Friday, October 24, 2014

America's Death March


To Americans everywhere:

I published and emailed a short letter the day following the election of Barack Obama for a second term in 2012 in answer to a friend's question, "what do we do now?" A few asked me if I was going to give up up my fight to help save our Constitutional Republic.

Needless to say, I was saddened and very disheartened. I still am. I am sad because at age 76 I'm living the last chapters of the book of my life in a country that I no longer recognize.  I am sad because the generations who follow me will not be privileged to live in the country which I grew up in and came to love so much. I am saddened because, as I stated in that letter, "I believe the chance we had to turn away from Socialism and back toward Individual Liberty and responsibility by not returning Obama to the presidency, was lost for a long time to come. That ship has sailed".  However, let me say to you, if all will work harder than ever before, we just may be able to sink it.

Barack Obama has another two years. You may like it or not, that is a fact. I believe he will not allow the Constitution or the United States Congress to stop him from transforming America into a full fledged Socialist nation. AND HE HAS THE FULL SUPPORT OF HARRY REID, our Senate Majority Leader. And that powerful support will remain if Harry Reid's power is not stripped from him by taking the senate majority away from the Democrat Political Party.

As dangerous as Obama is in that respect, the real long term danger to the Constitutional Republic of America is not Barack Obama, but a voting citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. Even though very difficult, it will still be easier to undo the Socialistic inroads of an Obama presidency than to restore the common sense and good judgment of Individual Freedom and self reliance to an electorate willing to allow such men as Barack Obama and Harry Reid to hold those offices in their government.

Our problem goes much deeper and is by far more serious than Obama. Ladies and gentlemen, as you are aware, in this country we choose our leaders. Obama is nothing more than a symptom of what ails America. He is the chosen symbol of the thinking of the majority of Americans who voted in November, 2012. It seems there are now more people in America who desire the government to be responsible for them and take care of them, than there are those who desire to be responsible for and to take care of themselves. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, a mere symbol. It cannot survive a multitude of people who desire to be taken care of by the government, and made him their president.

I believe November 6, 2012 will live in American history as the day we embarked upon the last steps of America's Death March. The death of The Constitutional Republic of The United States of America. I believe that election had very little to do with America's massive unemployment, our massive debt, soaring gas and food prices, or the Islamic threat. It was, I believe, about the dramatic social change in most Americans who voted. The desire to be taken care of. It is about the decline of morals. If you are keeping up with events at all, you can readily see we are living in an atmosphere of lies and deception, anything goes, no rules, no values, zero personal responsibility.

America is on the brink of total financial and moral collapse. We are living in the era of the entitlement state. Those who work hard are scoffed at and ridiculed because their hard work made them successful. One's personal financial gain is to be shared. Why work when you don't have to. Someone wrote that, "Obama will do his level best to turn America into a one size fits all nation." That has never worked in the history of man.

On November 6, 2012 the majority of Americans who voted made their choice. It doesn't mean we stop fighting, stop praying, or stop being engaged in our country. I had a brother who died in battle, along with many others, in the Philippines so that we may have that right. Well, here we are two years later on November 4, 2014 with an opportunity to at least transform our senate from one in support of Barack Obama's Socialist actions into one which may help us to stop him or at least lessen the lasting damage he intends to inflict upon us and our Individual Freedom. In many states, as in mine here in Arkansas, early voting is underway and many of us are working to retire Mark Pryor, our Liberal Democrat supporter of Obama with another man, Republican Tom Cotton, in our effort to remove Harry Reid from power and weaken Obama's efforts to destroy the American people's Individual Freedom. People, people, people go to work in every way that YOU can to help save our Constitutional Republic.

There is a movie titled, "The Long Goodbye." If we must say goodbye to America, I assure you, I will not go gently into that goodbye. I will not go quietly. I have not forgotten, nor will I abandon, the values of freedom and self reliance instilled in me by my mother and father and defended by my brother, nor will I hush my voice. Socialism be forewarned, I am not going away.

Please forward this all over America by any method you choose.

Until next time:

Your friend in freedom;

John Porter
Harrison, Arkansas
johnporter1939@cox.net

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Why the Libertarian Party Fails


Nelson Hultberg

Many in America's freedom movement still hope that the Libertarian Party will one day become a power on the political scene to challenge the Democrat-Republican monolith. But in 42 years it hasn't happened, and it probably won't happen. There are some very distinct reasons why the LP and all other alternative / independent parties fail. This essay will examine them.

Let's take, for example, the top independent parties out there: the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. Even though each of them have appeared at times to be a start toward genuine political reform, they repeatedly fail because they have structured themselves upon the mistake of instant idealism, which leads to their marginalization.

Instant Idealism

This mistake is made because these two parties both have "ideal visions" of the way they feel society should be politically organized, and they attempt to implement their visions all at once through the political process. They ignore the fact that politics is a game of incrementalism, that it is not an arena in which an "ideal society" can suddenly be voted into place. Because they try to do this, they are perceived by the public as not living in the real world.

For example, when asked what tax policy they advocate for the country, libertarians reply that the income tax should be abolished and government should be stripped down to a minimal state that can exist upon excise taxes and tariffs. This would be the limited government that the Founders advocated, which, of course, would be wonderful to have. But it is not a credible political platform to be gained through a political campaign today. It is rather an "ideal" that we can approach over the next 50-100 years. The members of the Constitution Party respond in the same way. Both of these parties wish to instantly implement their visions of the ideal. There is no acceptance of the need for incrementalism upon which all of politics is based.

As a result, both of these parties frighten the electorate with dissolution of the welfare state. Consequently they are marginalized as foolishly utopian. They end up getting at best 1% of the vote on Election Day. They remain obscure fringe voices. No national media pursue them, no nationally prominent candidates seek to run under their banner, no big money flows into their coffers, and most importantly they are never invited to the national TV presidential debates.

How We Solve the Problem

This is the crucial mistake that any independent party challenge of the establishment must avoid: instant idealism. If an independent party wishes to become viable and succeed, it must offer radical enough change to separate itself from the Democrat-Republican monopoly, but not so radical that it frightens the voters and becomes marginalized.

This is how the National Independent Party is structured. Its Four Pillars of Reform for our tax, monetary, immigration, and foreign policy systems will stop the growth of government, but will not create fear among the voters and lead to marginalization. This will allow the party to attract a nationally prominent candidate to head the ticket who can command 30% plus in the polls (like Ross Perot in 1992), which will mandate that he be invited to participate in the national TV presidential debates. This will bring major media to hang out on his front doorstep as well as major money into the campaign's coffers.

Blending Idealism and Practicality

To bring this about will require a blend of idealism and practicality, which means incremental policy proposals. For example, the National Independent Party candidate cannot campaign on "ending the income tax and the Fed" like Ron Paul did. This will marginalize him (as it did Ron Paul) and bring him only 10%-12% of the vote, which will keep him out of the national TV presidential debates. Absence from the debates guarantees failure.

What needs to be done is to recruit a prominent free-market conservative such as Ted Cruz or Mike Lee to campaign on the Four Pillars of Reform upon which the National Independent Party is structured. These Four Pillars are:

1) Enact a simplified 15% flat tax, explaining that it is the only tax compatible with our founding principle - "equal rights under the law." By ending progressive tax rates, we will stop the redistribution of wealth that allows government to grow so relentlessly.
2) Enact Milton Friedman's 4% auto-expansion plan for the Federal Reserve. By ending the arbitrary expansion of money by the FOMC, we will reduce annual price inflation in our economy to zero.
3) Vigorously crack down on illegal immigration by eliminating the magnets of jobs, welfare services, education, etc. that draw illegals to America. No amnesty will be granted; self-deportation will be implemented.
4) End our militaristic, police-the-world foreign policy that is bankrupting us both financially and morally. The dangers to America do not lie in foreign lands; they lie here at home in Washington.
The above four reforms do not achieve the ideal. But they will dramatically stop the runaway freight train of government growth and restore freedom and sanity to America.

Yes, Ron Paul is right. We eventually need to abolish the income tax and the Fed. But this will take 40 years to bring about, maybe longer. A whole new generation of scholars and pundits will have to be ushered in to educate the people as to the merits of such goals. These proposals are not something that a political candidate can base his campaign on today if he wishes to get into the national TV presidential debates, which he must do if he intends to be effective. No candidate or party has a chance unless they are in the debates. 

This means the national "election" debates, not the primary "nomination" debates. The primary nomination debates, are viewed by only about 15 million viewers on cable TV and are minor league affairs. Also they are not mandated to give equal time to all candidates. Thus the statist moderators can ignore a freedom candidate, which is what they did to Ron Paul.

The national election debates, with 70 million viewers, are carried by the major networks and are big league affairs. Also they are mandated to give equal time to all candidates. A freedom candidate cannot be ignored. This is why the national debates are so important in the fight to save freedom; they give us a means to dramatically reach the people.

Crucial Facts of Reality

The Libertarian and Constitution Parties appear to be oblivious to these crucial facts of reality about politics in America. As a result they get only 1% of the vote on Election Day. If freedom is to be saved, it cannot be marginalized. It must be portrayed in a sane, non-threatening manner. Unfortunately, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties do not do this, and consequently they fail.

Tragically our media pundits don't think these things through and, thus, ritualistically condemn alternative / independent  political parties to the American people. They fail to see that it is not independent parties that "will never work." It is independent parties that marginalize themselves that will never work.

Avoid marginalization, and an independent party challenge to the Democrat-Republican monopoly would sweep to victory. The American people are ready for such a challenge. The latest Gallup poll in January of 2014 shows that 42% of voters identify as "independent," while only 31% identify as Democrats and 25% as Republicans.

The people are overwhelmingly with us, but just don't know it yet because nobody has come along to explain it to them. This is what a National Independent Party candidate (such as Cruz or Lee) would do. Subconsciously Americans are sick to death with the Democrat-Republican monolith. An NIP candidate will bring all this to the surface in tens of millions of voters.

Ross Perot showed us the way strategically in 1992. By getting into the national TV presidential debates, a candidate can tap into the massive antagonism toward the Democrat-Republican monopoly lurking in the American voters' minds. All we need to do to improve on Perot's performance (and win) is run a nationally prominent conservative candidate that espouses "freedom" instead of the "vague reformism" that Perot preached. The American people are ready for this. As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, this revolution is coming to America. Victor Hugo said it best: "There is nothing more powerful in history than an idea whose time has come."


-------------------
Nelson Hultberg is a freelance scholar/writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic www.afr.org. His articles have appeared over the past 20 years in such publications as The Dallas Morning News, American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, and The Social Critic, as well as on numerous Internet sites such as Capitol Hill Outsider, Conservative Action Alerts, Daily Paul, Canada Free Press, and The Daily Bell. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email him at: contact@afr.org

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Why Our Constitution Is Being Destroyed


Even by the Very Americans Sworn to Uphold It

By Joan Hough

John Adams told us that our government does not have the “power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.” He explained:   “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” [Emphasis added.]

Today I am reminded of a truth brilliantly expressed by Dr. Douglas Young.  Writing for the Georgia Heritage Council, Dr. Young, in a remarkable commentary, entitled “Secular Political Fanatics”) added to the Adams statement.  Young tells us that down through history secular political fanatics have done far more harm because they lacked humility before a judgmental God and did not possess his rules to halt them.  Theirs is the desire to create a heaven on earth because that’s all they think there is--to do that they must remake society.   [Obviously their concept of heaven is vastly different from that of all Christians!]

Young then adds:  “And what a horrific toll many political true-believers have wrought. Without religion to rein them in, they created the first totalitarian dictatorships in which the party-state (national secular church) proscribes every aspect of citizens’ lives. Inspired by the French Revolution’s Jacobins who sought to create “a republic of virtue,” 20th century communists strove to forge a new “revolutionary man.” Marxists in Russia, Eastern Europe, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Cuba criminalized all religious, political, social, and even personal conduct deemed “ideologically incorrect.” A Bolshevik once asked Joe Stalin to execute a group because “They have no [communist] faith.” The stridently secular Nazi Adolf Hitler declared, “Anyone who interprets National Socialism merely as a political movement knows almost nothing about it. It is more than religion; it is the determination to create a new man.’”

Monday, June 16, 2014

What Keynes Has Done To Us


Nelson Hultberg

The essential economic problem we confront today is that our dominant Keynesian intellectuals have abandoned reality. They do not grasp what they have wrought with the mountainous loads of debt and malinvestment that are overwhelming us. Much of this burden must be liquidated before genuine demand and growth can be restored, which will require radical reform if we are to evoke a genuine cure.

To try and solve today's debt created crisis with more debt (as the Keynesians are presently doing) can only bring on a bigger bust the next time around, which will require still larger "debt injections" to stave off a still larger crisis. Eventually the economic implosion will be so monstrous that it can no longer be rectified with "corrective debt injections." Consumers and businesses will have reached their limit. The Keynesian system will have met its Waterloo. Perhaps this denouement has already arrived.

This dilemma began because we altered the creation of money in a profoundly dangerous way with the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913. Government expansion of the money supply today does not have to be redeemed in gold as the banks' fractional reserve loans were in the nineteenth century. What the Fed does now is pyramid excessive levels of credit upon totally irredeemable currency. It can print as much money as it wishes, and banks can loan out nine dollars in credit for every printed dollar. The Fed has been creating, over the past 100 years, far more excessive debt than the worst banking systems of the 19th century. This must end in an eventual collapse.

Keynesian rationale, however, maintains that the "total catastrophe" scenario can be averted by use of this credit pyramiding process. The Fed can continue injecting fiat money into the economy indefinitely and thus bring about an expansion of purchasing power for consumers and businesses. Why? Because somebody is always willing to sell bonds to the Fed, and that's all it takes. The Fed prints billions in new money to make the purchases. Liquidity is thus injected into the system, which will eventually recharge all producers and consumers to begin anew the boom cycle. Keynesianism has solved the "total catastrophe" dilemma.

But what Keynesians conveniently ignore is that the fiat money from those bond sales does not become credit until a banker offers it for a loan, and a borrower desires to borrow it. If consumers and businesses become overloaded with debt, and if bankers become worried about prospective borrowers' credit worthiness, then much of that fiat money remains just fiat money. It sits in the banks and does not find its way into the 9-1 fractional reserve lending process whereby $9 in credit is generated for every $1 of fiat money printed by the Fed for its periodic "liquidity / debt injections." In other words, the newly printed money does not so easily expand into mega-purchasing power via Fed credit pyramiding, which is what is needed to bring recovery from a recession.  

Therefore the Fed becomes basically ineffective in its efforts to restore real growth after a deflationary credit contraction that results from consumer and business debt saturation. This is because the Fed's only effective policy tool is the offering of more debt, which is the very poison that is destroying the system. Sure, the Fed can stop the deflation with massive "debt injections," but at what cost? The cost will be either runaway price inflation because of the size and repetition of the debt injections needed, or a pseudo-growth economy where relentless stagflation prevails and the stock market registers nominal gains rather than real gains.

The Wildest Credit Binge In History

Our economy today is so top-heavy with credit and debt that it is unlike all other economies in the past. Keynesians somehow believe that consumers and businesses will continue to borrow still more in face of this. Reason tells us they will not. There has to come a saturation point, and it appears we have reached it with the credit crisis and Dow collapse of September 2008. We have experienced, over the past 43 years, the wildest credit binge in our history. This time the inevitable hangover will be more than a regular hangover.
  
Because the Fed must fight the economic crisis with massive monetary inflation, the dollar must depreciate disastrously in the upcoming decades. Eventually holders of U.S. dollars, stocks, and Treasury bonds will sell their dollar related investments, which will bring severe deterioration to our economy and to the standard of living that Americans enjoy as either heavy price inflation or prolonged stagflation invade our lives.

In response to all this, our government leaders will continue to put forth an array of market manipulations, financial gimmickry, and bailouts for Wall Street such as what we saw with Hank Paulson's Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) in 2008. Our leaders will grasp at straws. They will jawbone and delude themselves. They will stonewall and try to dump the more insurmountable problems into the next administration's lap. And, of course, they will continue to relentlessly inject massive debt into the system in hopes of not having to descend into the nastiness of a full blown depression.

What has worked for the Keynesians for 78 years is now in its death throes. The policies of interest rate rigging and debt injections mixed with confiscatory taxes, which they have used since 1936 to manage their booms and busts, could conceivably have one more stimulatory credit bubble left, but it's doubtful.

Will Credit Reflation Work?

Hopefully the reader is now beginning to grasp that our present economic problems are far more serious than just another "recessionary cycle" in need of reflation. Because many of the debt injections being utilized by the Fed are being monetized (i.e., paid for by printing new money) this must bring price inflation down the road. But Fed and Treasury bureaucrats figure they can get away with such monetization. In fact they think they can monetize any number of assets (U.S. bonds, mortgage securities, commercial paper, corporate bonds, etc.), and thus stem any deflationary spiral without incurring price inflation in the aftermath. Their reasoning is that afterwards they can then mop up all their injections of liquidity. They can sell the bonds and other assets later which will withdraw liquidity from the economy. In this way, they can avoid serious price inflation problems in the future.

But three flaws in the Keynesians' reasoning exist. First, the government is buying and / or guaranteeing all kinds of loans and debt paper that no one in the marketplace wants. They are, in essence, buying trillions of dollars of "crappy paper" as the street defines it. But who will buy this crappy paper from the Fed and Treasury when they decide to re-sell it, which they will have to do if they intend to withdraw liquidity from the system later on? The re-sell argument sounds good coming from Keynesian spinners, but it will play out very badly when the time comes to implement it. Crappy paper that has no buyers in 2009 will have the same dearth of buyers in 2015. Time cannot turn dross into gold.

Second, the Keynesian spinners are ignorant of the fact that each succeeding decade in the evolution of a fiat paper money economy requires larger amounts of debt to be floated in order to maintain the same amount of economic growth. (See Keynesianism's Ugly Secret) This means that more and more massive amounts of liquidity will have to be injected in the effort to stave off depression and then withdrawn from the system in order to bring about a cessation of the inflationary pressures building up. These amounts will be far larger than the spinners are anticipating. It sounds plausible to say that all excess monetizations will be withdrawn later on. But it will be very difficult to mop up such massive amounts of liquidity in a smooth and practical manner. And what's more, it will be very difficult to pull the trigger on such withdrawals.

Will the Fed and Congress have the courage to withdraw liquidity from Wall Street in the midst of the most severe economic crisis since the 1930s? Are we to believe that Yellen and the FOMC are going to raise interest rates to American consumers and businesses who are already ignoring record low rates? Very doubtful. Moreover who will determine what constitutes "excess liquidity?" Junkies are the world's worst judges of whether or not they are engaging in excess, and this is who we have running Washington and Wall Street today - "liquidity junkies."

When all is said and done, such a massive injecting and then mopping up of liquidity will bring about a terribly volatile economy in which business calculation is unreliable, capital expenditures measly, real growth nil, and countless decisions "politicized" by a growing herd of corporate-banking bureaucrats assuming the role of new economic Czars for the 21st century.

Third, there is the problem of "money velocity." As the massive amounts of liquidity for the bailouts begin to diffuse out into the economy and cause price escalation, consumers will begin to get nervous about the credibility of the dollar. They will perceive the currency debasement taking place and will act accordingly. In other words, they will spend their money faster (thus speeding up the velocity of money), which will create a chaotic inflationary price spiral rather than the productively growing economy anticipated by Keynesians.

The Sinister Inflation Game

This level of ignorance is embarrassing. Keynesians do not understand the sinister nature of the inflation game they are so desirous of playing. They think they can manage its explosive dangers with their sophisticated debt instruments, econometric models, and logarithmic forecasting programs. They overlook the mysterious vagaries of human nature. They are blind to the unpredictable reactions of human beings because they think only in terms of X's and O's on a graph. But society's real economy is comprised of real "human beings" and real "human actions." It is these human beings and their actions that always confound Keynesian central planners.

Here then is the major source of our problem: Keynesian statists in Washington can't grasp that a human economy, like an ecology in nature, runs on natural laws (supply and demand, profit and loss, diminishing returns, Say's Law, etc.). Its hundreds of billions of convoluted emotions, preferences, actions and reactions are self-correcting through these natural laws whenever excesses and miscalculations take place. When bureaucrats intervene into this complex ecology, they cause severe distortions, inflations, malinvestments, shortages, etc., which then require more government interventions, which then create more distortions until the entire ecology becomes stultified and collapses.

Unfortunately Keynesian bureaucrats have been creating ever-increasing distortions in our economy for many decades, which has now brought us to stultification and collapse. How all this will play out over the long run cannot be known precisely. But a monstrous "government induced" crisis is now upon us, and the wisdom of history says it will not unfold benignly. The structure is too corrupted within. Our policies and perspectives are too warped, our excesses too huge. Too much damage has been done to monetary integrity and ethical propriety. Too many political humbugs and parasites, too many barnacles have accumulated on the ship's hull of our life's energy. The Rubicon was crossed in 1971. When Richard Nixon closed the gold window to the world, he opened the lid to Pandora's Box. He tore down the last prevailing bulwark of economic sanity.

-----------------
Nelson Hultberg is a freelance scholar/writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic www.afr.org. His articles have appeared over the past 20 years in such publications as The Dallas Morning News, American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, and The Social Critic, as well as on numerous Internet sites such as Capitol Hill Outsider, Conservative Action Alerts, Daily Paul, Canada Free Press, and The Daily Bell. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values.

Monday, June 02, 2014

The Modern Freedom Movement, 1940-2014


Nelson Hultberg

It began in the early 1940s. FDR had launched the New Deal's collectivization of America, and a small but prescient group of libertarian and conservative intellectuals were in rebellion - such thinkers as Richard Weaver, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, John T. Flynn, Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, and Ayn Rand, to be followed a decade later by the likes of Russell Kirk, Frank Meyer, and Murray Rothbard.

Out of their cerebral and activist efforts there began the movement to repeal the overweening statism that was infiltrating America from Europe via Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. The infamous year of 1913 was the infiltration's major manifestation. FDR's New Deal was its Rubicon. In reaction to the radical political changes taking place during the 1913-1940 era, today's freedom movement was born.

It is not well-known by the general public, but when the modern freedom movement first began in the early 1940s, it was not split between libertarians and conservatives. It was one coalition unified in rebellion against FDR's monster welfare state. By 1970, however, the movement had become tragically bifurcated. The radical economist Murray Rothbard took libertarians off into anarchy, while the traditionalist philosopher Russell Kirk drove conservatives into statism. This split has created two incomplete visions - contemporary libertarianism and conservatism - that are, in their singularity, incapable of effectively challenging the authoritarian mega-state.

Conservatives are caught up in the puritanical swamps of legislating morality and hegemonic conquest of the world, while libertarians chase the philosophical absurdities of moral subjectivism and ersatz individualism. Conservatives wish to return to the Middle Ages and mandate morality via the state, while Libertarians wish to do away with any reference to morality altogether. Conservatives revere leaders like Savonarola and John Calvin. Libertarians excite themselves with Larry Flynt and the Beatles' "Nowhere Man." Somewhere the Founding Fathers are twisting in their graves over each of these political movements and their embarrassing lack of comprehension concerning the requisites for a free and individualist society.

How do we confront this lack of comprehension? We must purge the libertarian and conservative movements of the fallacies they have adopted from Murray Rothbard and Russell Kirk. This will require a "rational theory of politics" that can bring together the two philosophical streams of John Locke and Edmund Burke so as to restore the original Republic of States that Jefferson and the Founders envisioned. More on this theory shortly.

The Tragic Bifurcation

In the aftermath of LBJ's defeat of the Goldwater forces in the 1964 election, most libertarians, under the influence of the pied piper Murray Rothbard, split off from the official path of the freedom movement and wandered into the utopian forest of some very radical political-philosophical principles - those of anarchism.

In contrast, conservatives went the other direction by abandoning principle altogether to align themselves with Irving Kristol's collectivist neo-conservatives and tolerate the very government usurpations their movement had been formed to repeal. They began their sellout when Richard Nixon declared in 1971 that, "We're all Keynesians now." They continued it with Ronald Reagan's massive expansion of the welfare state and when George W. Bush launched a tide of spending, privilege, and corruption totally unhinged from sanity and reality.

Can today's freedom movement be rescued from this tragedy of default? Can the American people be convinced to restore the Republic? Yes, but in order for such a revolution to actually take place, American libertarians and conservatives must face up to some unsettling realities and take appropriate action. 

The conservative wing of the "freedom movement" has been grievously corrupted by Machiavellian statists. The most important cause of this has been Russell Kirk's philosophical emphasis on tradition being transcendent to reason and his rejection of "equal individual rights" in favor of special privileges and a flexible Constitution. This has led conservatives into a Faustian bargain with the statist enemy and opened the door for the hijacking of their movement by neoconservatives, thus moving most of today's conservatives to the left into lockstep with statist liberals.

The libertarian wing of the "freedom movement" has been equally corrupted, but in the opposite direction to the far right on the spectrum. The most important cause of this has been Murray Rothbard's anarchist politics that privatizes all functions of the government, even the military, police, and courts of law. In addition his followers espouse an egoistic "do your own thing" culture that refuses to morally condemn the traditional evils of history. Whatever is peaceful is their creed. It is a sense of life that worships what the Greeks called the sin of "eleutheromania," freedom without limits.

To better understand the nature of this disastrous split between libertarians and conservatives, a brief exposition of America's concept of freedom is necessary.

Jeffersonianism Is America's Philosophy

The American concept of freedom has its ideological roots in the Founders' libertarian political ideal, combined with conservative metaphysics and culture. It is a blend of the 17th and 18th century thinkers, John Locke and Edmund Burke (one libertarian and the other conservative), which heavily influenced Americans from the start and up through World War I - the former emphasizing reason and individualism, the latter tradition and community. It manifested in what is called Jeffersonianism.

This political philosophy stands for the individual over the collective, a strictly limited constitutional government based upon federalism, equal "rights" instead of equal "results," a free-market economy, no entangling foreign alliances, and an objective code of morality for society as opposed to the moral neutrality of Rothbardians and modern liberals. This is what needs to be restored.

The famous conservative philosopher, Richard Weaver, at the University of Chicago in the 1940s and 1950s, and author of the great classic, Ideas Have Consequences, understood well this Jeffersonian concept of America and shaped his defense of freedom around it accordingly. Unlike today's neoconservatives, Weaver understood the necessity of limiting the tyrannical danger of the state. He would be horrified with today's neoconservative attacks upon the Founders' vision of laissez-faire. He grasped the philosophical common ground between libertarianism and conservatism:

"[C]onservatives and libertarians stand together," he said. "Both of them believe that there is an order of things which will largely take care of itself if you leave it alone." Weaver was a strict constitutionalist because a Constitution provided for a "settled code of freedom for the individual."

This is the crucial issue of our time - restoration of libertarian conservatism in America and its "settled code of freedom for the individual." If we, who believe in free enterprise and the Constitution, wish to reverse America's drift into an authoritarian state, our goal must not be to accommodate, but to purge the Gargantua on the Potomac that usurps our rights and freedoms with impunity. Libertarians and conservatives must be reunited to effectively challenge this monster.

My book, The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values, explains the need for this ideological unification and how to bring it about. I realize authors don't usually promote their own books in their articles, but in defense of my lack of orthodoxy, I cite the popular economist, Walter Williams.

Several years ago he was writing a review in his newspaper column for one of his own books. And in defense of his partisan effort, Professor Williams explained to his readers that his mother had always told him, "it's a poor dog who won't wag his own tail." So if the reader will indulge me, I would like to partake in a little tail wagging.

The Golden Mean is the philosophical answer to our immensely troubled times. It puts forth the "rational theory of politics" referred to earlier, and which we desperately need in order to challenge the authoritarian statism that has been destroying our republic ever since 1913.

The libertarian movement is lost in "utopian unreality." The conservative movement is lost in "statist appeasement." This is because of the disastrous libertarian-conservative split spawned by Murray Rothbard and Russell Kirk back in the 1960s. Without a correction of this split, freedom cannot be adequately defended and restored. Both libertarian and conservative activists are terribly misguided in their insistence on remaining separate movements. Conservatism needs libertarian politics in order to be just, and libertarianism needs conservative moral values in order to be workable.

The statist Gargantua controls our lives today because there is no effective ideological counterforce to overthrow its moral-philosophical-theoretical base. The Golden Mean provides that counterforce because it shows how to once again merge the two great systems of philosophical thought that brought America into being: libertarianism and conservatism. It shows how to recapture the Jeffersonian ideal.


-----------------
Nelson Hultberg is a freelance scholar/writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic www.afr.org. His articles have appeared over the past 20 years in such publications as The Dallas Morning News, American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, and The Social Critic, as well as on numerous Internet sites such as Capitol Hill Outsider, Conservative Action Alerts, Daily Paul, Canada Free Press, and The Daily Bell. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email him at: hultberg@afr.org

Monday, April 14, 2014

Connie's Perspective

April 13, 2014

Some of you are aware that I have been involved the Bundy/BLM issue here in Nevada. I don't know why I get so lucky by moving to places that have huge issues going on, but my home is less than 10 miles from the Bundy Ranch. So, I want to relate the story from my perspective having been there and seen it.

Monday morning, I received a call from a gal here in Mesquite, who is aware of my previous border work. She had driven out to the Bundy Ranch to see how she could help. She personally observed snipers in camo on the hill right across from the rally area, they were BLM law enforcement. They had their rifles trained on little old ladies and men sitting in lawn chairs, who had arrived to lend their support.

After that call, I drove out to the Bundy ranch immediately to see for myself. I did not see the snipers, though they were there, it was only because I was not at that time familiar with the terrain and was looking for them in another area. But indeed while I was there, guns were trained on me. So we had government officials ready to shoot American citizens if they crossed onto posted land.
The BLM had set up "free speech" zones at each end of Hwy 170. This was where people were instructed to gather. The Bundy's defied that and set up right on the highway, close to the ranch house. The idea of a free speech zone is so un-American.

By now the militia was there and I did see one carrying an AR15. Since it was evident this story was going national, I called the Bundy's and asked to meet with them at their home. Having learned lessons from work on the border, I felt they really needed to understand how the media would use them in a negative way and how this could really work against all they had been fighting for.

The Bundy's were very receptive to having me come in and talk about this because even though the fight had been going on for years, they had never been at a national level before. This was on Tuesday morning.

At any rate, some Montana militia had shown up on Monday and convinced the Bundy's they were there to protect them.

I advised the Bundy's that if they allowed the militia to be there, then have them put away the rifles and get out of the camo.
I visited with the head of the Montana militia group and he said he would never put his rifles away. I truly felt he wasn't there for the Bundy's, but there to agitate.

Anyway by Wednesday the Bundy's made a statement requesting the militia not wear camo and put the long arms in their vehicles. They were still wearing sidearms and several had knives strapped on.

This was such a tense situation that the militia was creating fear within the BLM agents. This statement is not to condone the BLM agents; it is just to give a view of how it was out there.

Wednesday afternoon came the confrontation with the BLM, who had gone onto the grazing area and torn out the watering tanks the cattle used to get water. The idea was to get them to come out of the hills and down to the river. The high temps were around 90 degrees and it is calving season, so the cows need that water to nurse. I want to add also the BLM shot 2 bulls that were hard to herd up.

At any rate the confrontation took place and one son, Ammon, was tasered three times. He showed me where one had hit him in the chest, just above his heart and there was a 6 inch diameter blood stain on his tee-shirt. His aunt, who weighs about 120 lbs. soaking wet was pushed to the ground from behind by a BLM agent. She showed me her injuries. When I watched the video closely, what she said was true. He pushed her from behind, very hard and it put her on the ground. The BLM agents had two German Shepherds on leashes and all had Tasers. It was unbelievable this was happening in our country right in front of my eyes.

Wednesday, we started to put together a protest that was held in Las Vegas in front of the office of Sheriff Gillespie. Sheriff Gillespie had told the Bundy's there was nothing he could do. Three Tea Parties came together to organize, The Virgin Valley Tea Party, the Las Vegas Valley Tea Party and the Pahrump Tea Party.

On Friday we held the protest, I spoke for all. We have a conservative Republican, Niger Innis, who also spoke and various members of the crowd spoke. Innis is running for CD 4, and if elected will represent those of us who are in this area of Clark County. We simply demanded the sheriff do his job and remove the BLM from the area. At the same time the story was breaking about dirty Harry Reid and his connections to the Chinese and solar. This is only one part of why this is happening. The other part of the story that is not reported on is that Mr. Bundy's place is on Gold Butte Road. Gold Butte has been designated a conservation area and Reid is going to try to push through a bill that will designate it a wilderness area. Well, with that, the cows have to be removed. So Reid is in this on all sides. What a slimy little SOB he is.

During all of this time the protesters kept arriving at the ranch and by Saturday morning, there were over 1500 people there, from all over the country.

Sheriff Gillespie came to the Saturday protest, heavily guarded with deputies with long arms and I understand but did not see an entire SWAT team. He then announced the BLM would be pulling out immediately and they would return the cattle to the Bundy's.
So, is the story over? I don't think so. I think that many of us who demonstrated and stepped up for our country will be audited by the IRS, we have been photographed by drones, the government has a clearer picture of who we are and we are most likely on a watch list. I probably made that list some years ago.

I will add that on Monday I did stop to video the BLM compound, where they had their communications and received a citation from the Nevada HP for improperly parking my vehicle. I will be fighting that tomorrow in Bunkerville. At least they did not arrest me as they did others who went into areas they had declared off limits.

One last item of note, during this entire past week, there were dot com news people there. They also in many cases did not report the story honestly. It is in their best interest to gin it up to keep the extreme radicals in the story.

In no way do I think this is over; but we made a very small step forward, only because the politics involved were exposed.
One item I brought up at the demonstration in Vegas was, why is Obama disarming our military and why do other government agencies have law enforcement people who are weaponized. Even NOAH, has 62 law enforcement people and NOAH is the weather service for God’s sake. Why is Homeland Security buying up billions of rounds of ammo?

And to close, why do supposedly patriotic American's not give a damn about their freedom and the Constitution? I have a level of disgust within my soul towards those who want to bitch, but will find any reason in the world to stay out of the fray.

In Liberty,

Bordergranny
Connie Foust, President
Virgin Valley Tea Party

Monday, April 07, 2014

The War on Raw Milk

Nelson Hultberg

Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers have recently introduced legislation to allow for the sale of raw milk, i.e., unpasteurized milk. Their Milk Freedom Act of 2014 would make it legal for "certified dairy farmers" to sell unpasteurized milk products without harassment and criminal prosecution on the part of the FDA. If enacted, this would be a major victory for those who are health conscious and understand the grievous misperception by our medical establishment regarding the safety of raw milk.

The distribution of raw milk has been banned in the U.S. since inception of the pasteurization laws in the 1920s. The American Medical Association together with the FDA brought about this ban of raw milk because of its susceptibility to being a carrier for certain infectious microbes such as salmonella.

The error here is that it was never "raw milk" that was a problem. It was "warm raw milk" produced in crowded, unsanitary conditions from grain-fed cows instead of grass-fed that was prone to an unhealthy level of microbes. Grass-fed cows produce a milk with natural "inhibins," anti-microbial agents that keep pathogens low, while grain-fed cows do not produce high "inhibin" levels in their milk.

Therefore if milk is produced in clean, uncrowded conditions from grass-fed cows, and kept cold, it remains as safe as any other food. The farmers of America produced milk under these conditions for their own consumption throughout the nineteenth century. They stored the milk from their grass-fed cows in metal cans immersed in cold water in shaded "milk houses" to keep it cool. It was relatively clean and safe and did not lead to outbreaks of disease.

It was when our economy became urbanized and industrialized after the turn of the century that milk became a problem. This was because it was now produced in large, crowded, unsanitary, dairy farms and transported into city areas for sale in warm trucks.

So there was a need for legislation to prohibit the sale and distribution of "raw" milk products between 1920 and 1960. But by the mid-1960s, the transport industry had developed refrigerated trucks to keep milk cold while in transit. Dairy farms now had refrigerated storage vats that were superior to the traditional "milk houses" of private farmers giving the milk up to 14 days before souring. The need for grass-fed cows in spatial pastures instead of grain-fed cows in crowded quarters was now understood. Cleanliness of conditions was mandated and prevalent. When the milk was delivered to retail stores, it was now placed in refrigerators for sale. Consequently pathogens did not build up in the milk from the time it left the cow to when the consumer drank it. Thus it was no longer necessary to prohibit the sale of raw milk.

Unfortunately the FDA and the consumer protection bureaucracies of Washington had grown to monstrous size by then; and they were not about to relinquish the power they wielded over dairy farmers, transporters, and retailers. They remained oblivious to the real issue involved: Raw milk is not dangerous as long as it comes from clean, disease-free, grass-fed cows and is properly refrigerated throughout the production and sale process. This creates what is termed today "certified raw milk," i.e., safe milk.

So the legislation being introduced by Congressman Massie and his colleagues is great news to those of us in the freedom movement who are aware of the spectacular health properties of raw milk and its superiority over pasteurized milk. We see the problem from a much different perspective than the medical establishment and its henchmen at the FDA. We understand that degenerative diseases (such as cancer, diabetes, arthritis, etc.) are, to a large degree, brought about because of our modern corrupted diet with its low nutrient value. Raw milk is the summum bonum of nutrition and it can help man achieve a far superior level of health to what he presently experiences.

But in order to bring about this improvement of mankind's health, the ignorance that prevails in today's medical establishment must be overcome. Our medical doctors and scientists are certainly very smart people. But they are ignorant of the truth.

As comparison consider our former Fed chief, Ben Bernanke. He is a brilliant intellect. But unfortunately he is ignorant of the truth in the field of economics. He doesn't grasp the immense fallacies in the Keynesian paradigm he has espoused throughout his career. As a consequence our country suffers greatly.

This is the intellectual history of man. Brilliance in our intellectual class does not guarantee possession of the truth. The sages of every era are so often wracked with ignorance of the truth that one wonders how did we ever climb from the cave and produce a free civilization. The priests of the Middle Ages, the political thinkers of monarchical Europe, the bloodletters of the nineteenth century were all brilliant minds, but "ignorant of the truth." Our era today is equally wracked with brilliant economists, political philosophers, and medical scientists who are ignorant of the truth.

Why Raw Milk Is Superior

The reason why raw milk is so superior lies in what happens to the protein molecule when it is cooked, i.e., pasteurized in the case of milk. The famous scientist, Dr. Francis M. Pottenger, Jr., showed the danger of cooking protein in his experiments in the 1930s. Over a ten year period between 1932 and 1942, he and his colleagues conducted clinical studies on over 600 cats. [1] The cats remained in excellent health on a diet of raw protein alone. All the feeding was supervised by Pottenger's medical group, and all experiments were carefully controlled. The results, writes a contemporary, Dr. Henry G. Bieler, "proved beyond question the unhealthy nature of cooked animal protein....No cats in the entire experiment - often siblings of the same litter - developed disease as long as they remained on a raw protein diet. In fact, they lived to a ripe old age." [2]

But those cats fed on cooked protein all contracted diseases commonly seen in man: arthritis, heart trouble, cancer, liver and kidney degeneration, lung diseases, meningitis, osteoporosis, immune system collapse, pyorrhea, loss of teeth and hair, gastritis, nearsightedness, degenerative processes of the brain, extreme irritability, pneumonia, lack of sexual interest, sterility, infertility, ovarian atrophy, physiological exhaustion, skin disorders, allergies of all kinds, and hypothyroidism, etc. [3]

Dr. Pottenger's nutritional / pathological findings were supervised in consultation with Alvin G. Foord, M.D., professor of pathology at the University of Southern California and pathologist at the Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena. [4] Their work met the most rigorous scientific standards of the day. Their results are so convincingly obvious that there is no room for doubt of their accuracy. The fact that the world chooses to ignore the Pottenger-Foord findings is attributable to humanity's desire to flee from reality and avoid facing the tough truths of life.

Man has been on this planet for approximately 5 million years. But he discovered fire only about 400,000 years ago. So the bulk of his evolutionary development (4.6 million years) took place on raw protein. This is why he needs it. Milk is a perfect source for it. The fact that our government prohibits us from purchasing raw milk is inexcusable.

Detractors to the Pottenger-Bieler thesis on raw protein and its connection to health claim that cats are not humans, and that it is wrong to extrapolate from one to the other. But their claim is in error, for it ignores the fundamental premise that certain natural laws of existence are applicable to all forms of life. For instance, the law of gravity affects cats and humans equally. And the same goes for certain physiological laws such as the necessity of raw protein for long term, disease-free health among mammals. Both cats and humans are mammals.


Cooking protein alters it molecularly. The protein molecules are changed from the "hydrophile colloid" form to the "hydrophobe colloid" form. According to Bieler, they then cannot fulfill protein's role adequately, which is to produce growth, rebuild tissue, and restore the body's integrity every 24 hours from the wear and tear of stressful life. [5]

The Safety of Raw Milk

How does raw milk compare safety-wise to other foods we eat? In a study between 1971 and 1982, figures from the California Department of Health and the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta show that there were 3.6 million cases of illness from salmonella in the state of California. The sources of the infections were: meat - 468,000; poultry - 612,000; restaurants - 1,486,000; human to human - 360,000; certified raw milk - 103. [6]

Raw milk consumers represent only 3 percent of the population, so its 103 figure has to be multiplied by a factor of 33.3 to make it statistically meaningful. When this is done, the illnesses from raw certified milk are 3,430 as compared to 468,000 from meat and 612,000 from poultry.

The FDA estimates that in the ten year period between 1996 and 2005, fresh produce was responsible for over 8,000 E. coli infections in the U.S, and eggs were responsible for over 6,500 infections. The FDA also cites several outbreaks of E. coli traceable to raw milk over a five year period that produced less than 50 infections. [7] To make these figures statistically comparable, we need to multiply raw milk's five year figure by 2 and also by 33.3. The total for raw milk becomes 3,330. Certified raw milk is, thus, safer than the fresh produce and eggs that we eat every day. There is no need to prohibit its sale.

Life is filled with various degrees of risk that free men and women are willing to take. We don't stop eating produce and eggs because occasionally illness results. We don't stop flying in airplanes because crashes occur. Things must be kept in perspective, which is not something that government wants to do.

It is quite exasperating to be aware of all this and try to convey it to the public. The demonizing of raw milk by the FDA and the medical establishment overpower even strong, independent people who have no problem challenging establishment fallacies in the fields of economics and politics. But when health and medicine are involved, they suspend their power of judgment and obediently agree to whatever their doctor says no matter how much in conflict it is with reason and science. They think of doctors as some kind of gods, when they're nothing but smart humans just as capable of being corrupted by a false paradigm as our economists and political philosophers. Today's doctors are "ignorant of the truth," but sadly their patients continue to obey them with an undeserved reverence for irrational prescriptive advice regarding the consumption of raw milk.

The Tough Truth

The scientific work of Francis M. Pottenger, M.D. and Alvin G. Foord, M.D. can be found in their book, Pottenger's Cats: A Study in Nutrition. The work of Henry G. Bieler, M.D. on health and nutritional issues can be found in his book, Food Is Your Best Medicine. In addition, Dr. Ron Schmid's magisterial work, The Untold Story of Milk: The History, Politics and Science of Nature's Perfect Food, brilliantly sums up the the case for raw milk. All three of these books are in print at Amazon. For more information on this controversial issue, hundreds of questions are answered at: www.realmilk.com.

The experiments of Pottenger, Foord, and Bieler are irrefutable. They demonstrate to any objective person that cooked protein will not maintain a healthy or long-lived existence. The fact that such a monumental truth is not common knowledge today in medical schools is a testament to the ignorance and dogma that control so much of the scientific endeavors of man. Only when our medical / nutritional experts begin to apply this truth to the human diet will we start to achieve the true level of health that is our birthright.

Notes

1. Francis M. Pottenger, Jr., M.D., Pottenger's Cats: A Study in Nutrition (La Mesa, CA:
Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, 1983), p. 1 and p. 6.
2. Henry G. Bieler, M.D., Food Is Your Best Medicine (New York: Random House, 1965),
p.191.
3. Pottenger, op.cit., pp. 10-11, 22, 31-32, 40-41.
4. Pottenger, Ibid., p. 2.
5. Bieler, op.cit., p. 191.
6. California Department of Health, Werner, Humphrey, Chin; and the Center for Disease
Control, Atlanta, GA, from a study done by Alta-Dena Dairy, Los Angeles, CA, 1983.
7. Rebuttal to the FDA's article: "Raw Milk Misconceptions and the Danger of Raw
Milk Consumption," www.realmilk.com.

----------------
Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic www.afr.org. His articles have appeared over the past 20 years in such publications as The Dallas Morning News, American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, and The Social Critic, as well as on numerous Internet sites such as Capitol Hill Outsider, Conservative Action Alerts, Daily Paul, Canada Free Press, and The Daily Bell. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email him at: hultberg@afr.org