spartanburg County GOP based in Spartanburg, South Carolina, had called Paul a € ’³lunatic€ ’´ for his blowback remark to Giuliani in the Columbia match-up and in response to interest in a visit from Dr. Paul to the area, said he could € ’³stay home.€ ’´ Following a storm of emailed and voice-mailed protests from local Paul supporters, Beltram retreated and stated, € ’³If we're all that naive and we all misunderstood, I think they should come on down and tell us how we're wrong, and I think the people of Spartanburg will be anxious to listen.€ ’´

He got that right! A crowd of over 400 assembled at a luncheon hosted by the Spartanburg GOP on July 21 (watch and listen here). Dr. Paul€ ’²s rousing defense of freedom as opposed to serfdom and encroaching tyranny, sound monetary policy as opposed to continued debauching of the dollar courtesy of the Federal Reserve, Constitutionally limited government as opposed to unlimited expansion of the empire, and noninterventionist foreign policy as opposed to globalist nation-building, was punctuated with a dozen or so standing ovations. That same afternoon, a crowd rivaling the 1,000 that appeared in Iowa filled the Carolina First Center in neighboring Greenville. Some of these folks had driven for hundreds of miles from all over the Southeast to hear Dr. Paul€ ’²s message (can you imagine anyone driving hundreds of miles to see Rudy Giuliani, or John McCain??). Dr. Paul€ ’²s calls to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and repeal the USA Patriot Act were greeted with cheers.

Dr. Paul is poised for national prominence since he has passed the fading McCain in the fundraising department. Shortly before the July 21 events he announced that he now has $2.4 million in the bank, versus McCain€ ’²s $2 million. This places him third behind Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Only out of sheer prejudice against his ideas can anyone still maintain that Dr. Paul€ ’²s candidacy is unserious. No amount of namecalling or milder dismissals (e.g., George Will€ ’²s once referring to him as a € ’³cheerful anachronism€ ’´) is going to change this. After months of total silence, the mainstream media has been compelled to pay attention, with evening coverage on local television networks and front page stories in the Sunday editions of the daily newspapers of both Greenville and Spartanburg on July 22.

Surely, too, the evidence of broad-based support refutes those often-heard claims that Ron Paul€ ’²s presence especially on Internet-based polls is the work of € ’³spammers.€ ’´ Nonsense! Examination of Dr. Paul€ ’²s fundraising by the Federal Election Commission shows that 47 percent of contributions to his campaign are in amounts totaling under $200 apiece (McCain is second place in this category with 17 percent). This means that large numbers of individuals are donating money in support of his campaign. Dr. Paul does not receive huge corporate donations or PAC money because he isn€ ’²t in corporations€ ’² or lobbyists€ ’² back pockets. He is now first in total donations from veterans and military personnel€ ’·surprising, at first glance, but telling given the growing realization within the rank-and-file of the military that the Iraq War was a mistake from the get-go.

Dr. Paul€ ’·as I and others have said before€ ’·is the only Constitutionalist in the race. He is the only person who, all evidence suggests, means it when he speaks of strict limits on the size and scope of the federal government. As his campaign literature states, he€ ’²s never voted for a tax increase, never supported Congress€ ’²s vote to raise their own salaries, never voted for a foreign war where legitimate U.S. interests are not at stake, never supported gun control laws. He doesn€ ’²t support laws that offer privileges to some groups at the expense of others; he doesn€ ’²t support the trend toward socialized medicine; he doesn€ ’²t support the corporatism (soft fascism) of the public-private partnership system. The Constitution says nothing about education, family, marriage, or any related areas. While Dr. Paul is staunchly pro-life, he also believes on Constitutional grounds that abortion is a matter for the states to resolve and not a federal responsibility.

Those who say he is an anachronism, are saying that Constitutionally limited government is an anachronism. That€ ’²s serious business, if you think about it.

Those who take such a view are saying, whether intentionally or not, that our system of government is now no different in principle or method from any other government that has ever existed, except in its capacity to rationalize. Most of the rest of the governments in the world are ruled by dictators who do as they please because they can. Their method is brute force. Our government had developed a history of dealing in deadly force with what amount to political crimes. FBI agents massacred Randy Weaver€ ’²s family, for his thought crime of racial separatism (he wasn€ ’²t bothering anybody else). The BATF burned women and children alive at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas. The IRS routinely imprisoned people like Irwin Schiff who have maintained that the federal income tax is a fraud with no legal or Constitutional foundation and refused to pay.

More and more, however, the federal government is not getting away with this sort of thing. There have been no more massacres since the rise of the World Wide Web and especially YouTube, through which the entire online world can watch such events unfold. While federal agents may have surrounded the residence of income tax dissidents Ed and Elaine Brown in New Hampshire, they have not gone in with guns blazing because they know We the People are watching. When asked, in open court, to produce the statute that mandates a personal income tax, the IRS cannot do it. They are beginning to lose these cases (recent example: attorney Tom Cryer).

A movement is developing, and it is larger than Ron Paul. Millions of people now get their news from Internet sources, and are tuning out the mainstream media. They are beginning to question official pronouncements about unemployment and the need for a € ’³core€ ’´ inflation rate (the real rates of both, of course, are substantially higher than the official rates). We the People have seen Aaron Russo€ ’²s tour de force, America: Freedom to Fascism, and are looking more critically at the Federal Reserve. We are more and more turning our attention from our usual petty squabbles and toward the € ’³commanding heights€ ’´ of super-elite power.


Upshot of Part 1: a confrontation of historical proportions is building between those who want unlimited government (often in partnership with unlimited corporate power in quest for profits) and those who want Constitutionally limited government. That is to say, a confrontation is building between the elite culture and what we might as well call the populist culture, between the corporatist-globalists who meet behind closed doors at SPP Meetings and We the People who protest these strategies.

The Ron Paul Revolution is just one example. The real clash of civilizations is building on several fronts, and may result in a major political realignment once the dust settles.

Now of course, Dr. Paul himself is probably the least confrontational person in the presidential race. Those in Washington who disagree with him 180 degrees usually like him as a person. His demeanor is always calm and congenial€ ’·exuding the confidence of a man who knows he is right and that his critics are all wet, but is too polite to say so openly.

But as I said, the movement that is developing spontaneously around his candidacy is larger than he is, and it isn€ ’²t going anywhere. Not all of those involved are nonconfrontational€ ’·for better or for worse. Possibly because it is a luxury we can no longer afford. Dr. Paul has been in Congress. Down here in the trenches, things look very different.

The elite culture wants € ’³immigration reform€ ’´ in the worst way. The colonization of America by illegal aliens and affording them tracks to citizenship, after all, helps dilute something the elites have despised for decades: middle class America, with its predilection to save instead of spend and its goal of financial independence which leads to other forms of independence (educational, intellectual, ecclesiastical, etc.). Importing cheap labor drives down wages for working Americans. Illegals € ’³do the jobs Americans won€ ’²t do,€ ’´ goes the official mantra, which neglects the high percentage of illegals in prison or on welfare, and is rubbish in any event: there isn€ ’²t a job an American won€ ’²t do if he or she is paid decently! We the People, who see more of our jobs disappearing and more of our towns and neighborhoods destroyed by the soaring rates of crime and gang activity associated with the illegal alien colonization, want nothing to do with € ’³immigr ation reform€ ’´ which will lead only to ever-greater waves of incursions by illegals, as it did after the last amnesty bill signed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. Not this time! With a lot of Senators facing re-election next year, when their phones rang off the hook a few Thursdays ago with over 80 percent of callers demanding a thumbs-down on that Kennedy-McCain-Graham abomination, they knew that voting with the elites could send them packing next year.

We the People spoke! The Senate obeyed. There is an important object lesson here: when We the People get up off our butts and do something, we can win a battle or two or three!

The elite culture wants Real ID (or its equivalent by some other name) in the worst way. They see it as a stepping stone to total information awareness on every U.S. citizen, and thereby a means of securing power. They are doubtless aware, again, of the grassroots rebellion sweeping through state legislatures often led by private citizens groups, i.e., We the People. Again, we the people are speaking, and winning battles one state at a time. Seeing to it that we are not forced to accept national ID cards is going to take some doing€ ’·as the elites€ ’² minions in Congress will try to slip it into every bill related to employment in one way or another, or possibly as another of those legislative land-mines in an unrelated appropriations bill. Again, however, when We the People are vigilant and do something, we can make the elites slow up.

The elite culture want the Trans-Texas Corridor as the first leg of their proposed NAFTA Super Corridor system, as the elites€ ’² proposed € ’³North American Community€ ’´ will need a transportation infrastructure to move cheap Chinese crud up through Mexico and into this country on (poorly inspected) Mexican trucks. The Texas branch of We the People has spoken loudly: ordinary Texans do not want it. Texas Governor Rick Perry (representing the elite culture) does, of course. A confrontation is building in Texas, especially as Perry vetoed the bill calling for a two-year moratorium on the construction of the TTC.

We the People have not won this one yet. But stay tuned. I€ ’²ve learned enough about Texans over the years to know that among their number are some who will not go quietly when the Texas DOT and its corporate partners try to use post-Kelo eminent domain abuse to take away the 584,000 acres of land they€ ’²ve worked all their lives, and which their fathers and grandfathers worked before them. This does not mention the potential for more illegal alien smuggling, drug trafficking, and possibly even terrorists sneaking nuclear materials into this country via Mexican trucks coming up that road.

The elite culture wants that € ’³North American Community€ ’´ in the worst way, as a crucial stepping stone in their long-term effort to integrate as much of the planet as possible under a single global regime ruled by themselves. The elites see unlimited bureaucratic-plutocratic power, exercised through their public-private partnerships (not genuine free markets€ ’·suggestion: read everything Joan Veon has written on the subject). The elite culture does not want government by consent of the governed. Its corporatist side sees unlimited profits through the ease of outsourcing and the ready availability of cheap labor once the free movement of peoples and capital through an essentially borderless North America is established. Its politically correct/collectivist side sees mass control of persons through the subordination (intellectual, psychological, etc.) of the individual to the group (racial/ethnic, gender, the € ’³self-directed work team,€ ’´ etc.).

The SPP speaks of € ’³security and prosperity.€ ’´ It doesn€ ’²t add up. Again, we are looking at elite-speak. Only when We the People are free from government and corporate fetters can we take the actions that will lead to true prosperity, and true security (through the self-sufficiency and independence from centralized authority that brings about stable families, effective education, crime-free neighborhoods, and much, much more that We the People find good!).

China and India have already reaped the rewards of the Western elite culture having destroyed our families, dumbed us down in government schools, maintained a divide-and-conquer principle on race and gender first with affirmative action programs and then political correctness, while engineering America€ ’²s economic decline through destructive, corporatist trade policy (e.g., NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.) and the accompanying refusal to secure our border with Mexico. Samuel Huntington gets it half right. Like all elitists, he sees the impending decline of the U.S. as a world power as a natural process, not the product of a deliberate, multi-faceted, long-term agenda.

We the People want no part of any of this. We are tired of paying out over a third of our incomes into taxes€ ’·especially with that mounting suspicion that the federal income tax is one of the two biggest scams of all time, the other one being the Federal Reserve (a government-created corporation owned lock, stock and barrel by the super-elite). Those of us who have learned how our money system really works, how it has privileged the super-elite and those attached to them while subtly assaulting the financial independence of We the People, more and more want an end to this system. Let us shut down the IRS, so that working Americans of all stripes can keep their hard-earned money. Let us shut down the Federal Reserve and restore Constitutional money (see Article 1, Section 8).

Most Americans would cheer at the former but are not ready for the latter. They haven€ ’²t yet seen America: Freedom to Fascism or The Money Masters. A new national conversation in the U.S. will eventually get this € ’³sleeper issue€ ’´ discussed, possibly as soon as next summer€ ’²s Republican National Convention courtesy of Ron Paul€ ’²s greater visibility and the increasing visibility of his issues.

Canadians, by the way, are also mobilizing their own We the People (Vive le Canada, the Canadian Action Party, et al.) to oppose their branch of the power-elite represented by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canada West Foundation, both of which advocate € ’³deep integration€ ’´ with the U.S. and Mexico. When the SPP meets August 20-21 at Montebello, Quebec€ ’·surrounded by heavy security€ ’·there may be as many as 10,000 protesters in the area. Interestingly, Canadians seem more aware of the momentum toward an integrated North America than do Americans. They understandably fear being overwhelmed by the far larger and more powerful entity to their south. They worry that U.S.-based multinational corporations will plunder their resources, e.g., the oil-rich shale deposits near Fort McMurray in northern Alberta, bringing in cheap foreign labor so that ordinary Canadians do not see a dime of the profits.

What We the People want, here or there, is to restore control over our economic and cultural lives and destinies€ ’·as opposed to being expendable pawns in a gigantic game of chess played by a power elites whose only gods are money and power, and who never see the carnage caused by their decisions and policies.

This clash of civilizations€ ’·between the super-elite mindset (I believe it was also Samuel Huntington who coined the term the Davos culture to describe it) and the populist one of We the People that is rising to prominence on the uncensored information available via the Internet€ ’·is just the latest chapter in the longest struggle in the history of Western civilization generally.

This is the struggle between those who want to be left alone, and those who will not leave them alone. It is the struggle between those who wish to live as they see fit, independently, and those who want power (accumulating huge quantities of wealth has often been a means to achieving power through easily-bought politicians). I believe this struggle emerged in the West, and nowhere else, because nowhere else did human beings develop such concepts as limitations on the power of the state, government by consent of the governed, and that of people dealing with one another freely and peacefully instead of through coercion. We alone honor the individual, and at one time recognized responsible individualism as an advance, morally as well as economically, over tribalism (collectivism). This is because, when we put our minds to it, we were able to see each person as a unique being put here by the Creator for a purpose€ ’·not a random product of nature and not simply an ins ignificant pawn to be used by the powerful.

Let me sum all this up. I have been asked, What chance do you think Ron Paul really has of getting the Republican nomination next year? Obviously, the Republican Party€ ’²s elite handlers will pull out all stops to make sure he doesn€ ’²t get it, no matter how large the grassroots support. Dr. Paul is, after all, rapidly becoming the biggest threat to their supremacy in decades€ ’·quite unlike Ross Perot, who understood our money system and had NAFTA right, but acted like a nut and finally self-destructed. (It has been suggested to me a time or two that Perot was threatened. I have no evidence one way or the other. It wouldn€ ’²t surprise me, though. I sincerely hope Dr. Paul has hired a few bodyguards and has his brakes checked periodically!)

But my purpose here has been to look beyond Ron Paul€ ’²s candidacy. A movement larger than him is emerging. Even if Dr. Paul doesn€ ’²t get the nomination, this movement isn€ ’²t going anywhere, and will probably get larger. Working under the assumption that the Bush Regime doesn€ ’²t find (or create) cause to declare a national emergency and place the country under martial law, very soon now We the People will be able to compel a new national conversation on the future of the United States of America, including scrutinizing institutions that have been sacrosanct. Does a free society need a Federal Reserve or any other central bank? How do we fix our money system so that money is our servant and not the means of our enslavement? Reading our Constitution might be a good place to start. (Also Thomas Jefferson.) What is the Constitutional and statutory basis for the personal income tax? If it has none, then We the People should demand that the IRS also be shut down.

Do we want a sovereign U.S.A.? What are we willing to do to keep it? Do we want to ensure that government answers to We the People. How do we make this happen? It means holding our representatives€ ’² feet to the fire as we did over amnesty-for-illegals, and taking action at the voting booth. Though it€ ’²s another article, I would recommend getting rid of paperless electronic voting machines, to certify that elections cannot simply be stolen.

We the People cannot, under any circumstances, allow this conversation to be shut down. If the elite culture continues to do as it places, it will mean the eventual loss of every personal freedom that matters, and doubtless our privacy as well. We are close to having the critical mass to force this new national conversation. Shall we seize this moment? The choice is ours.

Steven Yates earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1987 at the University of Georgia and has taught the subject at a number of colleges and universities around the Southeast. He currently teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville Technical College, and also does a little e-commerce involving real free trade. He is on the South Carolina Board of The Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA.

He is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), Worldviews: Christian Theism Versus Modern Materialism (2005), around two dozen philosophical articles and reviews in refereed journals and anthologies, and over a hundred articles on the World Wide Web. He lives in Greenville, South Carolina, where he writes a weekly column for the Times Examiner and is at work on a book length version of his popular series to be entitled The Real Matrix (hopefully!) to be completed this summer.

led The Real Matrix (hopefully!) to be completed this summer.

E-Mail: freeyourmindinsc@yahoo.com.




a.. We the People vs. Corporatist-
Globalism, Part 2, 8-5-07
a.. We the People vs. Corporatist-
Globalism, Part 1, 8-5-07
a.. "Real ID" - Real Rebellion Boiling Over 6-21-07
a.. The Ron Paul Rebellion 5-21-07
a.. "Real ID" - Real Rebellion Brewing 2-18-07
a.. Ron Paul for 2008? 1-17-07
a.. Quietly, Quietly Building the North American Union 10-5-06
a.. Ben Bernanke and the New International Economic Order 9-11-06
a.. Radical Feminists: Useful Idiots 8-1-06
a.. America: "Freedom to Fascism" A Must See Movie 7-10-06
a.. The North American Union "Matrix" - Part 9, 6-3-06
a.. The North American Union "Matrix" - Part 8, 6-3-06
a.. A Look Behind America€ ’²s Immigration Nightmare 4-20-06
a.. Solution to the Evolution, End Government School Monopoly! 3-4-06
a.. The Global-Governance Deception 2-12-06
a.. Our Money System - Part 3, 12-28-05
a.. Our Money System - Part 2, 12-28-05
a.. Our Money System - Part 1, 12-28-05
a.. Erasing America! 11-23-05
a.. Free Trade: The Myth and the Reality 9-12-05
a.. The CAFTA Los--and Beyond 8-14-05
a.. The Globalists' Best Friend: Americans' Ignorance 6-21-05
a.. Scuttling Bad Trade Agreements 5-6-05
a.. The Real Matrix Part 7, 12-7-04
a.. The Real Matrix Part 6, 12-7-04
a.. The Real Matrix Part 5, 12-7-04
a.. The Real Matrix Part 4, 12-7-04
a.. The Real Matrix Part 3, 12-7-04
a.. The Real Matrix Part 2, 12-7-04
a.. The Real Matrix Part 1, 12-7-04

Tactical Voting in Primaries by Ron Paul Supporters

A Realistic Strategy for a Brokered Convention

A common theme around here is WAKE UP PEOPLE. Not as popular but people also like, "it will be a brokered convention." I say, WAKE UP PEOPLE, there hasn't been a brokered convention since 1952, before most states had people vote in primaries. The convention is not going to broker itself, something has to be done

As it stands, John McCain has ~720 delegates. Many people on here say, "it will be a brokered convention." That's the end of their story as they have no proof of that. McCain is on his way to steamroll to the nomination. The delegate count for the others, even RP at this point, really do not matter, as they do not stand a realistic chance at getting to 1191. If John McCain gets to 1191 it is over, and there will be no brokered convention. Therefore, the #1 goal at this point must be to Stop John McCain.
The other goal is to get delegates in primary states where delegates are only bound from 1-3 ballots AND where the delegates aren't directly elected because they are supporters of a candidate. We'll call this a good state/bad state breakdown. The Caucus states will take care of themselves.

Good States: 19


In these states delegates are elected away from the primary and could potenially be RP delegates in a brokered convention. These are the states where the work must be done on the delegate side. These delegates will initially be bound to other candidates, but if they are true RP supporters, they will turn once the convention becomes brokered.

Bad States: 19 and Puerto Rico (unless we get top 3????????)
AL (this one i'm not so sure, but delegates have already been elected anyway), CA, CT, DC, IL, Kansas (Caucus, but bad), KY, NH, MD, MS, NY, OH, OK, PN(not sure here either, delegates are on primary ballot, not sure if tied to candidate.), RI, UT (not really a bad state, but i figure Romney has got this one locked up), WI, WV (We got 3 delegates here, no more, Thank you Huck), WY

We are not get any delegates in these states. They are locked in until they are released. Most of them are for McCain. They are not getting released.

Caucus States: 13 + 4 territories(Guam, Am Samoa, VI, N Mariana)

AK, CO, HI, IA, LA, ME, MN, MT, NE (non-binding primary doesn't mean squat, similar to LA), NV, ND, WA (delegates are "morally bound" not "legally bound," which mean the primary and caucus don't mean squat, and the real action is at the district and state conventions, similare to LA and NE.

Caucus states can be good and bad. Most of them are still in the process and it's hard to determine who will get the delegates. They are good because RP can win delegates straight up in these states. They are bad because even though most of these states the delegates become unbound after a ballot or two, they are delegates because they support their candidate.
That was goal #2, back to goal #1: STOPPING McCAIN

This is the part where I lose people by suggesting they vote for Mike Huckabee, read on please.

In Missouri. McNameDropper beat Huckabee by ~8,000 votes for all of Missouri's 58 winner-take-all delegates. Ron Paul got 25,000 votes. If RP's 25,000 votes go to Huckabee he wins and McCain doesn't get the delegates. Simply put, Ron Paul voters would have been much better off voting for Huckabee.

Delegates > votes........at this point.....delegates against McCain > votes for Ron Paul.

How do we do this, state by state we vote for Huck to stop McCain where necessary while trying to secure backroom delegates in the states I listed as good states.

Note some of the WTA are by state or by district/state but here they are pretty much the same as RP has no chance in those

KS: bad WTA caucus state (a rarity). Votes for Ron Paul are worthless. Vote Huck

Wash: worthless as delegates aren't legally bound, and they don't get elected here

DC: WTA we must vote for Huck, or McCain gets 18 very pledged delegates

VA: WTA, vote for Huck, become a delegate Very Important 67 WTA

MA: WTA we must vote for Huck, or McCain gets 37 very pledged delegates

Wash: worthless as delegates aren't legally bound, and they don't get elected here

WI: WTA we must vote for strongest of Romney or Huck, or McCain gets 40 very pledged delegates

OH: we need this WTA state of 88 delegates to go to Huck

RI: We need 15% to get delegates but in proportional so damage to McCain really can't be done here. Vote for Paul

TX: I can't in good conscience tell the people of Texas to not vote for Ron Paul. This is WTA by district/state. Some districts we might be better off trying to stop McCain. The 14th better go to RP. Another good state to become a delegate in.

VT: WTA, vote for Huck, become a delegate

MS: Another bad WTA state. A vote for Paul is a vote for McCain. A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Paul.

PA: A state where the delegate are on the ballot however I'm not sure if they are tied to a campaign (which would make it a bad state.) With that said, our goal should be keeping McCain delegates away from the convention. We have time here to figure that out.

Later States
Most of these RP should get the votes except IN, OR, and KY. I'll go into detail (and look like a genius),if we get to this point

If we can do all that we still have to get by the 5 state obstical. We can worry about that if the convention becomes brokered.


EDIT: we should also try to convince Romney and Huck supporters to do this also.

EDIT: For the third party people, every email RP sends mentions a brokered convention, yet none mention a third party. He has also relied on the grassroots, this is our last chance for HIS goal

EDIT: Best case scenario might be a convention speech. Do not underrate this. Obama is who he is because of a convention speech
Ron really, really wants to speak at the convention. Not even sure if this is possible however. The more delegate the better

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Ron Paul and the GOP Plan to Take Back the Libertarian Vote

By Richard Mayhew
Feb 10, 2008

In 2006, the libertarian vote, and the Libertarian Party in particular was arguably responsible for several Republican losses in Congress. Libertarian candidates, took away enough votes from Republican contenders that it cost them the race, and Congress. Libertarian voters served as a very large group of swing voters that would support liberty-minded candidates regardless of party affiliation.
Ron Paul and the GOP Plan to Take Back the Libertarian Vote
Ron Paul and the GOP Plan to Take Back the Libertarian Vote

Just before the 2006 elections, David Boaz, head of the libertarian think-tank, CATO, published "The Libertarian Vote" which detailed: "The libertarian vote is in play. At some 13 percent of the electorate, it is sizable enough to swing elections. Pollsters, political strategists, candidates, and the media should take note of it."


After the 2006 elections, it became clear to GOP strategists that the libertarians must be controlled. Their main question: "How do you heard cats?" Libertarians are fiercely independent and are notoriously suspicious of outside influence. The only way to gain their trust and then their vote, is to have one of their own serve as the pied piper.

Enter Ron Paul.

In 1988, Paul was the Libertarian presidential candidate, garnering a depressing 431,000 votes, a mere half of a percent of the vote. That ended Paul's career within the Libertarian Party and later he rejoined the Republican Party and was re-elected to Congress.


Even though Paul reassumed his "R" designation, libertarians across the nation still showed great respect for him over the decades. In March of 2007, Ron Paul officially announced his presidential candidacy on C-Span's Washington Journal.

The fervor for the campaign slowly began to build and then reached a tipping point after the infamous "blowback" confrontation with Rudy Giuliani in an early GOP debate.

While the original plan had been to distract libertarians past the "working season" of the 2008 election cycle, Paul's support became nearly uncontrollable.

He became a leading fundraising with over $30,000,000 in donations and a grassroots hero.


Despite lack-luster debate performances, Paul's libertarian message resonated with the constituency that Boaz had touted in 2006.

Paul became a force within the liberty movement but was merely a nuisance to the GOP and the media. As his primary numbers proved, even the power of his grassroots Revolution could not influence the outcome of the Republican nomination.

Now as Super-Tuesday has passed, Ron Paul and his staff are in an awkward position of admitting that they cannot win the GOP nomination but they also cannot release their hold on supporters as they would likely move to the Libertarian Party or another minor party after being snubbed by the Republicans.


Last week, Paul accomplished that in a brilliant, Machiavellian move that allowed him to stay in the race for the presidency but redirect his supporters energy to changing the Republican party and, of course, helping him maintain his congressional seat in Texas.

In an e-mail to his supporters, Paul admitted that his "chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero." He also said without ambiguity that he would not seek a third party run. His message also informed his base that he would be cutting down his campaign staff but still "fighting for our ideas within the Republican Party." He closed by soliciting support for his congressional race in addition to his presidential campaign.

It was a brilliant political move.


He left his supporters scratching their heads on the meaning of the message but still firmly planted under the Paul and GOP banner.

If Ron Paul continues to string along his supporters until the Republican Convention in September, it will effectively dismantle the libertarian vote and the Libertarian Party. After September, the Libertarian Party will have no time to regroup as ballot access and filing deadlines would have long passed.

As a result, the Libertarian candidates that remain will make little impact on the 2008 elections, giving Republicans a fighting chance against their Democrat challengers.

The Ron Paul campaign may be known as own of the most successful political subversions of a large constituency in modern history. Some may call that "evil" but in the political strategy world, it was an amazing accomplishment.


Ron Paul on the Growth of Police State

It Can't Happen HereDecember 20, 2004

In 2002 I asked my House colleagues a rhetorical question with regard to the onslaught of government growth in the post-September 11th era: Is America becoming a police state?

The question is no longer rhetorical. We are not yet living in a total police state, but it is fast approaching. The seeds of future tyranny have been sown, and many of our basic protections against government have been undermined. The atmosphere since 2001 has permitted Congress to create whole new departments and agencies that purport to make us safer- always at the expense of our liberty. But security and liberty go hand-in-hand. Members of Congress, like too many Americans, don't understand that a society with no constraints on its government cannot be secure.

History proves that societies crumble when their governments become more powerful than the people and private institutions. Unfortunately, the new intelligence bill passed by Congress two weeks ago moves us closer to an encroaching police state by imposing the precursor to a full-fledged national ID card. Within two years, every American will need a "conforming" ID to deal with any federal agency-- including TSA at the airport.

Undoubtedly many Americans and members of Congress don't believe America is becoming a police state, which is reasonable enough. They associate the phrase with highly visible symbols of authoritarianism like military patrols, martial law, and summary executions. But we ought to be concerned that we have laid the foundation for tyranny by making the public more docile, more accustomed to government bullying, and more accepting of arbitrary authority- all in the name of security.

Our love for liberty above all has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacy that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. We tolerate inconveniences and infringements upon our liberties in a manner that reflects poorly on our great national character of rugged individualism. American history, at least in part, is a history of people who don't like being told what to do. Yet we are increasingly empowering the federal government and its agents to run our lives.

Terror, fear, and crises like 9-11 are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The loss of liberty, we are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary. Many citizens believe that once the war on terror is over, restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. But this war is undeclared and open-ended, with no precise enemy and no expressly stated final goal.

Terrorism will never be eradicated completely; does this mean future presidents will assert extraordinary war powers indefinitely? Washington DC provides a vivid illustration of what our future might look like. Visitors to Capitol Hill encounter police barricades, metal detectors, paramilitary officers carrying fully automatic rifles, police dogs, ID checks, and vehicle stops.

The people are totally disarmed; only the police and criminals have guns. Surveillance cameras are everywhere, monitoring street activity, subway travel, parks, and federal buildings. There's not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain-- anything goes if it's for government-provided safety and security. After all, proponents argue, the government is doing all this to catch the bad guys. If you don't have anything to hide, they ask, what are you so afraid of? The answer is that I'm afraid of losing the last vestiges of privacy that a free society should hold dear. I'm afraid of creating a society where the burden is on citizens to prove their innocence, rather than on government to prove wrongdoing. Most of all, I'm afraid of living in a society where a subservient populace surrenders its liberties to an all-powerful government.

It may be true that average Americans do not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. Americans remain tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing total government supervision is necessary and helpful, and because they still enjoy a high level of material comfort. That tolerance may wane, however, as our standard of living falls due to spiraling debt, endless deficit spending at home and abroad, a declining fiat dollar, inflation, higher interest rates, and failing entitlement programs. At that point attitudes toward omnipotent government may change, but the trend toward authoritarianism will be difficult to reverse.

Those who believe a police state can't happen here are poor students of history. Every government, democratic or not, is capable of tyranny. We must understand this if we hope to remain a free people.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Senator John McCain for US President 2008


By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

February 8, 2008


A few weeks before Super Tuesday, my friend Howard Phillips asked me who I thought the Republican Presidential nominee would be. I predicted John McCain. With the results of Super Tuesday now history, most political pundits are also predicting that the Arizona senator will gain the Republican nomination for President. And with Mitt Romney now out of the race, McCain is all but assured the nomination. One did not need to be a seer to figure this one out.

For one thing, President George W. Bush all but destroyed whatever conservative influence was left in the GOP. Peggy Noonan is right about that.

Furthermore, the capitulation and compromise of principle by the Religious Right has also significantly sealed the death warrant of conservatism within the GOP. For the sake of not offending George Bush or losing whatever seat at the table the various leaders of the Religious Right felt they had, their spirit of resistance waned to the point that the very name "Christian Conservative" has lost all meaning, not to mention power.

As a result, Republicans have come to accept Big Government, runaway federal spending, the Welfare State, the Warfare State, the Nanny State, empire-building, gargantuan trade and budget deficits, warrantless eavesdropping, the loss of 4th Amendment rights, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Therefore, how could anyone expect the vast majority of Republican voters to suddenly rediscover a huge commitment of conviction to conservative principles? Add to that question the fact that there is only one true conservative/constitutionalist who made it to the Republican primaries: Congressman Ron Paul. And virtually the entire media and political establishment pummeled Congressman Paul to the point that his limited success in the race can be categorized as nothing short of miraculous.

Make no mistake about it: the establishment wants one of its own to succeed George Bush. In order for that to happen, they must manipulate the primaries to ensure that, no matter who wins in November, one of their fellow elitists will still wield power in Washington, D.C. On the Democratic side, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama fit the bill. And on the Republican side, John McCain is the ultimate insider.

A long-standing member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), John McCain will pursue the goals and ambitions of the globalists with a vengeance. As Pat Buchanan said recently, "John McCain will make Dick Cheney look like Gandhi." Buchanan is right on with that prediction.

Despite a liberal, Big Government track record, many Republican "conservatives" who have always been critical of John McCain are already beginning to warm up to him, feeling that his nomination is inevitable. Include in this list such notables as Grover Norquist, Tony Perkins, and fellow CFR member Richard Land.

Fortunately, not all of the conservative "talking heads" have jumped on the McCain bandwagon. Include in this list: Ann Coulter, who said she would campaign for Hillary Clinton if McCain is the Republican nominee; James Dobson, who said he would never vote for John McCain--no matter what; and Mr. Republican Cheerleader himself, Rush Limbaugh.

Then there is Mike Huckabee: the candidate to whom the evangelical George Bush robots have gravitated. Huckabee is every bit the Big Government liberal that is John McCain. In fact, Huckabee and McCain have developed a very close friendship, according to numerous sources. Many are even predicting that Huckabee will be McCain's running mate, in order to dupe evangelicals into accepting the McCain candidacy. (I have been saying this myself for months.) Even Rob Schenck said this about Huckabee: "After careful and prayerful consideration, I have concluded that an evangelical vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for John McCain, and a vote for John McCain will be a disaster for this country."

But just who is this man, John McCain?

John McCain's father and grandfather were both admirals in the U.S. Navy. John was schooled in one of the most elite boarding schools in America. He graduated from the Naval Academy where he ranked 894th out of 899 students.

According to Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief, February 1, 2008, "[John McCain] used nepotism to get ahead: When he was rejected by the National War College, he used his father's contacts with the Secretary of the Navy to make them reconsider." Skousen also notes that "McCain cheated on his first wife after she had a severe accident. He then divorced her and married his multi-millionaire mistress, whose daddy bought McCain a spot in the Congress."

It has also never been explained why the son and grandson of Navy admirals would not rise to the rank of Admiral himself. (He exited the Navy as a Captain.) Was it his numerous adulterous affairs or his violent temper? Or both?

John McCain's biographer Robert Timberg chronicles McCain's numerous sexual affairs with subordinates both when he was an Executive Officer and later Squadron Commander. Obviously, such fraternization is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Skousen and many others have chronicled McCain's violent temper. Even as a young man, McCain was "a strikingly violent man." Timberg quotes McCain describing his propensity for violence, even as a youngster, saying, "At the smallest provocation I would go off into a mad frenzy, and then suddenly crash to the floor unconscious."

McCain says his vicious temper was transformed after being held as a Prisoner of War by the North Vietnamese. There is no doubt that John McCain was tortured by his Vietnamese captors, but it also seems clear, by both the written and oral records of many, that McCain spent the bulk of his captivity collaborating with his captors.

It is more than interesting that former POW John McCain would use the power of his senate seat to stop the investigation and pursuit of American MIAs in Vietnam. What would possess a former naval officer to do such a thing? In fact, a group of Vietnam veterans has uploaded a web page dedicated to exposing the truth regarding John McCain's record on this matter. See it here.

That John McCain still has a vicious temper is well known. We can all remember him singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," to the tune of the Beach Boys hit song "Barbara Ann." He also said North Korea should be threatened with "extinction." He often boasts of America's 100-year war with Iraq and talks of pursuing enemies "to the gates of hell." There is no doubt, John McCain is one mad man.

Furthermore, McCain's position on a host of issues is extremely problematic for the future of America. On immigration, John McCain joined with Ted Kennedy to sponsor an amnesty bill for illegal aliens. He voted to give social security dollars to illegal aliens. His Hispanic Outreach Director, Juan Hernandez, is a dual American-Mexican citizen widely known for his "Mexico First" declarations.

He repeatedly voted against the Bush tax cuts. He co-authored the McCain/Feingold campaign finance bill that was ruled to be an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment. Regarding the Second Amendment, the president of the NRA called John McCain the "worst 2nd Amendment candidate," and Gun Owners of America gives McCain a grade of F-.

John McCain co-sponsored the energy tax bill (along with his senate buddy Joe Lieberman), which would dramatically increase the cost of gasoline. He supports radical global warming legislation. He joined with Democrats (Gang of 14) to block the attempt to confirm conservative, strict constructionist judges. In 2000, he called Christian leaders "agents of intolerance." He has received the endorsement of the pro-abortion Republicans for Choice Political Action Committee. And let's not forget that John McCain was ringleader of the infamous Keating Five ethical scandal, which cost taxpayers more than $160 billion.

Consider, too, the top donors to John McCain's campaign. One will find many of the same multinational corporations that support Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton also supporting John McCain. Include in this list Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, and JP Morgan Chase & Co. (By comparison, the top contributors to Ron Paul's campaign are [in order]: 1. Members of the U.S. Army, 2. Members of the U.S. Navy, 3. Members of the U.S. Air Force.) Source: click here

(And, in case one is interested, the same big Arkansas conglomerates that supported Bill Clinton also support Mike Huckabee.)

Even New York Post D.C. Bureau Chief Charles Hurt wrote, "[I]f history is any guide, the McCain we've seen of late on the campaign trail is the most conservative McCain we'll ever see."

To vote for John McCain is madness!

Therefore, both social and fiscal conservatives--along with evangelical Christians--will have no one from either the Republican or Democrat parties for whom to vote this November. What, then, will they do? To vote for the "lesser of two evils" is no longer a legitimate option. There is no lesser in a McCain versus Clinton/Obama race. In fact, Ann Coulter might be right that in such a race, Hillary is the lesser of two evils.

What, then, are we to do?

First, Ron Paul should abandon his bid for the Republican nomination and declare himself a candidate for the Constitution Party nomination. If he did, he would doubtless receive the nomination and his campaign would continue to build excitement, donations, and momentum right up to November. (Ron Paul's supporters should do everything they can to influence Dr. Paul to shake off the dust of the GOP and lead his fellow constitutionalists on a mighty crusade for a Third Party victory!)

Should Ron Paul decide to remain in the McCain-led GOP, conservatives and constitutionalists should rally around the most viable option available to them. And that option is to support the Constitution Party nominee, whoever he is. (They will select their nominee in April in Kansas City, Missouri.) As the nation's third largest political party, the CP has the potential to be on all 50 state ballots and it is absolutely certain that the CP will nominate a constitutionalist candidate in the similitude of Ron Paul.

One thing is certain: with John McCain as the GOP standard-bearer, Christian conservatives and constitutionalists cannot vote for either the Republican or Democrat candidate this year. Staying home and not voting is an admission of defeat and should be dismissed out-of-hand.

2008 just might be the year to break the two-party stranglehold on American politics and vote for an independent conservative constitutionalist. And the platform and vehicle for this revolution already exists in the Constitution Party.

*If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, please send your check or Money Order to:

Chuck Baldwin Live
P.O. Box 37070
Pensacola, Florida 32526

© 2008 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

I'm particularly fond of the story of how he met his present wife..... leaving his crippled first wife after an affair, securing daddy's money and political future......


Question for McCain:
With your long history of liberalism, why do you seek the Republican Party nomination?

John McCain (SongBird McCain) Traitor! (COMPELLING AUDIO LISTEN!!)

FACT SHEET: Military record of John Sidney McCain III

John "SongBird" McCain is Part of The Keating Five Scandel

John McCain - Fit For Command?

U.S. Sen. John McCain is no War Hero

John McCain: The Manchurian Candidate

Default McCain borrowed money from bank, used fundraising list as collateral!!!!

Why Did McCain Block Release of POW Info?

How the Clintons will undo McCain

McCain's Divorce

"What happened to John McCain's first wife?"

VIDEO: John McCain in "Missing, Presumed Dead"

Kennedy-McCain Amnesty Plan

YouTube - John McCain- Weak on Immigration

Campaign Finance Reform: The Issue (McCain-Feingold)

McCain/Lieberman Gun Control

McCain Qoutes:

"Thank God for our form of government. The media won't let there be any cover-up." -- John McCain
"Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran..." -- John McCain

YouTube - McCain laughs, Sings Bomb Iran

"100 Years in Iraq would be fine by me." -- John McCain
"I'm not interested in trading with al Qaeda, all they want to trade is burkas. I don't want to travel with them, they like one-way tickets." -- John McCain

Senator McCain has hired a dual-nationality Mexican/American citizen (Juan Hernandez) to be his outreach coordinator to the Hispanic community. Juan Hernandez is the legalized version of a present-day Benedict Arnold!

McCain introduces bill to extend US health care to Mexico

Vietnam Vet speaks of "Songbird" McCain

Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain