Isilion

15 billion here, 15 billion there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money…

Hyperinflation here we come…

It a shame there is no one running for president who actually understands economics and monetary policy.

More here.

The day Ron Paul announced his candidacy I submitted my request to change my affiliation from independent to Republican. I also proclaimed to all who would listen that I intended to vote for him in my primary and in the general election even if I had to write him in. With the possible exception of Pat Buchanan, who communicated to me personally that his “riding days are over,” there is no one else remotely worthy of my vote for President of the United States, no one else who I feel can be trusted to resist and repudiate the unlawful power currently invested in that office.

I like Chuck Baldwin, but the Constitution Party scares the bejesus out of me. I like the basic principles of the Libertarian Party, but until Bob Bar makes an unequivocal renunciation of the thinking that led to his support and justification for the Patriot Act, vows to do everything in his power to pardon and make amends to the non-violent men and women whose lives he destroyed in his support for the war on drug users, renounces the notion that the United States has any moral or legal authority to interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations or maintain any military presence outside the territorial limits of the United States other than embassy guards or the naval forces required to protect shipping in international waters my conscience will not permit me to support him.

I understand the arguments people are making that we should unite to show our strength, particularly to the Republican Party, but if we are going to unite behind theocrats or a Libertarian Party that has sold it’s principles for a mess of pottage what do we gain? Do we just become another faction in a coalition to be manipulated with promises that are never fulfilled? Ask the Republican Pro-Lifers and sincere anti-war Democrats how that’s working out for them.

For the first time in my life–I’m 53 years old–I have someone I want to vote for, I doubt I will ever have the chance again. I have done lots of things in my life that I am ashamed of. I believe I am accountable for them, even if only to my own conscience. I will go to my grave knowing that regardless of every mistake I have ever made that in my duty as a citizen I did at least one thing for no other reason than it was the right thing to do.

Politics be damned, vote for Ron Paul!

…or Hillary or even John McCain, all any of them have to do is ask a couple of questions like this:

[I]t would be a great step forward if we could even debate the foreign policy we have now, a policy that (with a few minor differences) is shared by the establishment of both major parties. One writer correctly labels it “the debate we never have.” Although many American oppose the continued expansion of of Big Government abroad, noninterventionism is never presented to them as an option, The so-called debates between pundits they see on television or read in the newspapers carefully limit the range of debate to points of insignificance. The debate is always framed in terms of which kind of interventionist strategy our government should pursue. The possibility that we should avoid bleeding ourselves dry in endless foreign meddling is not raised. For heaven’s sake, what kind of debate it in which all sides agree that the America needs troops in 130 countries?

That may be the kind of debate the old Pravda once allowed, but where is the robust exchange of ideas we should expect in a free society?*

But they won’t, so they can all kiss my bitter backside.

*Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto, pp. 37-38

Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and preemption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?

Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century – and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the left. Seven years ago the right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time conservatives were outraged over the failed policy of nation building.

It’s important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little opposition to the preemptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by defunding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran.

The catch-all phrase, “War on Terrorism,” in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. Terrorism is a tactic. You can’t have a war against a tactic. It’s deliberately vague and nondefinable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances. Don’t forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.

Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout all of history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades our policies have been driven by neoconservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.

For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess – implying the implausible that if we stay it won’t be a mess.

Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We’ve had enough of both!

More…

A while back I noted the increase in the number of Republicans over the course of 2007. Now Rasmussen notes a surge in Democrats since February:

In February, the number of Americans who consider themselves to be Democrats jumped to 41.5%, the highest total on record. Just 31.8% consider themselves to be Republicans. The partisan gap—a 9.7 percentage point advantage for the Democrats—is by far the largest it has ever been. The previous high was a 6.9 point edge for the Democrats in December 2006. Rasmussen Reports tracks this information based upon telephone interviews with approximately 15,000 adults per month and has been doing so since November 2002.

The 9.7 percentage point advantage for Democrats is up from a 5.6 point advantage a month ago and a 2.1 point advantage two months ago. The surge for the Democrats is especially notable because it reversed a modest trend in the GOP direction that unfolded over much of calendar year 2007

Lew Rockwell and I agree on the reason.

And they are still not listening.

Sigh.

Running a deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars per year in order to fund our misadventure is unsustainable. Eventually those debts must be repaid, but this country is in such poor financial shape that when our creditors come knocking, we will have little with which to pay them. Our imperial system of military bases set up in protectorate states around the world is completely dependent on the continuing willingness of foreigners to finance our deficits. When the credit dries up we will find ourselves in a dire situation. Americans will suffer under a combination of confiscatory taxation, double-digit inflation, and the sale of massive amounts of land and capital goods to our foreign creditors.

The continuation of the war in Iraq will end in disaster for this country. Parallels between the Roman empire and our own are numerous, although our decline and fall will happen far quicker than that of Rome. The current financial crisis has awakened some to the perils that await us, but solutions that address the root of the problem and seek to fix it are nowhere to be found. There must be a sea change in the attitudes and thinking of Americans and their leaders. The welfare-warfare state must be abolished, respect for private property and individual liberties restored, and we must return to the limited-government ideals of our Founding Fathers. Any other course will doom our nation to the dustbin of history.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul437.html

The day will come when Americans will say “Wow, I could’ve had a Ron Paul.”

I’ve felt an "I give up" post coming on for some time, and this isn’t really it, but I am totally at a loss as to where I should be going and what I should be doing. I’ve given time, money and sweat over the past year doing everything I know to help the national campaign and the local one only to see it more or less come to nothing as far as real change.

When Ron Paul’s nomination effort began to unravel I put my hopes on working locally to get Ron Paul Republicans on the ballot for congress. I think we did as well as could be expected in Maryland, but the fact of the matter is Peter James, Collins Bailey, et al, are going to get their asses handed to them in November. One only has to look at the number of votes their Democratic rivals got in the Maryland Primary to recognize that.

Before I got involved in Ron Paul’s campaign I had come to accept that voting in national elections was a complete waste. The choice boils down to the color of your chains. The thing is Ron Paul has very much succeeded in educating me. He took my vague, unfocused, intuitive disgust with the state and gave me the analytical tools and reasoned principles to see exactly how imperial delusions, monetary flimflammery, collectivist pandering and media enabling work to prevent any real, substantive debate or political action that might threaten the status quo.

So now I see things much more clearly than ever, including my impotence. I am very angry and very frightened.

I also have no idea what I can do about any of it. I see Ron Paulers and other liberty seekers working on various projects, trying to pull together a core of interconnected activists, and I respect their efforts, but other than contributing money I don’t know what I can do. I don’t have any marketing skills, video talents or leadership ability to contribute. I’m just an aging geek with moderate IT skills and unless someone needs a help desk guy I’m not going to be a mover and shaker no matter how many pep-talks I give myself. They fact of the matter is I’ve already given more than I can afford and the cynic in me fears all our efforts are simply going to become a way of fleecing a new type of sheep: liberty junkies who work their asses off in dead end jobs throwing away their not very disposable income looking for another fix of freedom.

However, I can’t unlearn what I know, the liberty bell cannot be unrung. There is something burning inside of me. I have to do something or I’m just going to become a bitter old man who shakes his fist at everything and accomplishes nothing.

I’d like to see the way forward, but I can’t. Where do I go from here?

[W]hat does Ron Paul do the day after he loses a congressional primary? His only firm, titanium-strength committment not to run third party came when he… was appealing to donors to save him in TX-14. If the Libertarian Party calls a defeated Rep. Ron Paul on March 5 and offers him its nomination on a silk pillow, does anyone think he tells them to go away?

More…

In a very fundamental way, there are really only two candidates running for president this year: Ron Paul, and all the others.

This is because there are really only two issues at stake.

The first issue is our out-of-control foreign policy. America is embroiled in shooting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We spend more on our military than nearly the rest of the world combined. We have troops stationed in over a hundred foreign countries. Manic interventionism has stretched our military to the breaking point, and has ruined our nation’s reputation.

The second issue is our impending economic implosion. Our government, which has shed the last vestiges of constitutional restraint, has made a myriad of promises that it cannot keep. Our outstanding obligations to fund social security, government health care programs, and everything else under the sun are rapidly bankrupting our nation. To maintain these Ponzi schemes, the Fed is debasing our currency and igniting an ugly bout of hyperinflation.

Our predicament is severe and profound. We must immediately begin to shed our overseas obligations and put our domestic house in order. Otherwise, we will find ourselves reenacting the collapse of the Soviet Union right here at home.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who is willing to address these issues. He is the only one who is willing to speak frankly with the American people about our predicament and the painful actions which must be taken to prevent a real catastrophe.

And rather than offering solutions, Obama, McCain, Clinton and Romney, (and the other political hacks running for president) are not even willing to talk honestly about the problems.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe82.html

Don Luskin Named Economic Advisor to the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign

“Ron Paul’s economic plan is the real thing… not just a band-aid”

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – Newly appointed Ron Paul economic advisor, Donald L. Luskin, issued the following statement about Dr. Paul’s proposed comprehensive economic revitalization plan:

“Ron Paul’s economic plan is the real thing – a plan. It’s not just a band-aid designed to ‘stimulate’ the economy in an election year. It’s a fundamental agenda for real and lasting change, making the US economy more vibrant and competitive, and removing barriers to advancement for all Americans.”
Donald L. Luskin is Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics LLC and contributing editor to the National Review Online and SmartMoney.com. He is also a frequent guest on CNBC, and the author of two books: Index Options and Futures: The Complete Guide and Portfolio Insurance: A Guide to Dynamic Hedging.

Mr. Luskin is available for interviews regarding Congressman Paul’s economic policies.

Congressman Paul’s comprehensive economic revitalization plan can be found online at: www.RonPaul2008.com/Prosperity

It’s really amazing when you see the lights go on and somebody “gets” it. Maybe Glenn Beck really isn’t a tool, at least not intentionally…

GLENN BECK: When you were on my program on television, you said something that I didn’t correct because I didn’t — I mean, it sounded so outlandish but I let it go because I didn’t have the facts and you sounded so convinced of it that I thought, hmmm, I’ve got to check into that and I’ll correct it the next time he’s on or I’ll correct it the next day. What you said was, if we got rid of the income tax, the Government would still take about the same amount of money in as they had ten years ago.

PAUL PAUL: Approximately.

GLENN BECK: We looked into it and it’s accurate. Can you explain that and how do we get that message out to people?

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/4897/

He’s catchin’ on, I’m tellin’ ya…

Paul has his second from Nevada — or, as Romney would put it, “the silver” — and a better finish in South Carolina than Giuliani. He’s also got more money in the bank than most of the other candidates, a muscular fund-raising operation, enthusiastic young volunteers and a message that distinguishes him from the field. He’s in the race for a good long time, and now he’s actually winning delegates.

And what of Rudy Giuliani?

“America’s mayor” either wins Florida — where he has camped out as the other candidates have slogged through Iowa, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Michigan, Nevada and now south Carolina — or there really is no way to make a case for carrying his bizarre campaign forward.

And the issues are not going Giuliani’s way. The country’s talking about a recession, not 9/11 or national security. And McCain, Romney and Huckabee all heading to Florida with better-thought and more effective economic messages. So, too, is Ron Paul — the man who beat Giuliani in Nevada and South Carolina and Michigan and Iowa.

With those four delegates from Nevada, Ron Paul’s claiming 6 delegates.

So far, Rudy Giuliani is claiming 2. That’s one more than Duncan Hunter.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=272954

Sgt. Carter, you are a patriot.

I knew you could.

Because the Beltway characters believe they are at the center of the universe, they imagine that: 1) The Paul Revolution revolves around them and their “ideas,” and 2) In the unlikely event the Revolution was started without them, it has to be insignificant.

As usual, they are wrong.

Ron Paul is not running as a Libertarian, but as a Republican with a strong libertarian sensibility. Ron’s Revolution is revved, for the most, by independents, defecting Democrats, and disgruntled Republicans for whom his message is fresh and intuitive.

What are the odds that Rep. Paul’s followers have come to the philosophy of freedom through Reason magazine? Is it remotely possible that the passionate soldiers of the Paul Army enlisted after chancing upon a dispassionate, desiccated, dry-as-dust disquisition on a free market in kidneys (I’m all for it)? I think not.

Perhaps Paulites were inspired by Stephen Moore, a former Catoite, now with the neoconservative “War Street Journal.” From his comfy perch on “Kudlow & Company,” Moore ventured just the other day that the recession is the result of the less-than dynamic demos’ fear of rapid technological transformation. This is the Virginia Postrel “philosophy,” if it can be called that.

Also antipathetic to Dr. Paul, Ms. Postrel is yet another establishment-endorsed libertarian of whom Paul backers are blissfully unaware. A filament of the Postrel faith evinced by her first book, “The Future and its Enemies,” is that all change is good, always. All that glitters is gold was the essence of Ms. Postrel’s second manifesto, “The Substance of Style.” Profound perhaps to some, but not to Paulites.

Picture a Venn diagram. The overlap between the Paul and the Postrel solitudes is invisible to the naked eye.

http://www.ilanamercer.com/HighPriestsOfPomposityPanPaul.htm

And I love this one.

The respectable libertarians are apparently concerned that Ron Paul has been a terrible distraction in the fight for liberty. Well. As one personal observation: The universe of our 20-year-old college student son, and of his group of friends, has suddenly expanded from an orbit of girls and sports to include discussions of foreign policy, the Fed and the role of the federal government in their lives. While they all have Ron Paul bumper stickers on their cars, I can guarantee you that none of them has ever heard of Reason or Cato.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018721.html

This is the explanation I’ve seen yet. Thanks to Walter Block

What, pray tell, is the difference? This is a distinction beyond the ability to comprehend of virtually all non-libertarian journalists, so we do well to carefully spell it out. An isolationist is one who wishes to hide behind his national boundaries, and close out the entire world behind them. North Korea is a reasonable case in point. Wishing that “the rest of the world can go to hell” is indeed a good characterization of this viewpoint. In very sharp contrast, a non-interventionist desires to eschew one and only one means of international interaction: gunboat “diplomacy,” imperialism, forcing our will upon foreign nations at the point of a gun when they pose no threat to us whatsoever. It is entirely compatible with this stance to wish the rest of the world well, and to act so as to attain it. How would a non-interventionist accomplish this task, if he is precluded from utilizing military force? Why through trade, investment, cultural and intellectual exchanges, competing in sports programs with other countries, etc. By serving as a disinterested judge, to resolve foreign disputes, if we are called upon to do so. Congressman Paul is the only true internationalist now running for the Republican nomination for President since he enthusiastically embraces all of these modes of interaction.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block96.html

Even though I took some introductory courses in economics in college, it was always boring to me, also, other than the very basic stuff like supply & demand and the law of diminishing returns, I didn’t really understand it. I was originally drawn to Ron Paul’s campaign because of his opposition to the war and his unwavering defense of civil liberties. His economic stuff was just more blah, blah, blah, until he started getting through to me with the idea that economics and monetary policy are fundamental to understanding both domestic and foreign policy and the political structures and processes at play in this country and around the world. Talking about those things without talking about economics is like trying to talk about music while ignoring the concept of rhythm; like trying to understand Magick without knowledge of Qabalah.

I’ve actually been aware of him for several years, and it has been an amazing education for me. Regardless of the outcome of this election–and between you, me and the Internet, I am less confident about that than I was six months ago–there are now thousands, if not millions, of people like me who are waking up to the principle of spontaneous order and the emergent properties of a free society. He has let the genie out of the bottle and it is not going back in.

One of my guilty pleasures is my Live Journal. In a recent discussion of political things a fellow eljayer mused on her changing ideals and posited that “we need nationalized health care.”

I asked her to reconcile that with this (9 minutes, and worth it):

Her response was:

Every civilized nation on the planet has nationalized health care except us. How do they do it? (That’s rhetorical, though I suppose you can answer it if you like.)

And no, I have not sat through that entire youtube thing.

p.s. Bush ran this country into the fiscal ground.

I did my best, and I can only hope either she or her other readers will grasp the gravity of the situation.

Every civilized nation on the planet does not spend between six hundred billion to one trillion dollars a year, depending on who’s doing the counting, maintaining over 700 military bases in more than 130 countries with a nine trillion dollar debt and over fifty trillion dollars in unfunded future obligations.

You really should watch the youtube thingy. Whatever you might think of Glenn Beck, the other guy is the Comptroller General of the United States. He is doing a very courageous thing in trying to get people to pay attention. He also addresses the nationalized health care issue head on.

p.s. Woodrow Wilson started this train wreak in 1913, but it really kicked into gear when Richard Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1971. In his own pitiful way George Bush is trying every trick he can think of to stave off the inevitable.

Source: U.S. Dept, of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI	Source: U.S. Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt
Note: These charts only go up to 2001. I couldn’t find any pretty graphics of the current numbers.

It is, I suppose, understandable that the one presidential candidate who talks about this situation is dismissed as kook. For the rest, the splendor of the imperial purple and the adulation of the mob is simply too irresistible.

As I was posting this here she replied:

Enh. We’ll all be dead soon.

But more seriously..every dog has its day. Maybe the US day is coming to a close…at least for our ‘glory days’.

I can’t spend my time worrying about things I have zero control of.

p.s. I’m not an economist. I have no way to really evaluate this. I’ve seen other arguments suggesting that wheeee…you can deficit spend all day long. It made no sense to me. But a very smart person I know finds it sound so there must be something compelling about it.

To which I could only reply with this:

I wonder what happened in May of 2007 to cause the uptick in Republicans? And why even more in November and December?

Source: Rasmussen Reports*

Do you suppose it might have had something to do with this?
May 15, 2007

Then this?
November 6th

And this?
December 17th

*In their commentary on December’s increase Rasmussen attributes it to Americans suddenly loving the War in Iraq now that “surge” is working. Funny, I have a hard time believing that, especially since Rasmussen says George Bush’s popularity is still tanking. They love the decision, but not the Decider? Yeah, right.