Monday, January 04, 2016

A New Equal Rights Amendment

Nelson Hultberg


                          Equal Rights: The Foundation of America
"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen,
in his person and property, and in their management." -
Thomas Jefferson [1]

The fundamental principle of the Declaration of Independence, which undergirds our political and legal systems in this country, is that all citizens possess "equal rights under the law." Our whole concept of rights is based upon their being equal for all citizens of the Republic. This was the guiding star of justice that spawned America and which sustained her through the first 125 years of her existence. In 1913, however, there took place a most shameful default on this concept of "equal rights" with adoption of the 16th Amendment, which allowed Congress to enact an income tax with unequal (i.e., progressive) rates.
This default by our pundits and politicians was challenged at the time by numerous outraged legal minds, but due to the prevailing socialist sentiment taking over the culture at the turn of the century, their challenge did not prevail. Too many powerful voices had gotten swept up in the egalitarian vision of Karl Marx, and they decided that government's purpose was to coercively implement such a vision. Tax policy became one of the tools with which to bring about such a leveling of society. Collectivist irrationality won the day, and it has lasted for 100 years, despite the fact that progressive tax rates are clearly unconstitutional.
The reason why progressive tax rates are unconstitutional in America is because different classes of society are assessed different rates under such a system, which denies American citizens an equal right to the disposal of their property (i.e., income) and thus denies them equal protection under the laws of the land.
If the State can take arbitrary (unequal) percentages of our incomes because 51% of the voters deem it desirable, then we no longer have a right to the use of our property. We have only the permission for that use, and only so long as we dutifully serve the reigning political powers. There can be no justification for such a tax system. It is contrary to everything for which America stands.
As the great Scottish economist J.R. McCulloch stated 170 years ago, "The moment you abandon the cardinal principle of extracting from all individuals the same proportion of their income or of their property, you are at sea without a rudder or compass, and there is no amount of injustice or folly you may not commit." [2]
Under our present system, the blindfolded Goddess of Justice has been allowed to peek. "Tell me first who you are and what you earn," she says, "then I will tell you how the tax laws apply to you." This is privilege and arbitrary law, the harbingers of every tyranny throughout history.
Equal Rights vs. Equal Results
A federal government stripped of wasteful programs could be financed by a flat 10% tax rate. Collectivists protest at this point, claiming that equal-rate taxation would be unfair to those with lower incomes. The "results of life" must be evened out for those who haven't achieved as much. But as we have seen, if the government is going to try and bring about equal results in life, it must violate the equal rights of its citizens to their property and its disposal. This is not legitimate policy in America. Those with less in life must be helped through private and church related charities. Government cannot overrule our rights to enhance the status of interest groups deemed "special" by Washington.
Fairness and justice can never be achieved by the violation of rights! Because the "majority will" votes for such a violation does not justify it. Our rights to equality under the law and the disposal of our property can never be put up for vote. The law must be the same for everyone. This is why the Goddess of Justice wears a blindfold. To violate this basic foundation of free civilization as Congress and the bureaucrats are doing is our great sin of the modern day.
When government violates its citizens' rights, it is partaking in an act of criminality. A criminal government can never create "fairness" and "justice." Such irrationality and greed have brought us the bankruptcy of America. Progressive tax rates are unjust, unconstitutional, illegal, and dictatorial. They must be abolished, not just for the 19th century, but for all of time.
Ending the Income Tax Itself
The income tax remains popular because as Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation reports, 50% of Americans are exempt (figures swing between 47% to 51% from year to year). This creates what economists call "infinite demand" for spending programs. In other words if government programs are FREE to certain voters, and if those programs are desirable, then those voters will want all they can get. This is why government expands every year. Fifty percent of American voters do not pay for federal services. Thus we have a totally irresponsible electorate.
But the mandating of "equal rates" will bring large amounts of zero-payers back into the system. The 50% figure for zero-payers can be reduced to 20% meaning 80% of the voters will then have to pay for services. This will end the relentless expansion of government and bring about a lowering of spending every year because no one other than liberal zealots will want the heavy levels of government programs if they have to pay proportionally for them out of their own pockets. Eventually we could reach a 7%-8% equal-rate tax to fund the duties of the federal government. At this level of taxation, we could then replace the income tax with a 7%-8% sales tax and repeal the 16th Amendment.
The first step, however, is to mandate "equal rates" for all citizens via a constitutional amendment. This will remove the tyranny of progressive tax rates from congressional whim. They cannot then be voted back in again four years later. While an "equal-rate" tax enacted by Congress would be a wonderful achievement (which we should all work for), it is not nearly enough to preserve freedom. Progressive tax rates must be banned in the Constitution! This is the only way to assure a free country for future generations.
Ratifying the Amendment
Victor Hugo said, "There is nothing more powerful in history than an idea whose time has come." The American people are ready to stop the runaway freight train of government growth. A New Equal Rights Amendment for taxes is the way to do this. And it can be presented to the state legislatures for ratification via a joint resolution from Congress or the Convention of States process that the Constitution gives us. To bring this revolution about we must follow Samuel Adams lead and work to set "brushfires of freedom" in the minds of Congress and our fellow citizens.
In the 1840s when anti-slavery proponents were fighting to abolish slavery in America, they did not have Congress or a majority of the people on their side. But they did have "justice" and "rightness" on their side. They had the most powerful force in history on their side - MORAL TRUTH. Even those who defended slavery knew down deep that it was morally wrong. The same force prevails in the fight to abolish "progressive taxation." All decent men and women know it is morally wrong to treat people differently under the law in America. We must convince them to implement such conviction into our tax system.
The principle of equal rights mandates equal tax rates. No government will stay limited if it has the power to confiscate wealth from productive citizens to convey free services to massive amounts of less productive citizens so as to buy their votes on Election Day. This is a guarantee for relentless growth of taxes and tyranny. The time has come to end such political corruption and restore justice to America.
1. Letter to S. Kercheval, 1816. Saul K. Padover, ed., Thomas Jefferson on Democracy (New York: New American Library, 1949), pp. 34-35.

2. J.R. McCulloch, Taxation and the Funding System, London, 1845, pp. 141-143. Cited in Charles Adams, For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization (Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1993), p. 365.

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:

Monday, December 28, 2015

The Judeo-Christian Ethos

Nelson Hultberg

Christmas season usually generates reflection on the spiritual / philosophical side of life for many of us. What follows pays reverence to the profound importance of our Judeo-Christian heritage to America and Western civilization. It is based on an excerpt from my book, The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values.
The message will antagonize many of the modern intelligentsia. But the evidence is overwhelming that their collectivist-materialist-secularist paradigm (with its dictum of moral relativism) is grievously false. I think it is fair to declare our civilization today to be undergoing a crisis of immense proportion, and I think it is equally fair to declare that the crisis stems from the compulsive materialism and secularism of our culture. If the Middle Ages glorified the spiritual aspect of life at the expense of the material, then our era has now enshrined the material at the expense of the spiritual.
The 20th century - in its acquiescence to scientism, immediacy, superficiality, statist aggrandizement, and endless material gratification - lost the great benchmarks of heroism and virtue that historic Christendom holds to be the true pillars of progress and proportion. By forsaking the spiritual side of our existence and its philosophical ground in natural law, the thinkers of modernity have hoped to unify mankind under the aegis of a technocratic and managed world bureaucracy of scientifically indoctrinated happiness. As if multi-faceted men and women, with all their diversified peculiarities, aptitudes and ambitions, will react in the manner of inanimate chemicals and thus can be molded into a socio-economic paradise through pervasive state coercion and planning.
The dream of the 20th century collectivists (a result of hubris unchained) was hideous in origin, and consequently the end product of such a dream has been the tragic erosion of the three pillars of civilization: objective morality, family solidarity, and ordered freedom. In abandoning the great religious tradition of our civilization, we have cut asunder the majestic unifier of life and with it all hope for true progress, harmony, and happiness.
The Golden Age of Freedom
For example, consider the early years of our country. Political philosopher, Frank Meyer, described them with the following: "Where has there ever been a society at once so noble and so free as the American Republic in the first half century of its existence?"
This nobility actually extends further, for the first 125 years of our nation (1789-1913) were history's golden age of freedom. The values of a chivalrous and heroic existence were still predominant in men's lives. The moral capital of a still Christianized West had not yet been expended. The concept of man being capable of becoming a great and noble soul through acceptance of a God-centered universe was what gave to this era its magnificence.
There were flaws, of course - the disastrous contradiction of slavery in the South for one, the restricted role of women for another. But for the most part, America of this period exemplified a way of life that strived mightily to approach a noble existence. And such an existence was the result of the value structure that sprang from the Judeo-Christian ethos. It did not come from materialism or relativism or egoism or any of the modern idols. It came from visions of the Transcendent and the glorification of man as something more than a consuming animal, from the knowledge that men have moral duties as well as political rights, that there is such a thing called "truth," and that the rightful life will now and forever be sustained only through man's capacity to choose what is heroic and honorable, elemental and enduring.
Our culture today has abandoned such guiding principles in favor of false rights and lessened duties, a relativistic concept of good and evil, and the base conception of man as nothing but an economic groveler consisting of predetermined matter in motion devoid of choice. The tyrannizing of our society is the result.
If we are to restore an enduring vitality to our way of life, we must then reinstate the great spiritual truths that gave us birth. We must find our way back to the beginning vision of America where the doctrine of traditional individualism resides upon the foundation of Judeo-Christian brotherhood.
When implemented into a political system, such a vision offers man the chance to find happiness and goodness through adherence to natural law and to grow as tall as he can dream. It praises his strengths, his accomplishments, and the nobility of his volitional concern for others because these attributes are grounded in reason and thousands of years of historical experience. They coincide with the characteristics of man's basic nature, and their exaltation supports the needs of a peaceful, ordered, honorable society. Such a philosophy tempers the egoistic core of man with the concept of reverence for life and its Creator, while holding up to him the great ideal: a man of independence, purpose, courage, and integrity, plus compassion and concern for one's fellows.
The Tyrannical Legacy
Reinstilling such a philosophy will not be easy, for the collectivist intelligentsia, so caught up in the ideologies of Jean Jacques Rousseau, Auguste Comte, and Karl Marx, has succeeded in thoroughly bastardizing the Judeo-Christian ethos and its foundation of natural law. It is this trio of philosophers that, more than any others, laid the groundwork for the downfall of the Lockean-Burkean blend of freedom, virtue, and order that animated the Founding Fathers.
Today's collectivist intellectuals have learned their lessons from many philosophers of the past, but the above trio has been the most influential because of its banishment of the moral prescriptions of religion and its substitution of revolutionary egalitarianism for the rational individualism of Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, Smith and Jefferson.
Using the creed of Rousseau and his progeny, today's intellectuals have distorted the Judeo-Christian ethos and its libertarian-conservative political order, denigrating its verities, emaciating its spirit, and worst of all, secularizing its creed of "love thy neighbor" into a totally selfless doctrine of altruism wrapped up in the rigid determinisms of our age and the pseudo-scientific theories of the collectivist elite.
Compounding this problem is the fact that religion is now thought of as something derived solely from superstition and inappropriate to not only modern times but to reality itself. As a result of this debasement and man's naive faith in the power of science to establish a material paradise on earth devoid of stringency and struggle, there has taken place a gradual erosion of the West and its natural law foundation.
If America and the West are to be saved, however, spiritual-philosophical balance must win out. Balance is the ideal, and this is man's great quest, the search for the ideal. The Enlightenment vision of the Founding Fathers integrated with Judeo-Christianity offers hope for just such a balance. But what has to be done is to rid both the modern Academy and the modern Church of their tragic obeisance to statism which has made them partners to tyranny.
The ideas of Rousseau, Comte, and Marx must be rejected. This will restore the vigor, the immutability, and the assertive exaltation of heroic virtue that Western life was at one time all about. Then men will return to this great code of living once it has become again the rock of stability and sanity. And America will be able to once more get about the job of demonstrating the true gospels of life to the world - personal independence, productive work, and good will toward all men.

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:

Monday, December 07, 2015

Muslim Immigration: Boon or Bane?

Nelson Hultberg
Should it be permissible to freely choose who we like and dislike in life? To disparage certain religions because of their irrationality? To feel uncomfortable around two males kissing in public? To want to live among one's own kind in regards to intelligence, values and cultural mores?
No, it is no longer permissible to think the above thoughts, partake in the above actions, and adhere to the above values in society today. The Political Correct Monster rules modern Americans like Hitler swayed German youth. It is the socio-cultural regimentation arm of the State. It is one of the most powerful tools of modern tyranny.
As Aldous Huxley warned decades ago, schoolteachers under a totalitarian state become instruments to teach the young to love their servitude. Learning ceases to be about truth and freedom. It becomes propaganda needed to administer the ruling ideology of the nation's military-banking-corporate combine.
Today's ruling ideology in America and the West is "liberalism," sometimes known as collectivism or statism. It has, over the past 100 years, seeped insidiously into America like heroin invades a ghetto to decimate all coherence and health among its inhabitants. Liberalism is death to sanity, to freedom, to vibrant culture and a meaningful life. Yet it rules our choices and the dreams of our children with a vice grip. It begins its hold over their minds in kindergarten to poison them with its rancidity.
The Ideology of Multiculturalism
Liberalism's latest ideological ploy is multiculturalism, which teaches that countries who do not maintain extensive cultural diversity are morally wrong and must be corrected - by persuasion if possible, but by massive government coercion if necessary. A just nation must incorporate all cultures, languages, mores, and values, all levels of life. High class, educated immigrants are not to be favored. We must open our borders to all of humanity even though such laxity will permit terrorists, drug lords, primitives, Jihadists, fascists, zealots, budding tyrants, and germ infested lowlifes to find their way into our society to spread their venom.
Such is the irrationality and ultimate denouement of liberalism. What does this mean for us? It means that Paris is coming to America. It's merely a matter of time before the carnage and Islamist terrorism of France become regular travesties in America, for we have adopted the same philosophical principles of the French intellectuals, only in a modified form, which will merely destroy us at a slower pace, but nevertheless destroy us. We have embraced the "god of multiculturalism" that liberals worship like beggars of the Ganges worship fat statues.

People think philosophy is only for the ivory tower. On the contrary; it is the fundamental root of what kind of society we become. France is disintegrating because of the irrational Marxist philosophy upon which she has built her culture, her political system, and her economy. We will be no different.
There are millions of immigrants clamoring to get into America. Are we to bow to liberalism's demands and obliviously admit them all, thus opening up our heartland towns and neighborhoods to the destruction that comes from people who cannot appreciate the requisites of freedom because the most powerful motive in their lives, their religion, preaches theocracy and political totalitarianism? In other words, are we to remain oblivious to the Islamist extremism that is a major sector of Islam?
Our authorities insist that Islam should not be condemned for it is, like all religions, possessed of moderates and radicals many of whom take things to the extreme and preach violence. Not so. The radicals of Christianity who preach violence comprise less than ½% of the religion because Jesus preached peace to all men. Islam's violent radicals (the Islamists) comprise 10% of their religion because Muhammad preached violence toward the West.
What's dangerous, however, is that a large number of the 90% "peaceful Muslims" are indifferent to and often sympathetic to the Islamist radicals who preach violence and promise that Jihad will revive the glories of earlier centuries. In polls around the world, 27% of Muslims feel this way. So radical, violent Islamism is far more potent than the 10% share of the religion it commands.
Moreover, Christian theologians revere free will and reason (handed down by Aristotle and Aquinas). Islam's theologians denounce free will and reason as apostasy. See my article, Roots of Islamic Fanaticism.
We in the West must gather our senses about us and defend our cultures. And if we are to do so, we must challenge the philosophical poison of multiculturalism that today's quislings in our academy and government promote. We must restore the rational immigration policy of "national origins" that prevailed in America prior to Ted Kennedy's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Our pre-1965 "national origins" immigration policy permitted our authorities to pick and choose who would be allowed to enter the country. It chose in favor of those immigrants whose cultures and mores resembled ours. Thus it primarily chose European immigrants. This allowed for cultural stability to be integrated with freedom throughout the country.
In those days before liberal egalitarianism came to suffocate free Western societies, everyone understood that there were high and low cultures, high and low religions because there were high and low classes of humans. This was viewed as simple "common sense."
Groupies for Statism
Today, however, all this has been lost. The overwhelming majority of Americans quiver in face of the egalitarian PC monster. Their natural courage and individualism have been stripped from them in the schools making them into dutiful groupies for the State desirous only of doing the bidding of its fanatical overlords and PC grotesques. Independence of thought and standing apart from the herd are no longer upheld as the honorable responsibilities of American citizens.
Consequently we are told by our President that we must allow tens of thousands of Muslim refugees to enter America and invade our neighborhoods with their theocratic idiocies and primitivism. Hillary and other liberals are demanding that we expand the number to 50,000 and even 100,000. We are told that our government authorities will screen all Muslim refugees admitted, that we will be safe if only we listen to their "wisdom and experience."
Yet there are no cooperative agencies in Syria for background checks of their refugees. Thus it is impossible to safely screen tens of thousands of Muslims and guarantee that no terrorists lurk among them. This is conveniently explained away with sophistry and lies.
Moreover scores of Muslims like Syed Farook and his wife, the instigators of the recent San Bernardino massacre, along with U.S. Army Major Nadal Hassan, the deranged officer who killed 13 people at Fort Hood, are already lurking in America because of indiscriminately open borders. They are susceptible to radical Islamist conversion because Muhammad calls repeatedly and emphatically for violence against the West throughout the Koran. Yet this is smirked at with contempt by White House spokesmen, and the PC media refuse to press the issue.
For verification of this, see the website, Islam: The Politically Incorrect Truth, which cites 109 verses in the Koran that preach war and violence against the West. This is not a religion of peace.
Thirty Governors have voiced objections to settling Syrian refugees in their states. But Washington will overrule such rebellious common sense and stuff the Syrians wherever the Feds wish. If necessary, tanks and armored troops will accompany them. This is the insanity of false ideology, the insanity of liberalism. It drives decent men to suspend rational thought and turn on their own kind.

Horrific race and religious wars are coming to America. Beware, it's only a matter of time. Big Brother is obsessed with building an egalitarian, multicultural society of every ethnic and religious group the world has to offer, no matter how primitive and irrational they are.

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:

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)