Wednesday, November 11, 2015

GOP Plot Thickens

Nelson Hultberg     
Two distinct groups have now formed among the eight top Republican Party candidates. The first group is the patriots made up of Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul. The second group is the statists made up of Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Carley Fiorina, and John Kasich. On almost every issue in last night's debate these two groups came down on either the side of less government and individualism (the patriots), or more government and collectivism (the statists). There were some deviations, but for the most part the patriots and statists answered true to their ideology.
The issues were covered in sophisticated style. The moderators, Neil Cavuto, Maria Bartiromo, and Gerard Baker, conducted themselves in professional manner. After three circus-like debates with previous moderators vying for the title of most sensationalistic question asked, we finally got sanity. Substance was the result of this fourth GOP debate.
But even though the evening was enjoyable rather than egregious as with CNBC's previous display of hubris, there were numerous exasperations and errors that mere high school students would have avoided.
Let's take immigration for starters. Right off the bat Trump was asked to explain the features of his stand regarding illegals. How, declared the moderators, did he propose to get rid of 12 million immigrants in a feasible manner?
Trump launched into his standard response on the issue by checking off his declarations that 1) a wall would be built, 2) the illegals would be sent packing, and 3) we as a country would return to a nation of rules regarding who was allowed to enter America.
All well and good. But Kasich, Bush, and Fiorina attacked this litany as lunacy, claiming that no humane nation was going to "deport" 12 million human beings. To think of sending 500,000 Mexicans out of the country every month, said Bush, was inconceivable. The statist group quickly piled on the Donald and attempted to bash him into capitulation. This, of course, is impossible to do with someone like Trump. But unfortunately in his response to his attackers, Trump couldn't get off his standard declarations. He would not bring up the subject of magnets and why they must be eliminated if we are ever going to solve the immigration problem. He handles them in his recently released immigration plan, but he needs to also articulate them in televised debates.
In other words, instead of talking about "walls" and "deporting," Trump needs to be talking about enacting E-Verify so illegals can be screened out in the application process for jobs. He needs to explain to America about how we have to end welfare services and free schooling for illegals. He must elaborate on the need for Congress to nullify the anchor baby loophole regarding the 14th Amendment. These are the four magnets that draw illegals to America; they must be eliminated, or we are playing a ludicrous game of make believe.
In addition Trump needs to explain that a new constitutional Amendment does not have to be passed to end the anchor baby loophole as Fiorina and her statist cronies maintain. So there is no need to round up and "deport 500,000 illegals per month" as Bush so preposterously claims. Simply enact E-Verify, eliminate the other three magnets, and millions of illegals will gradually "self-deport" over the next ten years peacefully all on their own. High school students can grasp this, but Bush, Rubio, Fiorina and Kasich cannot.
On the subject of taxation each candidate had a basic tax reduction plan (when did a Republican not pay homage to "tax reduction"?). But none of the candidates put forth consistent rationality regarding taxes. On this issue patriot Trump joins the statists with a progressive rate plan. Only Carson, Cruz and Paul grasp the essence of taxation in America, i.e., that it must be proportional. In other words it must be comprised of "equal rates" in a country founded on "equal rights."
But Carson and Cruz put forth impossibly low 10% rate plans with Cruz offering that a family of four that makes under $36,000 would pay no taxes. This would increase the already staggering "zero-payers" and sabotage his 10% rate before such a tax plan could even make it out of committee in Congress because there would be no hope for revenue neutrality. Carson's 10% plan would encounter the same difficulties, but he says that his rate can be as high as 15% to avoid massive deficits. So there is more rationality here. Paul approached sanity with a flat tax of 14.5%. But both he and Cruz would eliminate all "payroll taxes," which would add billions to the deficit.
AFR has put forth a rational and doable "flat tax" plan that suffers none of the problems encountered by the GOP patriots. See our National Independent Report, pp. 8-14,
Unfortunately all the GOP candidates are engaged in making their wishes father to their facts on taxes. The patriots get the philosophical aspect right (i.e., proportionality), but fail to get the implementation aspect right (i.e., revenue neutrality). The statists don't accept proportionality and are vague on the implementation aspect, which is par for the course with statists. Vagueness is the foundation stone of their political careers. Never be specific. That way freedom can be avoided and bigger government can be smuggled into one's offerings under the guises of necessity and responsibility.
Foreign Policy
The issue of foreign policy did not split neatly into the statist and patriot camps. Trump and Paul were very much patriots here viewing the Iraqi war as an abomination and cautioning any kind of strong involvement in the Mideast. Carson was not as strong in this regard, but was skeptical of major intervention. Cruz attempted to carve out a middle ground in which America maintained a powerful military force but used it judiciously in the Mideast and around the world. Standard conservative boilerplate, which unfortunately gets talked about, but never implemented.
Patriots Trump and Paul overwhelmed Bush, Rubio and Fiorina on the issue of Russia. Never in our history have we refused to deal with the man in the Kremlin, and Fiorina's declaration that she would not deal with Putin was vehemently ridiculed for the imbecility that it is. Bush's attempt to declare a "no-fly" zone in the areas of Syria and Iraq was equally demolished by Trump and Paul. "Are we going to actually shoot down Russian planes," asked Paul? "Let Putin attack ISIS; I welcome it," said Trump.
In face of such apostasy the statists were outraged, and they responded to Trump and Paul with hysterical accusations of irresponsibility and naivety. Bush, Rubio, Fiorina and Kasich are strident neocons. They subscribe to the necessity of American hegemony in the Mideast and to a great extent throughout the rest of the world. Their espousals in foreign policy are filled with odes to military glory. The grim realities of their never-ending wars for world hegemony from a moral and financial standpoint are simply ignored, which, of course, is the tyrannical ploy of all dictatorships. Dwell on the alleged glories; ignore the inevitable realities.
The Verdict
What verdict can we derive from this gathering of Republicans? For starters the GOP is clearly the more rational party over Hillary's lugubrious gang of grafters. But there are several moral, philosophical, and economic discrepancies that prevail in the minds of both the patriot and statist camps of GOP candidates. Far more in the statist camp, but the patriots have some flaws that must be addressed.
Donald Trump and Ben Carson did themselves no harm; they will continue to lead. Though both are weak on details and explaining the finer more technical and factual points on each issue. Whether this translates into withdrawal of support from the voters remains to be seen.
Unfortunately Carson lacks the strength of personality to be president. He would be manipulated by the CFR and his principles sacrificed to the intimidatory presence of powerful operatives behind the scene. Trump, on the other hand, has the strength of personality to be president. He would stand up to the CFR, and perhaps stop the rush to the New World Order despite his lack of articulateness on the finer points of policy. Advisors can be gathered around him to furnish these.
Ted Cruz is a mixed bag, staunch patriot and constitutional conservative on all issues but foreign policy. He walks a tightrope when it comes to trying to balance his patriotism with his militarism in foreign policy. But he has a grasp of the finer factual aspects of policy and would be an imposing opponent to Hillary. Could he stand up to the CFR elites who dominate behind the scene? Very doubtful.
Rand Paul is a lost cause. Despite his strong constitutional stands and libertarian economics he simply lacks the big personality to command the stage and be presidential. We live in the media age, and big personalities are a requisite. The days when a Calvin Coolidge could gain the White House are long gone.
Marco Rubio again impressed with his assertive articulations and engaging debate style. But the man lacks presidential demeanor, and worst of all, he is a gushing New World Order advocate solidly in the neocon camp.
The other three statists - Jeb Bush, Carley Fiorina, and John Kasich - come to the process "stillborn." Bush radiates whimpiness and would be a craven puppet in face of the CFR bullies of Washington. Fiorina is the classical ice queen of neoconservatism who has memorized the New World Order play book and will dutifully implement it once in office. Kasich is a forlorn retread from the eighties. Hysterical and obtuse, he is, like his comrades, a dutiful puppet.

Stay tuned; it is going to be a contentious and exciting campaign.

Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic A graduate of Beloit College in Wisconsin, his articles have appeared in such publications as The American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, The Dallas Morning News, and the San Antonio Express-News, as well as on numerous Internet sites. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email:

Sunday, August 16, 2015

The Banking Oligarchs

By Nelson Hultberg

Can anyone stop the overweening lunacy of the banking oligarchs? No more than anyone can stop pythons from devouring rabbits at play. Our bankers are not honorable. They are not farsighted. And they have set in motion forces that no human effort can avert. Moreover they long ago formed a deathly co-op with history’s most deplorable criminal element – the state. This has given them a free pass to indulge in ugly asset corpulence and hideous irresponsibility. It has hidden the true state of their criminality from realization by good men and women. The banking oligarchs and the power they have over us today are the result of a long train of poisonous ideas descending upon the American republic over the past 120 years.

It began with the coming of socialism to Europe and its Fabian migration to America at the turn of the century. Capitalism, the Fabians preached, is the root of all evil with its insistence on gold as money. Its freedom is no longer possible in the modern world. It brings to mankind uncontrollable booms and busts and horrific poverty. There is no cure for capitalism. It must be burnt at the stake of its egregious altar – free banking. Free banking is responsible for wild cycles, and gold stifles productivity when needed. Only by centralizing the great network of free banks that capitalism creates and shifting from rigid gold money to flexible paper money can abundance and stability be brought to modern life. Thus was ushered in America’s reign of “easy money” with the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

The Lure of Easy Money

Prior to 1913 we had resisted the lure of easy money, a curse that goes back to early civilization. Governments of history have always partaken in monetary debasement to create the illusion of prosperity. Our Founders realized this and preached against any kind of paper money. But their wisdom lasted only 125 years.

Easy money is like promiscuous sex. The two lures promise sensual delight and prosperity, and they do deliver such for various periods of time to their partakers. But ultimately they erode self-worth (for the female) and degrade the store of value that money represents for society. Bleakness and disaster are their ultimate denouements.

The media of the day, however, were eager to endorse this glorious shangri-la of perpetual prosperity that was sold to them as the Federal Reserve. “All progressive thinkers now realize,” they hammered home to us, “that banking must be centralized and controlled in Washington. Only then can booms and busts be eliminated. Only then can true stable wealth be produced.”

The fact that just the opposite has taken place over the past 100 years of this maniacal experiment in giving to government the power to create money escapes the awareness of pundits on the political left because clarity and reason do not move pundits on the left. Getting more out of life than they are willing to put in moves them. Denying the existence of Natural Law moves them. These two obsessions blind them to the irrational mega-statism that they so ritualistically worship in face of every problem that life thrusts upon us. Their worldview belongs to Alice in Wonderland. Words mean what they want them to mean. Objective reality is optional in their mind.

Because the pundits of the left have been taught the misconceptions of socialism, they fell prey to John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s who believed that capitalism had reached its “mature stage” and would never again be able to “generate sufficient demand.” Thus it needed massive government intervention into banking and the creation of money by those in Washington.

But capitalism has no such thing as a “mature stage.” It is eternally renewable as long as it is left free to recharge itself. The flaw in Keynesianism is that it was not capitalism that brought us the Great Depression; it was government intervention into capitalism via the Federal Reserve and its irresponsible inflation of the money supply that created a massive boom throughout the 1920s that had to eventually crack up and collapse.

All Keynesianism does is to exacerbate the normal cycles of laissez-faire and turn them into dangerous monster cycles via massive injections of credit, i.e., DEBT. If left on a gold standard, this cannot happen. Only the normal cycles of laissez-faire will come about, which quickly self-correct if left alone. Keynesianism is the classic case of government intervention creating economic distortions that it then uses as an excuse for more interventions, which then create more distortions. Eventually the distortions reach epic proportions such as we have today.

The solution is to restore a free-market in banking. Take the control of money out of government hands and let the marketplace determine what is to be used. It will always pick gold and silver, which cannot be inflated and thus will not bring about massive booms and busts. Keynes was catastrophically wrong in thinking that gold and the free market caused the Great Depression. The cause was the paper inflation that came from the creation of the Fed in 1913. Numerous Austrian economists have demonstrated this quite brilliantly – Murray Rothbard in America’s Great Depression and Ludwig von Mises in Human Action, for example. It is this crucial mindset that our intelligentsia must grasp if we are to get back to a free society and avoid the New World Order being prepared for us by the banking oligarchs.

The Tragedy of Modernity

Thus the tragedy of modernity. Political collectivists have swept over our country like a plague of infected rats in the days of Black Death. And they are destined to bring the same degree of upheaval to us that came to Europeans in the 14th century because of the rodents infesting their societies. Pathogenicity is not limited solely to physical life. It also plays a very prominent role in ideological life and comprises the evil factor in forming the tidal waves of history that sweep the shores of human endeavor over the millennia. The other side of the equation is that of salubrity and heroism which drive humans toward truth and propriety. Herein lies the great clash of good and evil that we find to be the metaphysical base of all meaning for our lives.

Unfortunately the pundits of the left like Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman, and talking heads like Chris Matthews and Rachael Maddow dominate the scene and are lost in the utter irrationality of their philosophical fundamentals learned long ago in the formative years of their Fabian youth. Together with the equally warped neoconservatives, they control ten times the air space that the American freedom movement controls. Thus the country drifts toward an apocalyptic collapse.

What is coming is the end of the world as we know it. There will be no recovery from the Marxian-Keynesian disease and its vast rodent spawn of minds like Krugman, Friedman, Matthews, Maddow, and their 20th century mentors. There will be only chaotic economic crashes mixed into a steady, drizzling dissolution of culture and hope, prosperity and faith, politics and freedom proceeding from now into an indeterminate future.

But out of every downfall comes the inevitable effort to right the requisites of existence. Humans are seekers of truth in the long run. They desire the good rather than the evil even though they get hypnotized by the latter for long stretches of time. So for those of us who grasp the overwhelming idiocy of the collectivist Weltanschauung, sanity drives us to seek out one of two avenues: 1) drop off the grid and find a safe haven to ride out the coming storm, or 2) attempt to forge a resistance movement to fight the purveyors of what surely will be a Tyrannical World Order foisted upon us by the banking oligarchs in the coming storm. Both avenues have their appeal. One’s particular persona will dictate which is the preferred.

Nelson Hultberg, Director
Americans for a Free Republic
P.O. Box 801213
Dallas, TX 75380

Monday, August 10, 2015

The GOP Debate - Miserable Irrelevancy

Nelson Hultberg

Seventeen GOP candidates for president of the United States paraded in front of us in Cleveland on August 6th. The establishment media crowed enthusiastically to the viewers about the import of this gathering to our lives as Americans. Chris Wallace and his fellow questioners milked the affair for all the drama they could squeeze from it.

Unfortunately this two-tiered debate was just one more exercise in the miserable irrelevancy of the media's handling of "political affairs" in America today. With each passing year the nation drifts deeper into economic ineptitude, a macabre government intervenes further into all the nooks and crannies of our lives, and our culture sinks relentlessly into an abysmal preoccupation with gays, transsexuals, drug addicts, and other sundry oddities of life. Decadence and despotism loom all around us. There are scores of monumental issues that need to be discussed today openly and fervently by our media. But instead we got irrelevancy and default on the real problems that our country and culture face. Why were not the following paramount issues presented to the candidates in depth?

1) States' rights versus Washington power.

We as a nation were formed under the concept of "federalism," which means that all legislative power is to emanate first on the local level, then on the state level, and last on the national level. Yet over the past century, this fundamental principle of federalism has been destroyed. Washington dominates our lives like a one-eyed Cyclops, arrogantly and stupidly. The first duty of a president today should be to lead Congress in eliminating federal bureaucracies and returning power to the states and localities. This cannot be mere lip service for political appeal; it must be a vigorous, organized effort by the president to dismantle the stultifying ABC bureaucracies in Washington. The president must go in front of the American people repeatedly on TV like Ronald Reagan did to explain why massive bureaucracies such as education, energy, welfare, transportation, etc. must be turned back to the states and reduced drastically if we are to stave off bankruptcy as a nation, even phased out of existence if the people will it.

2) The Federal Reserve's role in inflationary booms and busts.

Since 1972 there have been no limits on how much monetary expansion the Federal Reserve can bring about. Consequently the Fed has been expanding the money supply over the past 43 years at annual rates never before seen in the history of mankind. Thus the money supply has been growing far faster than the growth of goods and services, which is what creates inflationary booms and then the inevitable economic busts.

Congressman Ron Paul advocated ending the Fed as the answer to this problem. He is right, of course, but such a termination will take decades to bring about. The people have to be educated first as to correct banking and monetary policy. Thus in the meantime what do we do to stop the Fed from creating the booms and busts?

Fortunately there is a temporary practical solution to bridge the gap between today's Fed corruption and a future with no Fed. The late Milton Friedman advocated a 4% automatic expansion of the money supply every year. This would remove responsibility for monetary growth from the arbitrary decisions of the FOMC and make it a simple computerized function by law. Money would grow at 4% annually, which would match the average GDP growth in a free economy. This would result in zero percent price inflation, which would bring stability instead of booms and busts. The Friedman plan is not a perfect solution, but it would buy us time until we could educate the people as to why and how we are to terminate the Fed. To avoid a depression, it could be phased into slowly.

3) Magnets drawing the illegal immigrants to America.

There are five primary magnets that draw illegals into our country. They are jobs, education, welfare services, the anchor baby loophole, and the privilege of Spanish as a public language. No wall or fence will ever stop the migration of Mexico into America. Only by removing the five magnets can we stem this invasion. Talk of "securing the border" without removing the magnets is for deceivers and humbugs. No problem can be solved without going to the root causes of the problem. The roots of illegal immigration are the five magnets. To eliminate them we must do the following:

Enact E-verify and enforce the criminal laws on the books regarding the hiring of illegals.
Mandate English as the official language for America in her public schools. Eliminate schooling and welfare benefits to illegals. Begin the process to end the anchor baby loophole of the 14th Amendment.

4) Should marriage be decided in the courts or by the culture?

Gays and lesbians are humans with the same rights as heterosexuals, and they deserve to be treated with the same respect and civility that one conveys to all other human beings. But they do not have the right to mandate their acceptance through the courts. Whatever acceptance in society they are to gain must come voluntarily through reason and persuasion.

Obviously gays and lesbians have a right to equality under the law, but this means only that they have the same right as all other citizens in society to form a "contractual union" and have it upheld by the law. It does not mean they have the right to coerce their fellowman by judicial decree into accepting such a union as a "marriage." Marriage has, for thousands of years and for very sound reasons, been legally defined as between opposite sexes. Judges do not have the right to change this; only the people do. The determination of what constitutes marriage must be returned to the states and handled by a vote of the people.

5) Our police-the-world foreign policy.

In the Founding Fathers' eyes the role of foreign policy was not to solve other nation's problems, nor to dictate their forms of government. It was to defend our country's security and survival. Our actions and alliances abroad were to be centered only around self-defense.

Is today's aggressive foreign policy concerned only with self-defense? Or is it a policy driven by the egregious goals of corporate-government-banking combines? Is it America First? Or is it world hegemony dominated? Unfortunately it is the latter due to the neoconservatives rise to power over the past 30 years. It is their Wolfowitz Doctrine that guides Washington today. This doctrine maintains that America has an obligation to establish hegemony over all other nations via force in order to provide for a stable world because we are the only reigning superpower.

The question we must ask is: How can Washington justify the "spreading of democracy" through endless war and killer drones and think it is somehow pursuing justice? No nation has the right to dominate their neighbors because their technological superiority has made them the sole superpower. Such a foreign policy is imperialistic; it will bring America nothing but oppressive debt, international hatred, and quite possibly nuclear confrontation.

A Substantive Debate Needed

The above five issues are of vast importance. The survival of our country and our culture are at stake. Why were not clear cut questions asked of the candidates about federalism and states rights, about the role of the Fed in booms and busts, about immigration magnets, about the courts usurpation of the people's right to define marriage, about self-defense vs. world hegemony? Because today's media are not interested in substance and freedom, that's why. They're all about dog and pony shows and the further expansion of statism.   

Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic A graduate of Beloit College in Wisconsin, his articles have appeared in such publications as The American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, The Social Critic, The Dallas Morning News, and the San Antonio Express-News, as well as on numerous Internet sites. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email: NelsonHultberg (at)

Thursday, July 02, 2015

The Orwellian-Keynesian Path

Nelson Hultberg
Greece defaults. The Dow plummets 350 points in one day. Ugly, ominous DEBT builds up like a giant snow cliff hanging over the economic valleys of the West. Is this the end of the Great Keynesian Charade brought to us by the collectivists with the advent of 1913 and the Roosevelt revolution of 1933? Not quite; but the end is near. It sits just beyond the "fiscal can kicking" that our government banking oligarchs have fashioned for us from Milhouse Nixon to Hussein Obama. A few more years of such illusory "policy making" will be all that is needed. The DEBT avalanche that we have contained far longer than wise men ever thought possible will begin its descent and crash into our lives. It won't be a slow form of destruction either; it will be a huge and horrific crash that will wipe out much of the quality of our way of life overnight.

It will begin as the marketplace reasserts its control in the bond market, and interest rates begin to climb in defiance of the Fed's massive rate suppression over the past decade. China and the world's buyers of U.S. Treasuries are not going to continue ponying up in the Treasury auctions like they have been doing for so many decades. In fact they are now beginning to get rid of U.S. Treasuries, and this means they will surely be buying far less of them in future auctions. This will mean interest rates must go higher. The days of Washington borrowing its way to power and phony prosperity are numbered.

With higher interest rates will come more pressure for the Fed to simply print money in order to fund the egregious prodigality of the welfare state that FDR and LBJ gave to us. With such blatant printing will come price inflation and a fall of the dollar's value throughout the world, which will then spur further rises in interest rates. The Keynesian chickens of "pseudo prosperity" that we have been enjoying for 80 years will come home to roost in a devastating decline for America. The boom will be replaced by the bust, and it will be massive.

If the Chinese Yuan is admitted into the IMF's club for reserve currencies this October (which is a serious possibility), the dollar will lose huge amounts of its attractiveness around the world. It will sell off steadily and disastrously over the next decade. Prices will scream in America. Standards of living will plummet. Such an event combined with the past 80 years of Keynesian monetary illusion cannot end well for America. We have broken the natural laws of economics for so long that we will have to now pay for our sins like all prodigals do. And it will not be a pretty sight.

The Charlatanry of Keynes

The question is, can our authorities grasp the fundamental flaw underlying the Keynesian ideology that lies behind the boom-bust nature of our modern economy? This flaw is that Say's Law is valid, and that Keynes was a charlatan to try and convince us that it was no longer applicable to modern times. As Jean Baptiste Say (the famous 19th century French economist) told us, "supply creates its own demand," and no amount of credit expansion by government bankers is going to increase demand beyond what can be created by the productiveness of our people. At least there can be no "increased demand" that is genuine and stable. Keynesian demand is equivalent to the high that a dope addict experiences. There must come a total destruction and crash to balance out the high that the credit expansion created. Therefore government juicing up of demand by "priming the pump" with liquidity injections of credit to the people will not make us all richer in the long run. And that is what is important - the long run. [For a detailed explanation of why this crash must take place, see my article, Keynesianism's Ugly Secret.]

Can our authorities grasp all this? Very doubtful. Thus America's crash will drag Europe, China, Japan, Australia, and the rest of the world into a protracted depression that will be more devastating than anything in history. Calls for renunciation of American sovereignty will be heard everywhere. A world bank will be championed. Capitalism will be blamed even though we haven't had capitalism since the 19th century. What we have is economic fascism, the merging of corporate power and state power. But all of this will elude our authorities. They will be in full panic mode and looking for a way to cling to power and climb back to some semblance of prosperity.

All of this will bring so much disorder, so much suffering, so much outrage among the people (who will not understand the Keynesian sources of the problem) that they will tolerate massive government centralization and martial law. They will scorn what is left of the Constitution. They will kowtow to demagogues preaching the need to nationalize the banking system and enact a massive redistribution of wealth through punitive progressive tax rates. They will agree with the Marxian mindset more and more. They will tolerate Marx's "new kind of freedom."

Can this disaster be averted? No, the crash cannot be averted. But what's important is can America be revived after the inevitable crash that is coming? Can the revival be genuine, i.e., a restoration of the Founders' vision of limited government? That is the paramount question that we now face. Is there enough patriotic desire for the real America among the people for them to want to restore it? Or will we succumb to Orwell's nightmare and become Oceania (North and South America), while the rest of the world becomes Eurasia (Europe and Russia) and Eastasia (China, Japan, Australia, Korea, the Philippines, etc.). Three regional governments to dominate the world.

Lincoln's Nationalization

This is the direction that we are headed. This is what is in store for our children. This is the price we paid when, 155 years ago, we began the nationalization of our government under Abraham Lincoln and the mercantilists of his day. It was with Lincoln that the Hamiltonian political philosophy finally gained power in our country. Till then we were Jefferson's "Republic of States" relying on free enterprise, gold money, and a strict separation of powers, i.e., "federalism." With Lincoln we shifted into mercantilism and political nationalization culminating with the Federal Reserve and the federal income tax in 1913, which led to the Great Depression, which led to Keynes in 1936, LBJ in 1966, and the Nixon to Obama government banking oligarchy.

[See Thomas J. DiLorenzo's, The Real Lincoln and Hamilton's Curse for two brilliant expositions of this treasonous departure from the original purpose of America.]

The collectivists have held power ever since Lincoln. Sometimes it's Republican collectivists, and sometimes it's Democratic collectivists who win at the polls. But always it's collectivism. Always it's more centralization of power. Each domestic economic crisis has brought us more centralization of government in Washington. And this next economic crisis, being a world crisis, will bring us world centralization of power. Regional government will be the beginning. We already have the forces set in motion with all the modern fervor for the North American Union (NAU) in which America, Canada, and Mexico are merged, first economically, which, of course, will eventually require political union in order to be workable.

Orwell's world is coming. It will take a miracle to stop it. Americans will have to rebel and demand the restoration of what they know deep in their souls is their birthright - freedom in both the political and economic realms. Political leaders who grasp the Orwellian-Keynesian source of our problems will have to appear after the crash to galvanize the people. Americans still have a love of freedom inside them; but they will need both intellectual and political leaders to clarify this and inspire them to be true to the country once again.

We live in epic times. A high-tech Dark Ages of Orwellian-Keynesian slavery to government banking oligarchs looms ahead. Where will you, the reader, stand in response? Will you fight such ignominy, or will you stay with the collectivist herd to enjoy the fruits of redistributed wealth and government privilege? If you are a true patriot, you already know where you will stand.

Nelson Hultberg is a freelance scholar/writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic A graduate of Beloit College in Wisconsin, his articles have appeared in such publications as The American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, The Social Critic, The Dallas Morning News, and the San Antonio Express-News, as well as on numerous Internet sites. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email: NelsonHultberg (at)

Friday, May 22, 2015


Tyranny is defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary as:  cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others; a government in which all power belongs to one person.  Escaping the tyranny of a monarch was the reason America was founded.  Our Declaration of Independence from another country, England, states: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."  Our forefathers fought a war to earn America's freedom from tyranny.

Our Founding Fathers wanted to be sure that America would remain the country of free people.  To that end, they provided a legal, peaceful method within our Constitution to strip an internal tyrant of power.  It is the tool of Impeachment defined in the Constitution, Article II, Section 4:  "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."  The House of Representatives issues the impeachment charges and the Senate conducts the trial.

Two American Presidents have been impeached.  Andrew Johnson, the 17th President, was impeached on grounds of disregarding the Tenure of Office Act of 1867.  It prohibited a President from dismissing office holders without the Senate's approval.  He was impeached by the House of Representatives for trying to throw Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War, out of office.  The Senate was one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict him and he was acquitted May 26, 1868.  Political maneuvering is cited as the reason there was not a conviction.

William J. Clinton, the 42nd President, was the second impeached.  He was charged with four crimes and impeached in the House of Representatives on two of those, grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice.  Again, the Senate failed to secure the two-thirds majority needed to convict and he was acquitted February 12, 1999.  Again, political maneuvering is cited as the reason there was not a conviction.

Also, Richard Nixon, the 37th President, had three articles of impeachment issued by the House of Representatives on July 20, 1974.  Nixon resigned his office on August 9, 1974, before the House voted to impeach him.

In all three instances, the Constitution did its job.  What the Founding Fathers did not foresee was that people elected to represent the citizens would thwart our country's guiding document, the Constitution, for personal or party gains.  America has evolved into two parties, the Democrats and the Republicans.  For too many of those elected to our Congress, the desire to keep their individual power and to maintain their party's control over spending our tax dollars is more important than ensuring that the Constitution is enforced.

Another safeguard in the Constitution to protect us against tyranny is the assignment of specific powers to three separate branches of the Federal Government, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.  No branch may infringe on the powers of the others.  By not taking the appropriate action, impeaching Obama, the Congress has subjected us to having a Tyrant, not a President, heading the Executive branch of the Federal government.

In August, 2013, Business Daily listed several laws Obama has broken.  He chooses what laws do and don't suit his needs and ignores the latter.  He is usurping the law-making power the Constitution gives solely to the Legislative branch of the Federal government, the Congress.

Obama circumvented the immigration law, deciding not to deport illegal immigrants under the age of 30.  He unilaterally has and continues to change Obamacare.  These are only two examples on a very long list.  After Congress enacts a bill and the President signs it, it is the law of the land.  It can not be changed arbitrarily.  Changes are legal only when they are introduced and approved by the Congress as a revocation of or an amendment to the original law.

Business Daily also lists actions Obama has taken that usurp the power the Constitution gives only to the Judicial branch of the Federal government.  This tyrant ignores court decisions.  Re-imposing a moratorium on off-shore drilling after the courts struck down his original moratorium and refusing to remove his appointees to the National Labor Relations Board after those appointments were ruled unconstitutional are only two examples of his illegal actions.

It is time for Congress to follow the rules; it must act and do what the Constitution demands.  Breaking laws and usurping power are not allowable actions for any President.  It is time to impeach and to try the forty-fourth President, Barack Obama.  This tyrant must be stopped in order to preserve America as it was intended to be, a country of free people without a tyrant or a central power controlling her citizens.

This time, politics can not be allowed to over-ride the Constitution.  Those in Congress who value their individual power and their party's control over spending our tax dollars more than working for our best interests must be stopped.  Use your voice, your vote, your power as citizens.  Demand that Congress represent our interests by impeaching and convicting the tyrant in the Executive Branch.  Save America from Obama by stripping him of his office.  Return control of America to her citizens.

Unfortunately, Americans face an intentional lack of education in our public-school system to teach our youth how America is governed and their role and responsibility as citizens.  So, citizens must educate themselves.  Read the Constitution.  It is readily available on line or in many libraries.  Before you vote again, prepare to cast an informed vote.  Know what candidates have achieved and what their actions demonstrate about their belief in protecting our individual rights and freedoms.  Research candidates yourself; make your own decisions.  Elect those who will live by their job description as it is defined in our Constitution.  That job is to represent us.

Kathleen M. Dynan
Cape May, New Jersey

Friday, May 08, 2015

Does Our Constitution Matter?

From: John Porter
To: Americans everywhere

What was the purpose of writing a Constitution in the founding of these United States of America, following our separation from England? We must be reminded that before the migration from Europe to this newly discovered land, all people of the civilized world were ruled by Kings. No man or woman, except the rulers, were free to pursue their own happiness. Even the people of the original thirteen established states of this new land were ruled, as a colony, by the King of England.

Then something very profound and monumental took place, Independence was declared and the American Revolution was underway, and a war for the freedom of men to think and act for themselves ensued. A group of men bent on their desire to be free and rule themselves in a land where the government answered to the people and not the people answering to the King and his court, rose up and risked their lives and fortunes in an attempt to end government dictating to, taxing at will, and over regulating the people. Through the shedding of their blood and fortune the American Constitutional Republic was born, an experiment in self government. As you know the opening shot fired in that revolution was called "“the shot heard round the world."” It was so called because it was a rebellion against, not only the King of England, but against mankind being ruled by kings.

Kings and dictatorial leaders "round the world" heard that shot. They heard the shot that proclaimed that men were now in rebellion to being subjects of a government, or king, and willing to challenge it.

We The People of America celebrate on July 4 every year, the marking of American independence from England and its king, a very radical departure from governments which prevailed, "“round the world",” at that time and for thousands of years before. Never before in those thousands of years had the rule of kings ever been challenged. Kings challenged each other, but never had the people challenged the kings and their rule.

Is the United States an exceptional country? Barack Obama has stated publicly that he doesn't think it is. I quote Thomas Sowell, “"You could’ not be more exceptional in the 18th century than to create your fundamental document, the Constitution of the United States, by opening with the momentous words, “We the people."…”

Those three words were a slap in the face to those who thought themselves entitled to rule, and regarded the people as if they were simply human livestock, destined to be herded and shepherded by their betters. Indeed, to this very day, the elite who think that way, and that includes many among those who regard themselves as the educated and enlightened class, as well as the Liberal news media and political messiahs such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and their backers, find the Constitution of the United States a real pain because it stands in the way of them imposing their will and their presumptions on the rest of us.

Barack Obama stated in a public interview on T V, "The founders made it very hard to change things as quickly as I want to." He also stated in a public speech, "If congress doesn't do what I think is necessary, I won't wait on them, I'll do it anyway." And again, we all remember him saying in a televised interview, "We're not just going to be waiting for legislation. I've got a pen and I've got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders." Never before in American history has any president so blatantly and openly shown such disregard and out and out contempt for our Constitution as the rule of law. He just simply ignores it. It is very apparent that his swearing to "uphold and defend" it, upon taking the oath of office, means absolutely nothing to him. I am convinced and fear that Hillary Clinton will be a continuation of the same if she is elected to the presidency.

A campaign was started many years ago by President Woodrow Wilson, and continues today, to undermine and discredit the United States Constitution. Those efforts are headed today by the Progressive Liberals (Socialists) both in our news media and our federal government, and they are led, among others, by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, and the management of the MSNBC news organization.

The managing editor of Time Magazine, Richard Stengle, in an essay he wrote about a year ago is a case in point, where he says, "“If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it certainly doesn't say so."” Mr. Stengle, I would like to direct you to the Tenth Amendment of that document, for apparently you have not read it. It reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.”

Our Constitution was designed for the sole purpose of establishing the framework for a Federal Government —and worded to keep the government inside that framework. In other words, the Constitution exists for the purpose of delegating to, and limiting the powers of the Federal Government. Steal away someplace to a quiet spot where you can think without interruption and ask yourself,  “Does the Constitution matter to me?” “If it doesn'’t, then neither does your freedom."

America, we are on a collision course with full blown Socialism.

In November, 2016 the occupant of the presidency, all 435 seats of the U. S. House of Representatives and 1/3 of the U. S. Senate seats will be constitutionally vacated for us to refill. We are in charge of who will occupy these positions. Allow me to suggest, if we do not replace the Progressive Liberal Socialists with men and women who are defenders of our Constitution with it's guarantee of Individual Freedom, we will be responsible for giving people like Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, full power to complete their burning mission to turn this nation into the Socialist States of America. The Constitutional Republic of These United States of America will no longer exist and our Individual Liberty, to make and be responsible for our own decisions, will be gone from our lives forever.

I pray that God bless America and keep us free.

Please feel free to forward to all you wish, in any manner you wish.

Until next time.... and I thank you for listening....I remain your friend in freedom...

John Porter
Harrison, Arkansas

Monday, May 04, 2015

The Neoconservatives: Tyranny's Fifth Column

Nelson Hultberg

The term, "Fifth Column," came into popular use in the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s and thereafter as socialism and fascism were sweeping into conflict to take over the nations of the West. It means a group of guerrillas, activists, intellectuals, etc. who work to undermine a nation (or some larger organization) from within. Its activities can be out in the open, or they can be secret.

Today in America, the neoconservative political movement represents a "Fifth Column" for the forces of collectivism. It's intellectuals and activists promote themselves as conservatives who oppose the liberals, but their political philosophy has nothing to do with what is known as American conservatism, which has always stood for a limited Constitutional government and free enterprise. These values are anathema to today's "neoconservatives" in the nation's political, literary, and scholarly circles.

The late, Irving Kristol, editor of The Public Interest, and Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, were the founders of the neoconservative movement in the late 1960s. In their youth during the 1930s and 1940s, they were followers of the communist, Leon Trotsky. Having bought into the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, they saw socialism as an ideal that needed to be spread to the West. While they and their followers subsequently modified the Marxist roots of their ideology in favor of a more gradualist methodology, they always remained adamant supporters of collectivism for America. Are they outright socialists? No, but their policy proposals have always been in favor of massive government welfarism domestically and an aggressive militaristic foreign policy that seeks what is termed "benevolent global hegemony," in which the U.S. military is to be used preemptively to spread democracy throughout the world.

The paradigm that neoconservatives have given their lives to is built upon a centralized mega-state running American society from Washington and also, as much as possible, the rest of the world.

In Irving Kristol's eyes, the laissez-faire vision of the Founders was a "doctrinaire fantasy." Its ideals "make it inadequate...for a political community," he wrote in 1977. In other words, to adhere today to what Jefferson and Madison advocated is anachronistic foolishness. According to Kristol and his fellow neoconservatives, such a view must be phased out of our collective conscience. [1]

Kristol died in 2009, but his worldview dominates all of today's younger neoconservatives. He believed that capitalism and individual rights are dangerous institutions. They must be constantly modified by a powerful state that redistributes wealth whenever necessary to mold market enterprises into an appropriately egalitarian social structure. In the neoconservative mind, freedom, while desirable, is not a primary political value. Machiavelli had the better idea; expediency is the best way to rule. People need to be manipulatively led by statist elites - via open dialogue and democracy if possible, but by deception, coercion and expediency when necessary. [2]

The neoconservatives, thus, represent tyranny's Fifth Column in America. They are deceiving the people into believing that they are genuine conservatives, but like the socialists who were their mentors, they call themselves what they know the people want to hear. These ersatz conservatives have now grown to dominate Washington's think tanks, Wall Street's brokerages and banks, and many major publications and universities. They are highly influential writers, scholars, pundits, publishers, institute heads, bankers, and corporate moguls.

The Serpents

What follows are eight of the more influential neoconservatives in America, past and present. These are not friends of freedom, but enemies. They need to be recognized for who they are, traitors to what America was meant to be. They need to be exposed and attacked as we would attack serpents who are slithering into our back yards to threaten our safety and our families.

Irving Kristol
Considered to be the "godfather of neoconservatism." A powerful liberal writer during the 1950s and 1960s, he had grown disenchanted with the Democratic Party by 1970 and switched to the Republican Party, coining the name "neoconservative" for the band of intellectuals he brought with him. Immensely persuasive in the shaping of the movement.

Norman Podhoretz
One of the major founders with Irving Kristol of neoconservatism in the late 1960s, he served as Editor-in-Chief of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995, pouring out a myriad of articles and books on the need to build America into an all-pervasive "collectivist state," but one that respects traditional values instead of the amoral values of liberalism. 

Richard Perle
Called the "Prince of Darkness" because of his extreme hawkish military stands. A member of the Reagan Pentagon, now serves in Washington think-tanks such as the Hudson Institute and the American Enterprise Institute. Vehemently promoted the invasion of Iraq; favors extensive intervention in the Middle East to bring about regime changes.

Paul Wolfowitz
The most hawkish advocate in the Bush administration and the architect of the Bush Doctrine. A fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, he is a former World Bank chief and Pentagon official who was closely involved in the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. He has been back and forth between academia and government for the entirety of his career.

William Kristol
Son of Irving Kristol and editor of the prestigious Weekly Standard, he was the cofounder of PNAC (Project for the New American Century) with Robert Kagan. He is a widely recognized pundit and influential Washington political operative. Director at the Foreign Policy Initiative and member of numerous think-tanks in Washington as well as a Fox News regular.

Robert Kagan

Cofounder with Bill Kristol of the Project for the New American Century, Kagan is a policy pundit and historian based at the Brookings Institution. He serves also as a contributing editor at The New Republic and, thus, personifies the collectivist liberalism that infuses neoconservatism. They are statist ideological brothers.

Frank Gaffney

The director of the hawkish neoconservative Center for Security Policy, Gaffney has been a longtime advocate of interventionist U.S. foreign policies, ever-increasing military budgets, and aggressive attacks upon the Islamic world. A regular on Fox News.

Charles Krauthammer

A writer for The Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, is considered to be the most influential neoconservative political columnist in America. He is a Pulitzer Prize winner, Fox News talking head, and was a weekly panelist on the PBS show, Inside Washington, From 1990 to 2013.

There are, of course, many other prominent neoconservatives than just these eight. Hundreds of others like Bill Bennett, Elliott Abrams, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, John Bolton, Max Boot, Karl Rove, David Frum, and Condolezza Rice are assiduously working to advance mega-statism throughout America and the world.

Socialist Roots of Neoconservatism

By 1910, socialism had become the new wave of the future in European universities. The Fabians were growing to power in Britain. And numerous socialist intellectuals were emigrating to America to begin subversion of the citadel of capitalism.

One problem, however, confronted the invading intellectuals coming to our shores. The American people were vehemently resistant to socialism. Fabians and Cultural Marxists soon realized that the socialist revolution would never take hold in America as "socialism." They realized they must redefine their revolution and disguise it. Thus between 1910 and 1920 they began to refer to themselves as "progressives," which solved their alienation problem. Americans were willing to listen to "progressive" ideas, but not to "socialist" ideas.

This is classic Marxist strategy: become in name and image whatever will more readily convince potential converts. Retain your fundamental collectivist principles, but change the methods of implementation to fit the situation.

In the years between 1920 and 1940 the original neoconservatives like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer, and Sidney Hook were coming of age and developing their worldview. At first openly socialist, they soon adopted the label of "progressive," and eventually began to use the term "liberal" because of it's widespread acceptance in American intellectual circles. Thus socialists became progressives who then became liberals who promoted progressive policies. The intellectual coup d' etat was complete. Tyrannical socialism could now be promoted as something liberal, benign, and progressive.

All intellectuals of the left were now solidified around promoting socialist ideology under the name of "liberalism." Such a strategy became spectacularly successful up through the late 1960s moving America insidiously toward the collectivist ideal of an egalitarian society via massive government coercion. The goal was to bring about "equality of results" in life by leveling down productive people as much as possible to the lowest common denominator. The Marxist vision was making great progress by eroding the individualism that had created and built America.

Unfortunately, the mid-1960s came unglued socially because America's youth went bonkers by adopting a New Left radicalism that shook the politics of liberalism to its core. Counterculture rebellion raged among millions of young people who came home from college to kill their donkey parents ideologically. Stability and sanity collapsed into a heap of drugs, nihilism, and contempt for conventional liberalism. It was at this time that Kristol, Podhoretz, and numerous of their powerhouse liberal colleagues switched to the Republican Party in face of George McGovern's 1972 takeover of the Democratic Party. They cast off the name "liberal" and adopted the name "neoconservative" so as to break totally from what they perceived as the lunatic fringe of New Left liberalism. Thus the neoconservative revolution was born via yet another name change. Socialists who became progressives who became liberals had now become "neoconservatives."

Of course, the fundamental principles of collectivism and mega-statism were not discarded, only the name of liberalism. Ideologically the neoconservatives were still very much collectivists and statists. But the new name gave them a new life in which they felt they could thrive more successfully. Mega-statism with traditional values had always been their political vision; now it could be openly promoted as neoconservatism. It caught on and attracted droves of big league scholars and pundits to join with it, which grew into today's neoconservative hold over Wall Street, the nation's corporate moguls, the Republican Party, and many of Washington's prestigious think-tanks.

The serpents had propagated. The Fifth Column had done its job. Thousands in the media became quite comfortable subscribing to "neo" conservatism and discarded the philosophy of "libertarian" conservatism, which had built the country and was the true conservatism, the true opposition to liberalism. The American people (conservative by nature) fell for the hoax and loyally supported the neoconservative movement, assuming it was what would keep the country free when actually it was working to do just the opposite. It was smuggling America into statism.

Thus both liberals and neoconservatives and their respective political parties - the Democrats and Republicans - are relentlessly moving our country into mega-statism today with full support from our professors, our media, and our people. "Corrupt the money and the language," said Marx. Freedom and capitalism will then fall. Today's neoconservatives are not conservative; they are rabid collectivists. But you won't hear that from the American people. They have been bamboozled.

The only solution to this ideological deception and corruption is to revive the vision of "libertarian conservatism" subscribed to by the Founders. This means a free-market, not a mega-state. It means the protection of equal rights, not the conveyance of special privileges. It means a mind-our-own-business foreign policy, not the pursuit of world hegemony. If the Founders were alive today they would be heaping the same scorn on the "neoconservatives" that they heaped on the Tories and King George. Tyranny is still tyranny whether it calls itself socialism, fascism, liberalism or neoconservatism.


1. Irving Kristol, "Looking Back on Neo-Conservatism: Notes and Reflections," The American Spectator, November 1977, p. 7.

2. Daniel Shapiro, "The Neoconservatives," Libertarian Review, January-February, 1978.

Nelson Hultberg is a freelance scholar/writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic A graduate of Beloit College in Wisconsin, his articles have appeared in such publications as The American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, The Social Critic, and The Dallas Morning News, as well as on numerous Internet sites. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email: nelshultberg (at)