Stolen Money is the Root of All Evil; Earned Money is the Root of All Good

In thinking about the term "moochandise" (below) to describe election campaign schwag (prompted by the "O" logo used by the Obama campaign), I reread a few quotes from Ayn Rand about "moochers" and "looters."  I came across the following brilliant quote:

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter."^{Atlas Shrugged, page 410-413}

— Francisco d'Anconia, Atlas Shrugged

As great as the quote is, it and others like it have confused generations of dim-witted U.S. voters, even those who have read "Atlas Shrugged."  I have a better, clearer, more obvious formulation of the quote, with the addition of a few essential words.  Here it is: "Run for your life from any man who tells you that earned money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter."

There are people who consider themselves liberals who are essentially liberals in the tradition of Hayek.  Such people, at the rare higher intelligence levels, often note that they don't have a problem with money and trade, that they have a problem with stolen money and unfree trade that is protected by force from competition.  These are not problems with earned money.  ...They are problems with central bank war profiteers who print money from nothing, and use coercive legal tender laws to force individuals to accept it.  That isn't earning money, it's stealing it.

Stolen money is the root of all evil.  The theft of money allows for the product of theft to be accepted as a representation of labor.  The use of money to represent labor (voluntary manual labor or voluntary intellectual labor) is almost universally accepted.  However, when money is stolen, it allows value to be claimed by the valueless.  Something that is normally acceptable to all (money earned by free trade, and free trade itself: the exchange of labor for a representation of labor) is then often reinvested in the marketplace of theft, the political marketplace.

Most people only see the evil of that reinvestment (lobbying, campaign contributions that go to the biggest looter and wealth redistributor, payment of political favors, payment to coercive government institutions, payment to social engineering government programs, payment to world-government projects of the central bankers, payment to set up schemes that loot the productive --such as carbon credit trading).  This gives rise to narrow-minded socialist liberals rejecting the concept of money, when what they should be doing is pointing out the massiveness of the theft involved in fiat money. 

Rand never fully opposed fiat currency.  She viewed it as less immoral and wrong than outright obvious government coercion, or as a "stopgap measure."  Her institute eventually took a strong stance against fiat currency manipulators.  Prior to that, the greatest opponents to fiat currency were more mainstream libertarian philosophers such as Murray N. Rothbard, G. Edward Griffin, and Harry Browne.  Of course, Ron Paul has been consistently against the immoral manipulation of the currency supply by the powerful few.

In a way, fiat currency is the laundering of labor.  Imagine that the central bank prints a billion dollars and uses that freshly printed money to pay armed DEA stormtroopers to raid an apartment full of hippies who were growing marijuana in their apartment.  The marijuana was a good and the sale of that marijuana was a service.  That good and that service are taken off the market, by force.  The lives of the marijuana growers are then violated, as are all their freedoms under the now defunct and legally non-existent "Bill of Rights."  The apartment is now vacant, and perhaps months of rent is not paid.  Nobody wins from this naked aggression.

But when the agents who were paid for the raid are paid, they receive something that falsely appears to be a "representation of labor."

There would be very few people saying "money is the root of all evil," if there was a free market in money.

So, how is there not a free market in money?  Can't an individual still buy gold and silver coins?

Well, yes and no.  The government doesn't like it when you're very successful at buying gold and silver coins, which is why they created the "legal tender laws."  If your gold and silver coins become very popular, you will be raided by government stormtroopers, and they will confiscate your belongings.  They will confiscate your computers, your gold and silver, your customer records, and your entire physical plant, including the real-estate your business occupies.  That is precisely what happened to Bernard von Nothaus, the originator of the Liberty Dollar.

The federal tax code, as enforced by the IRS and U.S. Treasury, is unconstitutional and "null and void" and only enforceable via criminal action by a criminal government ("All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176.). you will be targeted for arrest and put in prison, like Irwin Schiff was. Irwin's crime was speech, which makes him a political prisoner whose only crime was civil disobedience to illegitimate and unconstitutional "laws."

The AOCS (American Open Currency Standard) has not yet been raided, but they are not yet as large and successful as the Liberty Dollar was.  Since the AOCS also represent a means of U.S. citizens escaping the loss of their life-savings via inflation, it is likely they too will eventually be targeted by government aggression, once they have enough money to make it worth stealing. By this coercion and theft, the government generates stolen money, not earned money.  It is "stolen" because it is an inferior product, competitors are not allowed to compete with it, and all people in the U.S. and world economy are forced to transact business with it.  U.S. citizens (more properly termed "submitizens" since a citizen has a say in the form of law and government he lives within, whereas a "submitizen" lives under the laws of the central bank --as all residents of the USA currently do) are forced to use the U.S. dollar as a representation of their labor.

 By forcing someone to represent their labor with low-cost pieces of paper that only one small group of people (central bankers) has control over, everyone is stolen from to the extent that the bankers mint excess currency, and divert it to programs that are not voluntarily purchased on the free market.  I didn't voluntarily pay stormtroopers to raid and imprison Irwin Schiff --the treasury printed money to do that.  I didn't pay stormtroopers to raid peaceful marijuana growers, forcing the trade of marijuana into a violent black market, --the treasury printed money to do that.  I didn't pay stormtroopers to raid Bernard von Nothaus's "Liberty Dollar," or federal prosecutors to overstep their bounds, persecute, and imprison him with a prosecution-rigged jury --the treasury printed money to do that. So, the people who print the money can use that money to redirect labor, even though their act of printing the money via a government-enforced monopoly is actually subtractive to the representation of labor. This is true both because government enforcement interferes with all other forms of labor, and because the act of printing the money inflates the currency (at zero labor cost to the printer).

So what about all the constructive goods and services the dollar pays for?

...I did buy groceries with money that the treasury also printed, (because I was afraid of being raided by government stormtroopers for "violating the legal tender laws" if I used an alternate currency).  So, if I said to the grocery store owner, "Money is the root of all evil" he would rightfully look at me as if I was, myself, evil (unless he fully comprehends the nature of fiat currency, and its full propensity for government manipulation.  At which point, he still would not know how I was interpreting the term.  Possibly, I have a stupid socialist conception of money, or possibly I have a high-level comprehension of money, or a mix of both.  In short, language doesn't serve to make us political allies in this situation. ...Simply qualifying the statement as "Stolen money is the root of all evil" quickly clears up this source of frequent and great misunderstanding.). After all, the money I gave to him paid for the producers of tomatoes, canned beans, foreign luxuries like dark chocolate, etc...  That money also paid him to feed, clothe, house, and school his family.  So, when the money is used to represent labor such as that, as well as my labor which paid for the groceries, it is the root of all good.  It is the root of "finding ways in which we can voluntarily interact with each other," as well as voluntarily distribute goods and services.  Earned money is the mechanism that allows pricing to work.

When central bankers print money, they are not earning it.  They are using positions of privilege to extort the ability to create "money" out of thin air.  After the money (representation of labor) is stolen this way, it then goes into the economy and is earned, but at a lower economic hierarchical level than the purpose it was printed for.  So, the greatest masses of money (previously possessed only by the most productive members of society,, before the Federal Reserve Act and later, when there was a perception that the dollar was at least marginally-related to gold) are now increasingly possessed by the least productive, most-thieving members of society.  As the Federal Reserve tries to bail out failing institutions, their immense but unearned responsibility (irresponsibility) for stabilizing the market via harsh decisions will more obviously fail.

Since the general public doesn't understand this, and incorrectly blames the central planners (laughably) for "creating laissez-faire economic policies," let's go back to the individual's perspective:

Without the legal tender laws, I would have traded a gold or silver coin to the grocer, because that currency would be in common circulation, since it always outperforms the dollar, long-term.  The value of that coin would have fluctuated in terms of foreign fiat currencies, or even the government's own quasi-governmental fiat currency.  But it would be easy for the same computerized apparatus that lists price changes in terms of dollars in the grocery store to list price fluctuations in terms of weights of gold, silver, and copper.  (A one ounce silver coin is now worth approximately $30 in Federal Reserve Notes, and pre-1965 U.S. quarters and dimes are approximately 71% silver, and can easily be used as silver money.)  One gram pieces of gold are already sold in foreign airports, bonded to plastic cards from which they can be easily collected at a later date, if need be.  Therefore, as a representation of labor, gold and silver are very good, because they can never lose their core values, as scarce industrial metals or jewelry metals.

The great hope of the future is in the use of bitcoins, or an even more advanced future form of digital currency, whose value is measured in terms of network connectivity or computer power (perhaps calculations-per-second), or via evolving parallel institutions that make the enforcement of the legal tender laws impossible.  The discussion of "countereconomics" in Samuel Konkin III's "The New Libertarian Manifesto," explores options for increasing individual liberty that do not involve electoral participation (he was morally opposed to voting).  The following books also reveal further options for increasing individual freedom, (typically without Konkin's opposition to effective pro-freedom electoral participation, and sometimes exploiting synergy with it): Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice, We, The Jury, Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine, An Essay on the Trial By Jury, The Freedom Outlaw's Handbook.

The singularity or economic catastrophe will ultimately kill the enslaving institution of central banking, if it hasn't already been killed by those who love individual freedom.  Hopefully, us human-level intelligences will get to enjoy some time free from fiat currency for some simple mammalian pleasures.  A positive first step would be to demand passage of Ron Paul's Free Competition in Currency Act.  If this act is not passed, you will continue to be looted, and your life savings redirected to socialist boondoggles and active violence against the innocent.

"Moochandise"

To give credit where it's due, the USA Today article by Greg Korte, "Obama has edge in political merchandise," that prompted me to coint the term "moochandise."

mooch·an·dise/ˈmo͞oCHənˌdīz/

Noun:	Campaign merchandise (t-shirts, drink holders, other novelty items) bearing the Obama or Romney logos, or some other form of socialist collectivism, to be bought and sold.
Verb:	Promoting the philosophy of mooching, esp. by the presentation of collectivist election goods for sale in public venues.
Synonyms:	noun.  campaign goods, campaign materials, election schwag verb.  suckering, schmoozing (when used to refer to selling campaign goods) --At the Democratic National Convention, the Obama campaign raises money from official political merchandise [moochandise]: T-shirts, buttons, hats - you name it. Evan Eile, USA TODAY

Stephen King Can Pay My "Fair Share" of Civic Duty. (And by "Civic Duty" I mean Warmongering, Property Theft and Destruction, Prohibition, Mass Murder, Civil Liberties Violation, and Economic Destruction...)

Stephen King claims that because he's rich, he should be taxed more.  So, politically and economically, he's uneducated.  Here's the link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html
 
King, I bought and read most of your books when I was in 6th grade, and I enjoyed them.  ...But you don't know dick about politics, the Federal Reserve, or the way what's left of "America" really works.  Have some respect for Henry David Thoreau, Lysander Spooner, Frederick Douglass, and the long tradition of political nonaggression that came before you.  Crack a book, read some Hayek, read some Harry Browne.  Re-read Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government."  The opening paragraph could just as well be about the Mexican DRUG War, as the Mexican War Thoreau was discussing.

When it comes to government, you don't get to decide how your tax dollars are spent.

When it comes to the private sector, you can always "opt out."

You acknowledge that the last 4 administrations have been "anti-business."  Then, you bitch about there not being enough "regulation."  LOL!  Regulation sidesteps that core foundation of American jurisprudence, THE JURY.  We, the jury, to be precise.  We, the randomly-selected (in rare instances when a proper jury is called and seated, without prosecutorial stacking in "voir dire") people, who comprise the 4th branch of government.

So, what does the government do for me, that the private sector cannot?  NOTHING.  I am poor, and I don't want to give one red cent to the government.  It is insulting to you to assume that because you're so dumb you think you're getting a great deal from the government that someone who is less well off can't be better-informed about the value they're getting from their dollar in government services.  If you want to pay more, YOU CAN.

And what will your tax dollar buy?  It will firstly,. buy things you cannot choose NOT to buy.  The government is not Burger King, and you don't get to pick and choose what you want.  My tax dollar will go to put my friends in jail, for victimless crimes. It will go to enforce the drug and gun laws on a horribly racist and classist basis.  It will go for foreign wars of aggression that do nothing to keep me safe, and everything to piss off insane theocrats on the other side of the globe.  It will go to crappy government schools that do a far worse job of educating our young than WIKIpedia does --to the extent that not one person in 1,000 can tell me how the Federal Reserve functions, or how jury trials are supposed to function.  My tax dollars will deny gays equal marriage rights, and will put sex stores out of business.  My tax dollars will harass comic book artists like Mike Diana, and musicians like the Dead Kennedys, in the name of christian theocratic values that directly contradic the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  My tax dollars will be pissed away on pork-barrel projects in every state, all of which are less efficient than any private-sector provision of services that comes with a price tag, and the option of voiding contract for nonproduction.  In short, because government is coercion, and this nation walked away from the idea of "a government by consent" when it passed the Federal Reserve Act into law, government services do not need to be competitive in any way with private sector services.

So what did I miss?  Oh yeah, the FDA claims the right to actively deny me life-saving treatments, so innocent people can die young and in terrible pain while moronic fucks like you complain that you --and everyone else-- are not being forcible deprived of enough of their income.  Watch a youtube video where Stephen Badylak shows that his lab can regrow every human organ, and replace it surgically with adult stem cells, then listen to him talk about how the life-saving procedures are being held up by the FDA, which may or may not give us slaves PERMISSION to save our own lives with his procedures.  ...Since when did a free people need permission to engage in risking their own lives in order to save them?  Since when were manufacturers not allowed --by the First Amendment-- to print "sweetened with stevia" on food products? (1986, when Donald Rumsfeld's "Searle & Associates" successfully lobbied the FDA to destroy natural competitors to Nutrasweet, that's when!  Result: 150,000 type II diabetics per year dead from bad diet and a scientifically incorrect food pyramid taught to them in gradeschool.)  Since when did the FDA get the right to hold up AIDS research and development for years while Big Pharma milked the gay and African communities for their patented "slow death" drugs?  They never had any right to do any of this.

If you pay one dollar extra in taxes, not only will I not commend you for your "civic duty," I'll spit on your good name for being a naive, willing dupe of powerful, sociopathic prohibitionists.

America is a nation where the collective isn't supposed to steal from the individual, nor bar the individualist from following his dreams.  But that's what the U.S. government does.  Then, it tries, in a half-assed manner to undo some small amount of the damage it itself caused, and its lapdog liberal "popular intellectuals" come to its defense like whipped dogs.

Go back to writing books about rabid dogs that just want to be obedient, it seems you know a lot more about that than what it means to hold an American ideology.

And while you're at it, don't bother taking out your checkbook to end the drug war, or the foreign wars, or to pay an insignificant amount of the $16T Federal Debt (not including untenable outstanding liabilities of over $58T).  You're right: that won't solve the problem --just like even taxing 100% of your income wouldn't solve the problem.  The only thing that would solve the problem would be you coming to your senses, and being one more voice of truth, telling the young to drop out of the system, withold their support, and begin building the parallel institutions that will leave the American Police State in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.

Until then,  ...we ask not your counsel, nor your arms.

Nerf Libertarians - Fairweather Friends of Freedom

In every case where the Libertarian Party (allegedly Whole Foods CEO John Mackey's political preference) fails to achieve ballot access, it was because the state raised the cost of communicating with the general public to a level the LP could not afford. Certain variables increase or decrease this cost associated with ballot access petitioning. (Number of signatures required, time limit for gathering signatures, availability of public places with the high foot traffic necessary to circulate petitions, weather, etc...) One such deleterious variable is the absence of businesses that have high foot traffic, and which simultaneously tolerate free interpersonal communication with their customers. Whole Foods, even where they exist, does not tolerate speech on their property. (I just confirmed this with the manager of the store nearest Birmingham, Alabama. He stated that Whole Foods would not tolerate petitioners' presence in Alabama, where the LP is currently gathering petition signatures, under a tight deadline.) ..Such speech is not even tolerated in Whole Foods' parking lots, or with the normal "common sense" stipulation that such speech be out of the way of the doors, etc. Now, it's true, no business should be forced to allow such communication on their own property: but that Whole Foods does not allow such communication, even as the Libertarian Party is deprived of ballot access (in OK, PA, and elsewhere) and pays scarce campaign resources to ballot access petitioners, is unconscienable. The hippocratic oath is a good philosophical reminder, here: "First, do no harm." If Mackey wants Libertarian candidates to be on the ballot, why does he allow his stores' security to remove the petitioners who place them on the ballot from his storefronts? Secondly, a quote from Gandhi applies: "Be the change you wish to see." Would it really be that difficult for Mackey to convince his coporate board to tolerate speech? I doubt it. Omar Gaye is apparently the guy who refuses to tolerate such speech in the region encompassing Alabama. Is he personally so averse to choices being on the ballot that he's willing to veto John Mackey's insistent urgings to the contrary? I doubt it. In front of "Giant" Food Store in New England (even in states like MD, where the courts have ruled that stores need not tolerate speech), petitioners are allowed. The CEO of Giant Foods respects free speech, and understands that if certain of their customers were not allowed to ask other customers to sign a nominating petition, then there would be absolutely no choice on the ballot in Maryland. In effect, Maryland's system of government would become undemocratic. Undemocratic systems have no incentive to avoid falling towards totalitarianism, (demonstrated by Professor R. J. Rummel's research at the University of Hawaii, which is freely available online). I find it surprising that John Mackey defends the concept of libertarian corporate responsibility (in his Reason Magazine debate with T. J. Rodgers), and then abnegates his responsibility in the one area where he has larger-than-normal influence. He claims that it would be tyrannical of him to suggest that he override his corporate board's decision to disallow speech. (Funny, this excludes the idea that he could exercise influence with them in any other way than "overriding" them. How about just _asking_them_ to allow speech?) In contrast with Whole Foods, CEO T. J. Rodgers (of Cypress Semiconductor) claims that corporations have a duty only to their shareholders --but he believes in the Hayekian concept of free expression so much that he spent a great deal of his personal time infiltrating the board of directors at Dartmouth University, and forcing them to repeal their limitations --in the form of a "free speech zone"-- on public speech on campus. His case was that "all of America is a free speech zone!" Just like John Mackey, the board opposed his position --until he insisted on doing what was right. It's now a lot easier for the LP to get on the ballot in New Hampshire: petitions can be circulated at Dartmouth. Likewise, Libertarian petitioners just finished petitioning for ballot access at Giant Foodstores in Maryland, resulting in ballot access for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. I wish John Mackey felt the same as TJ Rodgers. Or even K-Mart, or Giant Foods, or the few other corporations that either tolerate speech, or allow their managers to "look the other way." The biggest improvement would be for him to adopt Giant Foods' policy of allowing all store managers to decide for themselves whether a certain form of free speech interferes with customer purchases or not, and to err on the side of speech. Giant solidly errs on the side of tolerating free speech --meaning that even when their few totalitarian customers (or perversely-incentivized state employees) complain about the speech, they tolerate it, because they comprehend that a few fascists should not be able to deprive the larger community of a choice at the ballot box. (Even better, Giant does not try to claim that they allow free speech, while bureaucratically obstructing it: they do not require weeks of advance notice, or other undue bureaucratic hurdles and permissions.) Hopefully, one day, John Mackey will come around to that level of respect for free speech. Until then, I'll shop there only grudgingly, when they are the sole supplier of a product I desire. Too bad Cypress Semiconductor doesn't sell healthfood. In the past, John Mackey has responded to my criticisms of his store's policy by claiming that petitioners have a right to be on the sidewalk nearby his stores. (I suppose so they can watch people exiting their cars and entering the store from a distance.) Oddly, this is the same thing that the Bush and Obama administrations both claim when their Departments of Justice further restricted public expression in public venues: you can speak --so long as you're doing so in a location with too few people to hear what you're saying. With friends like these, it's no wonder the Libertarian Party no longer has even a single elected State legislator. They spend all their time jumping through hoops which could easily be made dramatically less costly with John Mackey's help. ...Too bad he can't be bothered. That's all for now. --Jake Witmer PS: There is some discrepancy as to whether Mackey makes the decision, or his regional corporate boards make the decisions. The number given out for Omar Gaye was sent to a voicemail for Mike Howard (678-638-5885), so perhaps that name needs to be substituted for Omar's name above. PPS: Nothing would make me happier than being wrong in my criticism of John Mackey. If his company reverses course on its current opposition to free interpersonal speech, and the circulation of nominating petitions in front of his stores, then I'll be happy to reverse my public criticism of his intellectual position.

R J Harris, Libertarian for President

America The Cowardly, Stupid, and Anti-Libertarian --Allowed This:

Rogan Brings The Truth About Ron Paul

Doug Miller: Alabama Delegate For Ron Paul Sets The Record Straight About The Delegate Nomination Process:

A spreadsheet that breaks down the delegate count, and what it means for Ron Paul's candidacy.

A Great Quote For Libertarians

Being right in the sense of being correct is not sufficient to win. Political technology determines political success. Learn how to organize and how to communicate. Most political technology is philosophically neutral. You owe it to your philosophy to study how to win.

-Morton Blackwell

Ben Swann Explains The Current Republican Delegate Count

The South Carolina Congressional Districts that Ben Swann talked about in the above video:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SC-districts-108.JPG
For each of the above South Carolina congressional districts that Paul won, he gets 2 delegates. It doesn't appear that he won any of them, but if his votes were all concentrated in one or two districts, then he could leave SC with a few delegates. Why wasn't this known in advance? If it was known in advance, then why weren't badass communicators on Paul's team dispersed to South Carolina, weeks ago? (Granted, I understand that a few of them remained in Iowa, and that they did great work there. I also understand that Pennsylvania is a state with tons of delegates, and tons of Ron Paul support to be snapped up, or lost.)

Right now, Ron Paul has 10 (out of a possible 62) delegates who are pledged to vote for him. Romney has between 7 and 21 (I don't know how many Romney got in SC, but they are hard delegates, it's 2 per congressional district he won). Newt has the most "hard (bonehead) delegates" right now, at 11 "hard" and a possibility of 25.

Here's the breakdown:
Iowa (only "soft" unpledged delegates): Paul - 7 soft, Romney/Santorum 18 soft (25 soft total)

New Hampshire (usually has 24 "hard" delegates, this year demoted to 12 for breaking GOP scheduling rules): 7-Romney, 3-Paul, 2-Hunstman(go to establishment, against Paul now that Huntsman is out).

South Carolina (usually has 50 delegates, this year demoted to 25 for breaking GOP scheduling rules. Therefore all the media hooplah about "No GOP president has ever won without winning South Carolina" is nonsense. This is usually the case, because South Carolina is usually TWICE as powerful in terms of delegate count.): 11-Newt(hard), 14-undetermined by this blog, but somebody knows who they go to, since it's based on known SC congressional district results. Paul apparently didn't pick up any delegates here. Too bad. If he'd have had more resources (or they were better allocated) he could have had people on the ground in Abbeville County, and the surrounding counties, and maybe won the 2 delegates from Congressional District 3. Paul got 22% in Abbeville County, the largest percentage of any county in South Carolina.



In any State that does winner-takes-congressional-districts, it would really benefit the Paul camp to allocate a lot of resources to rural congressional districts, and give rousing pro-gun, anti-tax speeches. The gun rights issue attracts single-issue voters, more than any other issue, other than taxation, which is universally applicable. If Paul did this, he could really optimize his race based on delegate count, and stay competitive for a lot longer than he's likely to, right now. (I'm hoping for the best, but realistically, Super Tuesday in 2008 was a flood of zombies from liberal states, where conservatives wrongly thought they were being conservative by voting against individual personal freedoms.)

Based on the following map, it looks like virtually all South Carolina's delegates go to Newt Gingrich, the "Russian Roulette" candidate (you never know when a scandal caused by his egomania and sociopathy will erupt). Since Newt is (by track record) an unelectable sociopath (who pays lip service to free market ideas while self-contradictorily advocating that people get the death sentence for marijuana possession), it's anyone's call how his former delegates get divided up, in Tampa. Maybe they'll all do the sub-optimal but most honorable thing, and committ seppuku, en masse. Or, if there's a benevolent God, perhaps they'll do the optimal thing, and send their votes to Ron Paul, the only republican in the race.

Now, some people might think that my suggestion of voluntary Seppuku for pseudo-republican traitors to the USA is a little harsh, but think about it: Not only are they betraying their country, by voting in favor of social intolerance and financial servitude (and therefore against enlightenment values), they are doing so on the eve of a looming U. S. financial collapse. So, there's a real likelihood we could see the collapse of western civilization, based on their vote. Opposition to enlightenment values is basically serving Al-qaeda, or some other form of theocratic tribalism. Moreover, they are willfully ignoring the historical decay of the Weimar Republic in the pig-headed defiance of the rule of law, jury trials, and a free market.

So, an overview of the delegate situation, as it stands on January 21, 2012:

"Hard delegates" pledged = 37.
Of that 37:
7-9 are for Romney.
3 are for Paul.
11-25 are for Newt.
2 are for Huntsman.

Including the "soft delegates" (the delegates that remain unpledged until the GOP convention in Tampa), we can assume that the breakdown is between Ron Paul (republican principles) and the banking establishment (anti-republican socialist "establishment" principles). Including the soft delegates who have indicated they will vote one way or another (7 Iowa delegates indicated they were voting for Ron Paul), the picture tilts a little in Paul's favor:

7-9(+18 soft establishment) are potentially for Romney (total of 27 right now).
3(+7 soft) are for Paul (total of 10 right now).
11-25(+18 soft establishment) are potentially for Newt (total of 25 right now).
2 are for Huntsman. (These two get added to Romney or Gingrich)

(I believe "hard delegates" can be reassigned at the convention, if their candidate does not win on the first ballot, or does not have a chance of winning on the first ballot. So, these get added to Newt or Romney's "establishment" vote totals, as "establishment" votes, unless Paul is close, in which case they go to him as "power-worship" or "favor-seeking" votes. The latter case is highly unlikely, given the desire for control that the sociopathic banking establishment has.)

So, right now, the establishment is divided against itself, Romney has approximately 27 delegates, Gingrich has approximately 25 and Paul has 10. If you count Gingrich and Romney as "the establishment," then it's 52 establishment (Romney-Gingrich) and 10 freedom (Paul) votes. Not good for individual liberty, but not a death-knell either. If Paul is knocked out of this presidential race, then I'm supporting R. J. Harris for the Libertarian Party nomination.

Ron Paul Explains What's Wrong With the NDAA

Joe Rogan Talks About National Defense Authorization Act w/Duncan Trussell

Undercutting the Racist Establishment

Ron Paul is heroic. I'm a middle aged person who would NEVER vote for any of the other mainstream false republicans. Incidentally, Ron Paul is right about getting his delegates on the ballot. If he does that, he's still a contender, because it can come down to him and Mitt "obviously unelectable" Romney, Newt "even less electable, death sentence for marijuana" Gingrich, or Rick "google santorum" Santorum. As soon as it's just 2 candidates, the other candidate will LOSE because distractions and lies don't work as well, when it's "mano e mano." Notice how Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich all favor the Federal Reserve system, the drug war, some form of individual tax on labor or consumption. Materially, they favor UNACCOUNTABLE SYSTEMS OF CONTROL.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who favors clear accountability, and clear limits on government.

That said, if Paul somehow doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting for and contributing to R. J. Harris at http://www.rjharris2012.com R. J. Harris is a principled Ron Paul supporter who fully understands a decentralized strategy of promoting liberty based on jury rights activism: bringing the power of freedom directly to the individual, without even winning a single election. Check out Ron Paul's "Power to the Jury" speech on youtube for more information about how this is accomplished, or visit http://www.jurorsforjustice.com or http://www.fija.org

One thing that Ron Paul could do to beat Romney and Obama would be to say that he'd consider Dr. Paul Butler (a Nationwide defender of jury nullification of law) to be his running mate. This would do several things:

1) It would force people to look up Dr. Paul Butler's website, and learn more about jury nullification of law, and how the drug war is racist. If people did this, there would be an instant debate over institutionalized racism.

2) It would make the establishment crap its pants in fear, because it would totally defeat arguments in favor of voting for Obama, if Obama did not instantly reverse course and follow through on his forgotten 2008 campaign promises on civil liberties. (Ending the CA and CO marijuana raids, etc..)

3) It would make Paul the ONLY viable contender against Obama from the Republican field. It would set Paul Butler up to whisper in Paul's ear on every issue where injustice is institutionalized, from an INSIDER's perspective. (Dr. Butler was a federal prosecutor, before he realized that moral people could not be prosecutors, having the integrity to then quit his job.)

4) It would definitively prove that Paul is not a racist, to those who won't let go of the newsletters made by infiltrators to his operation in the early 1990s.

5) It would make any criticism of Paul impossible, from those who know anything about anything, meaning, only the totally ignorant in society would be criticizing Paul. This is ALMOST the case right now, but it would increase this variable dramatically.

6) Some people have said that Jesse Ventura would be an insurance policy against assassination, because he's more radical than Paul. Well, Dr Paul Butler would be an even bigger "insurance policy" and it would be an insurance policy with a message: "No more victimless crime enforcement. No more institutionalized racism. Pardons for all victims of the unconstitutional, false-justice system. A black man who truly understands the issues black america faces today, who will do more than give lip service to issues of institutionalized racism in policing."

7) Obama would not be able to criticize one single move Paul made, from a position of legitimacy. This would set Dr. Butler free to pressure the whitehouse to do the right thing, or get booted from the whitehouse in November. That way, even if Paul lost against Obama, the changes would have already been made.

Again, Paul Butler's page is http://www.jurorsforjustice.com

I like these strategic ideas, because they ensure a large measure of victory, no matter the outcome of the elections (primary or general). Plus, they bring in giant new growth coalitions, that penetrate into society far, far, far deeper than the Republican primary alone can possibly reach. They also set Paul up to optimize a shift to the Libertarian Party, if he so desires.

Moreover, Dr. Paul Butler brings in civil libertarian Democrats by the score, by finally reaching those millions of Democrats for whom social tolerance is more important than socialist welfare projects.

Obviously, a conversation would need to be had between Paul and Dr. Butler, but it would be an unbelievably powerful coalition, with Dr. Butler making the rounds on the media. ...And even if it resulted in lost elections, it would result in dramatically more individual freedom, because it would result in a focus on the jury nullification of law message.

Now, I know it's not likely, given Dr. Butler's past (somewhat passive) support of social welfare programs, and given the likelihood of a Paul-Judge Andrew Napolitano run, if Paul got the GOP nomination. But it's still intriguing to me, because of the instant benefit it would confer to both parties, and to the message of liberty.

Feel free to copy and repost this post. This post has no copyright, but you can give me credit if you like. I want it to travel across the internet as a meme. "Undercutting the Establishment" Thanks, --Jake Witmer.

The Most Important Court Case in the USA

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/activist-appeals-felony-ruling-for.html
If this court case is lost, then free political speech no longer exists in the USA. Watch the videos, pay close attention. If Mark Schmidter loses his case, we're all going to wake up the next day with no Bill of Rights. If you've ever wondered how the Weimar Republic caved in to nazism, it probably looked a lot like this.

Ron Paul Wins!

...100% of the educated vote, in the Iowa caucuses!

Thesis: Whenever you hear someone describing libertarian foreign policy views as "isolationist" they are misleading you, in the belief that you are too stupid to know the immense difference between the terms "military non-interventionist" and "isolationist." Alternate phrasing: "Will you blathering idiot pundits please stop calling Ron Paul an 'Isolationist'?" Alternate phrasing: Nonintervention =/= isolation.

Please, ...remember that. Your future may depend on it.

Why am I so angry about this right now? In short, the TV political blather show "FOX and Friends."

Stuart Varney just made the idiotic statement on "FOX and Friends" that Wall Street isn't supporting Ron Paul because he's an "isolationist." Steve Doocy then idiotically states that "...and that's because you can't be an isolationist in a global economy." These idiots are apparently incapable of comprehending the difference between "military non-interventionism" and "isolationism."

Ron Paul supports a foreign policy that Thomas Jefferson described as: "Free trade with all, entangling alliances with none." That's military noninterventionism, and historically, it prevents war and conflict. Stated another way: "When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will." "Isolationism" --a completely different thing-- is a backwards politicial philosophy that encourages the reduction and isolation of trade to favor "American business," as well as military and political disengagement, often with populist or nationalist overtones. Pat Buchanan is an "isolationist." F. A. Hayek, Harry Browne, and Ron Paul are "military noninterventionists." There's an immense difference, as any kindergartener of median intelligence can understand.

But I guess that Stuart Varney and Steve Doocy aren't quite that bright. ...Or, they're willing to sell out America on orders from their corporate overlords.

Sadly, the Ron Paul-supporting intellectuals in Iowa were not numerous enough to keep our grandkids out of "indefinite detention" in tomorrow's prison camps. (Let's hope there are enough people who comprehend the basic concept of America for Paul to win NH and SC.) If not, it's bye bye, America, ...fun while it lasted!

"FOX and friends" further reveals its ignorant media bias by their wording of their push poll: "Given expectations going into Iowa, the biggest loser from Tuesday night was: Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Ron Paul" THEY LEFT MITT ROMNEY'S NAME OUT!



...He got fewer votes than he got in 2008, even though the Republican establishment has been supporting him from the beginning! He came 8 votes from being beaten by the ridiculous socialist and bigot, Rick Santorum (who benefitted from an enormous herd of sheeple who mindlessly listened to their pastors and to santorum's words, without bothering to check his record out)! This weak showing is amazing, when put in the context that the media establishment has been working for free for Romney for months!

Even all that money and free support couldn't take the stink out of Romney enough to give him a landslide victory! Plastic Mitt is just too transparently a tool of the Federal Reserve bankers! FOX clearly wants their unthinking low-brow conformist viewers, to view Romney as a "winner." ...Ridiculous!

Don't worry, tyrants, your strategy of bringing education under the control of government has paid off. With voters in Iowa calling themselves conservatives, and working for their own enslavement, it's apparent that depriving highschoolers of proper history, philosophy, and economics lessons has accomplished its goal: a servile American population of willing "free range" serfs. A serf owns nothing, not even his own body: as this video (and the existence of the AMA, FDA, and DEA) clearly shows. So, congratulations on doing a very thorough job. The general public is completely unaware that America had the highest standard of literacy in the world, prior to the advent of public education.

"Conservative" is now a word with completely no meaning. It is a suitcase word that means anything from the legitimate "limited government" to the illegitimate "institutionalized bigotry on behalf of a fearful majority."

If you're a part of the uneducated majority, I strongly recommend these four works of nonfiction:
The Triumph of Liberty,
by Jim Powell
http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Liberty-Jim-Powell/dp/078612296X

The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve,
by G. Edward Griffin
http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986212

America: From Freedom to Fascism,
by Aaron Russo
free video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#

Why I am Not A Conservative,
by F. A. Hayek
free online: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/hayek1.html

Well, I need to go and watch the Fox News media fascists argue about the differences between 99% support for unlimited government, and 99% support for unlimited government allocated to slightly different subject areas. ...It's been fun.

Woods Appeals to Key Iowa Radio Host: Please Endorse Ron Paul

What Will Iowa's Legacy Be?

If Iowa's Republicans don't vote for Ron Paul, they will forever be remembered as the state Republicans that eliminated all hope of returning America to the constitutional rule of law. They will go down in history as "Republicans" who could not define the term "republic."

A republic is defined by a constitution that limits the power of government, no matter what 51% of the voters decide. A republic's constitution is the sourcecode or DNA of country that determines what form its body politic will take. Even if 51% of the voters decide to eliminate jury trials, or build gas chambers for Jews, a constitutional republic does not allow them to have their way. A constitutional republic allows multiple overlapping checks on government power to say "That's too far, this government action cannot be allowed." The president or governor can pardon those who acted in violation of unconstitutional government laws. The congress can pass a law providing relief to the people, and the State legislature can pass laws that offer relief from congress's laws and the president's executive orders. Judges can soften a punishment even when the jury returns a guilty verdict. And juries can outright refuse to return guilty verdicts. Even one single juror can hang a jury, based on his individual conscience.

This is the very core of what it means to be a Republican, and the very core of what it means to be an American.

Ultimately, We, the Jury, are the final check on government power. The government's prosecutors must ask a jury for permission to enforce the law. They must get 12 people to give them the word "GUILTY."

But Republics don't always last. In Germany, in 1934, the Nazis won a decisive plurality of seats in the Reichstag. A false flag attack then rallied the German people into giving up jury trials, and freedom of speech. The German state consolidated power, and began to use state power to destroy its opponents, internally. By the time the German public woke up to this fact, to speak out was to be raided by SS storm troopers. Those nice young men in uniform who were "keeping the order" were no longer protectors, but victimizers who served a political master, not the public peace.

Before the Civil War, in our own USA, jury trials were attacked by the government, and prosecutors were allowed, for the first time ever, to question the jury for agreement with the Fugitive Slave Law. Northern abolitionists like Lysander Spooner saw through this barbaric and unconstitutional practice, and reported it to the press. Juries responded to the state's efforts to return escaped slaves to slavery by getting smarter, and lying to state prosecutors, so they would be seated, and get the chance to acquit runaway slaves and their neighbors who harbored them. After the civil war ended, this practice of allowing the prosecutor to question the jury was not repealed, and is the reason for unconstitutional laws being enforced today.

...But we still have jury trials, and those determined to send a message can still present themselves as willing to enforce unjust laws, and can still veto unconstitutional laws. ...So prosecutors must still be wary not to punish those who are too obviously innocent of wrong.

Once Germany's nazis had eliminated jury trials, the life-blood of the economy, Germany's industrialists, were no longer safe from being looted under the "color of law." There were no longer legal protections in courts of law for them, and no longer jury trials. If they wanted to survive, they had to bow and scrape, and give Germany's nazi politicians everything they wanted. They were taxed and looted into bankruptcy. Before the war was over between six and eight million Jews were murdered, but people forget that that genocide is less than half of the murdering that took place. The rest of the murdering was democide. Approximately twelve million non-Jews were also murdered, for opposing, or simply being victimized by, Hitler's unconstitutional police state. They were not murdered for their race, or "genes," they were murdered for their beliefs, speech, or political identity. What if they had taken up arms against Hitler when he had passed his "Enabling Act?"

Germans in 1933 had to choose between marxists, social democrats, and fascists. But here, in America, we have a final shot at a better alternative: A true Republican. A man who favors proper constitutional limits on government power. A small-L, philosophical libertarian in the mold of Thomas Paine.

Nearly everyone disagrees with one or another constitutional limits on government power. Nearly everyone believes that if government power were expanded in some area, it would be able to do more good, or accomplish more to benefit society in some way. It's been pounded into every American in the form of "social studies" classes, since they were children.

The same thing happened to Germany, in the 1920s. For many years, Germans had been indoctrinated by tax-financed government schools to favor unlimited taxation. This was the genesis of the decline of the German Republic. Gradually, the Weimar Republic eliminated the already weak limits on government power that it had.

In modern Germany, grandparents now need to explain to their grand kids how they either supported or opposed the nazi police state. Young, curious minds want to know how such a betrayal was possible.
How would you explain to your grandkids, if they cracked a book open, years after the fall of America? Would you tell them something like this?: "I was on the wrong side. I was stupid. I didn't read about how jury trials had been eroded. I didn't think about the loss of free speech, or the NDAA's new executive-enabling powers. I just didn't understand what was going on." ...Do you think they'd forgive you their impoverished, hard-scrabble existence? Do you think they'd forgive the fact that you took the last of America's wealth, and spent it putting innocent people in prison, and bombing goat-farming foreigners into pre-industrial oblivion? Do you think they'll forgive the fact that you were willing to allow the police state to make exceptions to property rights for marijuana, guns, and gold (real money)? Do you think they'll forgive you for not ever cracking a proper economics or history book? There's some indication that Iowa is snapping out of America's socialist delusion. There's some indication that just because socialism is labeled "Republican," some of the voters are daring to ask bold questions of the candidates. There's some indication that the voters won't betray their grandparents, who marched into Germany to prevent world fascist domination by a superpower gone terribly wrong.

Let's not make America into another rogue superpower. Let's not share in the disgrace of Hitler's Germany. Germany lost their Republic, but we can keep ours. Germany allowed Hitler's enabling act, but we don't need to allow Bush and Obama their "PATRIOT Act", and "NDAA" that allows the elimination of trials by jury.

TRIALS BY JURY! That's what Obama and our congress has now put on the chopping block! Since 1215, we've had to fight to keep trial by jury! Almost 800 years of relative freedom and progress! The foundation of our civilization! Citizens must agree that their neighbor's transgression deserves government punishment! A last-ditch means of preventing government from going "off the rails" and into despotism! All of the progress of the industrial and information revolutions made possible by juries that would not punish the organizing free speech of factory migrant workers, or of modern computer and internet innovators!

All this will be lost if Ron Paul does not win the Republican nomination.

Is your own individual freedom not worth showing up, and being counted as a supporter of the derided, criticized, insulted, and ridiculed?

If you feel your childrens' freedom is not worth the effort, then how about simple self interest? How about keeping the interest on your paychecks, instead of giving it all away without a fight to Federal Reserve bankers? Most of your savings have already been eaten by this monster! The purchasing power of the dollar of 1900 has fallen by 98%! Will you just idly stand by while your legacy is devoured?

Or will you risk ridicule and social discomfort to do what is right?

YOU KNOW IN YOUR HEART THAT RON PAUL, FOR ALL HIS FAILINGS, IS RIGHT: THE UNITED STATES CANNOT SURVIVE THE LOSS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, IT CANNOT SURVIVE THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, IT CANNOT SURVIVE WARS WITHOUT CLEAR END GOALS.

DO THE RIGHT THING ON JANUARY 03, 2012.

STAND UP AND BE COUNTED.

VOTE RON PAUL IN THE IOWA CAUCUSES.

Let the Record Show...

That Bob Barr is an abject scumbag, drug warrior, and anti-libertarian, and that the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin is a kind and decent human being, with libertarian values. Let the record also show that more choices on a ballot is a generally a good thing. Even in the case where the State of Virginia just illegally put two totalitarians (Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry, who both failed to collect enough signatures to legally access the ballot) on the ballot, it's a good thing, because they will split the VA totalitarian vote three ways.

Although I fully comprehend that Newt and Rick's hypocrisy regarding their support for ballot access restrictions is grotesque, and that they deserve to lose ballot access (as Ron Paul would have if libertarian activist Bob Lynch had not come through for him, and delivered last-minute ballot access to him on a silver platter) ...I'm glad they've decided to split the totalitarian vote. That will give Ron Paul a better chance to make a bigger impact in the race, and possibly even win.

Classic From F. A. Hayek that Inspired WIKIpedia

In researching the below posts, I came across this great piece by Dick Clark;
WIKIpedia: What Is It Good For?at http://mises.org/daily/2704

In that piece, Clark notes that WIKIpedia founder Jimmy Wales was inspired by an essay by Austrian economist F. A. Hayek. Fascinating.

Here is Hayek's famous essay, in its entirety:
The Use of Knowledge in Society by Freidrich A. Hayek
at http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Economics/HayekUseOfKnowledge.html

The Dick Clark We All Know And Love

I was pleased to see that Dick Clark was a trending search term, according to yahoo, today. Of course, the Dick Clark I'm referring to is neither the elderly veejay personality, nor his cryo-preserved head made famous in "Futurama," it's the libertarian mastermind Dick Clark from the Mises Institute, who is now somewhere in frozen flyover country.

I was pleased to see that google images returned an image of the Dick Clark I know and whose writings I love.

...Right next to the Futurama cartoon of the other Dick Clark's cryonically-preserved head.

I hope Dick's taking advantage of his "trend" in the search engines. He's one of the few libertarian philosophers I know who is "right about everything." (I also put Radley Balko, Marc Stevens, and Jacob Sullum into that category.)

Dick is the author of the fine book "Fighting Back." Follow the prior link to get your free copy today, and if you like it, purchase a hard copy!