Seek or Destroy

You have two choices moving forward. You can either seek out those who would support freedom. Or you can destroy any and all hopes and chances of winning future elections by shunning, silencing and making fun of others.

[The man in front of the mic is a Ron Paul delegate. The lovely lady on the left is a Mitt Romney delegate. The picture was taken at the RNC convention in August. This picture clearly illustrates the biggest reason why the republicans failed in November.]

I know that many people are upset about Obama winning a second term, and I have mentioned many times why Romney was not a viable alternative. You now have the choice of learning from your mistakes and welcoming new people into the conservative movement. Or you can stick to the same warn out principles of making fun of anyone who doesn’t think as you do, blame everybody but yourself, and shun those who are trying to help you.

The libertarians are not out to help the democrats get reelected by splitting the republican party. Most libertarians are conservative and vote along those lines. They see only two choices going forward; the republicans can listen to them and adhere to their principles (many of which are supposed to be conservative principles anyway). Or they can continue down the road of progressive liberal policies, in which the party will destroy itself.

The libertarians are the way forward, you can adopt us into the republican party, and we’ll all be stronger than ever. Or you can shun us and lose yet another election which you should have easily won.

The libertarians can either be sought out to strengthen the party, or they will serve as a rock on which the corrupt conservative elements will crash upon and be destroyed.

The choice in the way forward is up to you. Remember that wars are won by alliances, not by destruction.

Thoughts on the 2012 election and the future

I have mixed feelings about the 2012 election. I did not vote for Mitt Romney, but I also did not want Obama to win. I did everything I could to strengthen the liberty movement, and to help the libertarians to offset the corruption of the republican party. I voted for Gary Johnson for president to give the libertarians a cutting edge to build from, but I also voted for many republicans in house and senate seats to overthrow the diluted democrats, who simply do not get it.

I thought Mitt Romney was a progressive and that being elected as president would allow him to sweep our efforts under the rug because he is a conservative, if only in name. Perhaps he would have improved the economy slightly, and bumbled it along a little longer, but I think he also would have started a massive war with Iran, and he would have done nothing for our civil liberties. But all that aside, I know many of you worked hard to get him elected simply because he was the only person with enough power to beat Obama, who has turned out to be a terrible president, and a detriment to our freedoms and our way of life.

I would like to apologize to those who I have upset or offended during the course of this election period. I set out to get Ron Paul elected through the primaries. A man who I thought could actually change things for the better. Sadly he was shunned like a piece of garbage by the crooked establishment and the bought and paid for media. Ron Paul is one of the very few people who still shine as a beacon of hope in a wasteland of empty promises. But what’s done is done, and now we have to move forward. The points that I made over the course of the last few months, particularly against Mitt Romney and the establishment were to prove how corrupt they are and to illustrate just how far gone our republic is that he could ever possibly be our best chance to preserve freedom.

The republicans and the democrats are exceedingly corrupt, and we must continue to throw out the incumbents who do not follow the constitution, and install people who will actually do their jobs the way they are supposed to.

I will continue to point out faults in both parties, but I am willing to work with both the libertarians and the conservatives to find common ground so that we can create a bulwark against the tidal wave which is coming in the form of massive debt, the dollar collapse, and the erosion of civil liberties. Barack Obama’s policies are a detriment to our liberties, and we must stop the attack from both sides of the isle.

I would like to extend my thanks to those of you who worked on the side of liberty, whether we agreed on our methods or not, I know you did what you felt was right, and I did the same. Now is not the time to point fingers, but to find common ground and focus on our strengths so that we can build a future. I think every reader on here will agree on free markets, civil liberties and the protection of the constitution. I think also that by far the biggest issue of the day is the national debt, and we must work to plug the dam immediately if we are to avert a complete currency collapse.

I am willing to work with those of you who believe in individual liberties, and who are working hard to preserve them. I will continue to write articles to expose the looters, and combat the corrupt. I will continue to offer solutions  and to explain my theories along with information that I have found along the way.

Though the storm clouds are gathering, and our greatest challenge is fast approaching, I know that we will prevail. The liberty movement is just getting started!

The republicans suck

No I’m not a democrat. I just don’t buy into the fallacy of ‘the lesser of two evils’.

My mailbox got spammed this week with letters to vote the democrats out of office for wasteful spending. All three of the letters said this:

“End the democrats’ wasteful spending.

Cut the deficit.

Cap Spending.

Balance the budget.

Vote Republican

Tuesday, November 6th”

What do you think I am; stupid? Seriously, do you think I’m suffering from short term memory loss? I seem to recall the republicans massively increasing spending while in office during the Bush administration. How is it any different if the democrats do it? Why is it that people allow themselves to be played when ‘the other side is doing it’ but forget when their ‘side’ does it?

And then there was a letter for John Boehner, which said:

“John Boehner Fighting for freedom. Making a Difference.”

Nice tag line, shame its all a complete lie. This scum bag is the one who read from a teleprompter during the RNC convention, and completely ignored shouts from the delegates during a robo call. Not to mention being speaker of the house during the signing of the NDAA act, of which I can’t remember him saying anything against. Freedom my foot. Boehner is just like every other politician, he doesn’t care about freedom, he only cares about money and power.

On one side of my street there is a lady with an ‘Obama/Biden’ sign. Lovely lady, very pleasant to talk to, I guess she just doesn’t get it. Across the other side of the street there are two other signs, one reads ‘Romney/Ryan’. Nice old couple, always decorate their yard for Halloween and Christmas. But I guess they don’t get it either, after all Romney is is practically Obama’s twin on almost every policy. Their other sign reads ‘Keep America free. Fire Obama’. While I agree with firing Obama, I disagree with the keeping America free part. As it stands today, America is not free. We have a long way to go to get back to freedom. But I understand the point of the sign.

The reason I say that the republicans suck, is because as they stand today, they vary very little from the democrats. I do tend to lean more republican because the democrats simply don’t get it. It’s very easy to vote for a ‘generic republican’ to get rid of a democrat, but that doesn’t solve anything unless the said republican is principled and sticks to what he preaches. I like republicans such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and former New Mexico republican governor Gary Johnson. These men represent the future of the party, if the party will adapt to our demands. As it stands today the collective republican party does not stand for liberty and free markets. It stands for big government and corporate fascism. It is very important to learn this in order to hold your representatives feet to the fire.

I will not be voting for Mitt Romney for a myriad of reasons. I will be voting for Gary Johnson. My generation is expected to foot the bill for the massive multi-trillion dollar deficit which has been run up by both the republicans and the democrats. We are expected to be used as cannon fodder for the increasing and unnecessary wars in the middle east, and we are expected to be used as collateral for the expansion of debts and growth of government over the coming years under both the republicans and democrats. For my generation, this simply will not stand.

5% of the vote splits the two party monopoly forever. The libertarian party will grow exponentially during this election period. The republicans will really have to dig deep and change their ways if they want to get our votes again. The children of the information age are growing up, and we’re mad as hell about all the silly games that have been played on our parents by this two party shenanigan, and we’re mad as hell that we’re expected to not only believe in these fairy tales from both parties, but to fight, die and slave for their mistakes.

As of right now the republicans suck, but there is a new party out there which is willing to embrace true guardians of liberty. The largest freedom movement since the days of Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers is upon us. Come join us and hold all the looters feet to the fire!

Live Free! Vote Gary Johnson for president in 2012!

Unlearn what you have learned

I have written before how I think that Romney and Obama supporters are suffering from Stockholm syndrome. It really is shocking that they think there is any difference between the two candidates. It is very telling of how terrible Mitt Romney is when his supporters are only voting for him ‘to get rid of Obama’. The man has no character, he has no integrity. He is a complete sellout and a flip flop on almost every issue. And yet this is the great contender that we put up against Barack Obama, who to date has been one of the worst presidents in US history.

Let me tell you this once more. If you vote for Mitt Romney; you will be the one’s voting for Barack Obama. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for Obama. I can say that because there are millions of people like myself who are awake now, and refuse to go back to sleep and plug ourselves back into the matrix.

Those who refuse to wake up and smell the stench in the air from both parties are the ones who will continue the status quo.

Do not point fingers at the Ron Paul supporters and the Gary Johnson supporters when their millions of votes upset you next month during the elections. You will be the reason that Barack Obama is re-elected. We have done everything we can to show you what’s really going on. We stand for liberty, we will not be swayed, we will ignite the future.

If you want to make a real difference and take us back to freedom in this country (we do not have it right now) you must unlearn what you have learned.

I have found so many groups which are deeply passionate  but also flawed because they do not go far enough. Full unbridled liberty is the only way forward, not just a shave here or a shave there on taxes. We want to repeal the NDAA, the patriot act, the TSA, homeland security. We want to end the wars, stop the spending, restore value to our currency. We want freedom to flourish so that we might have a chance at building a future.

The pill that has been prescribed to us is ‘the lesser of two evils’. This decades old charade is coming to an end. We are no longer interested in playing these silly games. We want our future back.

Will you make a difference? Will you vote for a candidate of character and integrity? Or will you vote for a sellout just to get rid of the other guy?

Remember, when you vote for someone, you vote for them. Don’t do it just to vote against someone else, that is stupid. The world will never change if you allow yourself to think that way. That is the way the powers that be, want you to think. The men behind the curtain want you to have a choice between poison A and poison B. They do not want you to have a real say in the matter.

Do you honestly believe that Mitt Romney will uphold your values? Do you honestly think he’ll keep his word? Remember that he has changed his position on so many issues so many times, that he’ll practically say anything just to get elected. Will this really help you? Remember that at the RNC many attendees were completely shunned. Do you think it’ll be any better if Romney gets the presidency?

Gary Johnson is gaining momentum. He has all the potential of winning the presidency. The only reason he wont is because of Obama and Romney supporters who refuse to wake up and realize that their parties have abandoned them. Both parties have abandoned principle, and they will leave you hanging out to dry no matter which sell out wins.

So will you unplug yourself from the matrix this November? Will you take a stand? Will you make a difference?

Remember, if your side loses and you voted for ‘the lesser of two evils’ won’t you be even more disappointed in yourself that you didn’t at least make a stand for liberty?

The liberty movement is growing, will you be a part of it?

Stockholm syndrome

Many voters on both sides of the political spectrum are currently experiencing ‘Stockholm syndrome’.

Mitt Romney has a terrible record as governor of Massachusetts, and so does US House Representative Paul Ryan. And yet now that they are on the campaign trail they say a few nice things that make us feel good, and the republicans support them.

The same is true with the Democrats. Barack Obama has been a terrible president, and yet his supporters still root for him as the lesser of two evils, even  though he passed the NDAA act and kept our troops over seas.

George Bush was supposed to be a moderate conservative and yet he massively increased spending, the debts, government and he started two wars. Obama is a continuation of that presidency, and Mitt Romney is an expansion and continuation of that further. And yet we see people on both sides clinging strongly to their statist candidates because they are afraid of what ‘the other side’ might do if elected to office. Rather than realize that their own party is as damaging to their livelihoods and freedoms as ‘the other side’.

We are now expected to vote through fear of what the other side might do if allowed to get office, rather than realizing that both are wrong and will only harm us.

The republican establishment showed last week that it is not interested in your constitutional rights, they laid out in plain sight this year that they are only interested in unbridled power. The RNC prevented Ron Paul from speaking, and shut down any chance of him being nominated.

We have heard that “we need to vote in Romney in first! Then we can influence him!” which sounds like something Nancy Pelosi would say “we need to vote for it first before we read it”.

We’ve now got people thinking that Mitt Romney is a good manager and thinking outside of the box for picking Ryan as a fiscal conservative, which is completely unfounded, given his voting record.

Paul Ryan is not a good man, and is beginning to show his colors again while campaigning. Remember that Paul Ryan practically begged for the auto bailouts:

Mitt Romney chose to shun Ron Paul, who, if only he’d been allowed to speak, and his delegates been allowed to share their voices and concerns, may well have put their support behind him. Instead he choose to put up Clint Eastwood, whom I admire greatly. But Mitt Romney’s Dirty Harry stunt backfired. The liberal media of course derided the speech, but interestingly, so did the conservative media including Glenn Beck. This has helped to expose the fallacy of the left/right media paradigm, and has exposed that they are all corrupt. Not only that, but Clint Eastwood’s speech overshadowed Mitt Romney’s highly edited, polished and robotic speech which was very vague and didn’t specify how to actually fix the economy or return lost liberties to the nation.

It’s very telling of what the republican establishment is doing, when they’d rather have an old man talk to a chair in front of the crowd, than allow another old man to talk about the future of the party and how to restore liberties. I liked the things that Clint said as much as the things Ron say’s, but I’ll stick with Ron on not endorsing Romney.

In a time when information is available everywhere, ignorance is a choice.

I would encourage you to learn about the candidates, what they stand for, and to look at what the power structure is doing in each party.

The republicans are already showing their true colors again. They did nothing good for the country during the Bush administration, and now that they are close to having full power of the house, senate and presidency, they are showing once again what fumbling fools they are. They are simply a milder version of the democrats. Think of Bud light and Budweiser, there’s not much difference in the two of them.

Many people who are over sixty years old believe that anyone but Obama will be good for the country, but they cannot support their arguments with facts, only rhetoric, and memories from the good old days of Eisenhower and Reagan. On the opposite end of the spectrum you have the people who are under forty, almost all of whom support Ron Paul, and are beginning to understand that both parties are deeply flawed and do not follow the constitution.

The liberals were infiltrated by statist ideas a long time ago, and it has become very obvious. The infiltration of the right is less obvious, but it has happened.

The Overton window is a political theory that describes as a narrow “window” the range of ideas that the public will respond to as acceptable, and that the political viability of an idea is primarily defined by this rather than individual preferences of a given politician. It is named after its originator, Joseph P. Overton, former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. At any given moment, the “window” includes a range of policies considered to be politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too “extreme” or outside the mainstream to gain or keep public office.

So how do we escape the perpetual downward trend of statism? The first thing to do is to recognize the problem. This chart will help you figure out where you stand on liberties and freedoms:

Take the quiz and see where you rank!

Libertarians offer an alternative answer to our current problems. You might even be a libertarian yourself.

There is only one escape option left for the nation right now, and that is a 3rd party candidacy. Ron Paul was our last chance to steer the republican party from within.

FROM DR RON PAUL

8.27.12

As we enter the fall political season, we will hear a great deal of rhetoric from both major political parties and their many candidates for office. It’s important for us to remember, however, that words can be made meaningless by misuse or overuse. And when we as citizens allow politicians to obscure the truth by distorting words, we diminish ourselves and our nation.

For example, we’ve all heard politicians use the words “democracy” and “freedom” countless times. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different. They have become what George Orwell termed “meaningless words”. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused for so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, such words were “often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As just one example, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom. Thus we are conditioned to believe that democracy is always and everywhere benevolent. The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with freedom. While our Constitution certainly features certain democratic mechanisms, it also features inherently undemocratic mechanisms like the First Amendment and the Electoral College. America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Yet we’ve been bombarded with the meaningless word “democracy” for so long that few Americans understand the difference. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom or liberty–regardless of the issue being discussed– ask yourself whether he is advocating more government force or less. The words “liberal” and “conservative” have also been abused. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government. Liberalism has been redefined to mean liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. “Conservatism,” meanwhile, once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government. But in recent decades conservatism has been redefined as support for big-government grandiosity via military adventurism, corporatism, and inflationary monetary policy. The modern political right has redefined conservatism into support for an all-powerful central state, provided that the state furthers supposedly conservative goals. Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. Our task, therefore, is to reclaim our language and reclaim our liberties. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us.
I hope my posts are somewhat of a counsel to those who are rubbing their eyes in disbelief. I know its hard to give up ideas you’ve held for so long about certain people and certain parties, but the cause of liberty and freedom is worth the sacrifice. I’d rather be told a cold hard truth and learn to live with it, than to be told a comforting lie, only to have its bitterness slowly seep in over time and rot from the inside out.
Do not be discouraged, do not be upset, once you have learned what has happened to both sides of the two party system, you can begin to rebuild your ideas and share them with others. There are many good intellectual libertarian websites out there where you can learn more, and do your part to return liberty and free market concepts to this once free nation.
The time for a third party has come. The time to restore liberties is now. We must restore this nation. Give me liberty or give me death!

Splitting the vote

The Republican National Convention was a complete disgrace. As I mentioned in my previous article, the establishment just took a huge power grab, and stomped all over the grassroots movements.

Chris Littleton nails it with his article ‘The GOP can because you’ll take it’ Please click on the link and take a few minutes to read it.

The time for party pandering is over. On the national scale, we must show the establishment on both sides who’s boss.

Think about it, if 1/3 of the republicans vote libertarian, and 1/3 of the liberals vote libertarian, we’ll have  a majority to get Obama out of office, and prevent his twin Romney from getting in too.

What many don’t understand is, though Obama is a terrible president, he is not much different than Bush. Both voted for liberty stripping bills such as the Patriot act and NDAA, both passed stimulus, and both ran up the deficit. Mitt Romney is no different either. And although many call Obama a socialist and many other names under the sun, what many don’t realize is that Mitt Romney would have even more power over us than Obama, and wouldn’t do much, if anything to change his policies.

Ask yourself this; ‘What is the motivation of our current presidential candidates for office? For liberty and freedom? Or for more power, wealth and control?’

So which is better? Having a National Socialist or a Soviet Socialist as president?

I say neither.

Many argue that we shouldn’t split the vote, but I ask the question ‘which vote?’

I think we should split the tyranny of the big government Obama/Romney ticket and vote for Gary Johnson.

There are enough disenfranchised voters on both sides of the political spectrum. What many on the right do not realize is that the liberals are not all ‘commies’ and ‘welfare whores’ but rather many of them voted for Obama because he campaigned as a centrist and promised to bring the troops home. When he gained office he simply continued on the same path of massive spending and warmongering as president Bush.

If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are no better than an Obama supporter because you are ignoring all the facts about Romney’s big liberal voting record. And to say that he was an entrepreneur is a joke. Romney’s business did not create jobs, he simply stripped assets and sent jobs over seas. Sure Obama never held a real job in his life, but the line between a looter and moocher is very thin.

It’s time to man up and send a clear message to Washington; the time for big government and good ol’ boy establishment politics is over.

I say we split the vote on both sides, and return to freedom!

Gary Johnson 2012!

The justification for war and a lesson in critical thinking

It is always important to keep an open mind and explore new ideas. In a world full of nuclear weapons, perhaps it is time to tryout a nonintervention approach when dealing with foreign policy.

Here is a great speech by Howard Zinn, which questions the wisdom of going to war:

Critical thinking is essential for a society to move forward, and it is desperately needed in a time when a country is collapsing in upon itself.

“when it comes to war the means are horrible and the ends are uncertain” – Howard Zinn

Howard Zinn (August 24, 1922 – January 27, 2010) was an American academic historian, author, playwright, and social activist. Before and during his tenure as a political science professor at Boston University from 1964-88 he wrote more than 20 books, which included his best-selling and influential A People’s History of the United States.[2] He wrote extensively about the civil rights and anti-war movements, as well as of the labor history of the United States. His memoir, You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train, was also the title of a 2004 documentary about Zinn’s life and work.

Eager to fight fascism, Zinn joined the Army Air Force during World War II and was assigned as a bombardier in the 490th Bombardment Group,[6] bombing targets in Berlin, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary.[7] A U.S. bombardier in April 1945, Zinn dropped napalm bombs on Royan, a seaside resort in southwestern France.[8] The anti-war stance Zinn developed later was informed, in part, by his experiences.

I don’t agree with Howard on everything, indeed some of his ideas are socialist in nature, but I do like his critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important, especially when the subject of war comes up. Wars are almost always based on lies, and the outcomes are not always as desired.

Critical thinking means looking for more information to fill in the gaps, instead of just seeing everything as black and white.

This picture presents a false dichotomy, because the ‘only other option’ currently being presented is Mitt Romney, who I have explained before is the same as Obama on almost every level.

Certainly it would be a move forward if he is replaced with a constitutional minded president, but not if he is replaced with someone like mitt Romney who is essentially the same in his beliefs.

Sites such as www.arewesafer.com represent a real problem in this country. This site presents another false dichotomy. Why do we want to feel ‘safer’ when safer really means less free. Should we bomb another country to make ourselves feel better about ourselves? Are they actually a threat to begin with?Or are they just being attacked so that a select few can make more money through the sale of oil, weapons and bloodshed?

I have seen many friends and family get caught up in the fascist mantra of blind nationalism in their fight against Obama and socialism. While I despise socialism, I know that neither collectivist concept will do us any good, and so I find myself in battles on both sides to get them to see reason.

We live in a world that is waking up to new ideas, and is slowly discovering that capitalism does work, but that it is still held back by corruption.

Always keep an open mind to something new, and check your premise. You might be pleasantly surprised with what you find out.

Critical thinking paves the way for the future because it is unbiased, and deals with the facts, and not just propaganda. Always do you own research and use your mind.

 

With critical thinking at the helm of governments instead of looters, perhaps we can avoid mindless wars altogether.

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are the same

The reason many people like myself are still pushing for Ron Paul right up until the convention is very simple. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have exactly the same viewpoint and voting record on almost every issue.

40 Points That Prove That Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Are Essentially The Same Candidate

 Michael Snyder

The American Dream
Aug 16, 2012

What a depressing choice the American people are being presented with this year.  We are at a point in our history where we desperately need a change of direction in the White House, and we are guaranteed that we are not going to get it. 

The Democrats are running the worst president in American history, and the Republicans are running a guy who is almost a carbon copy of him.  The fact that about half the country is still supporting Barack Obama shows how incredibly stupid and corrupt the American people have become.  No American should have ever cast a single vote for Barack Obama for any political office under any circumstances.  He should never have even been the assistant superintendent in charge of janitorial supplies, much less the president of the United States.  The truth is that Barack Obama has done such a horrible job that he should immediately resign along with his entire cabinet.  But instead of giving us a clear choice, the Republicans nominated the Republican that was running that was most similar to Barack Obama.  In fact, I don’t think we have ever had two candidates for president that are so similar.  Yes, there are a few minor differences between them, but the truth is that we are heading into Obama’s second term no matter which one of them gets elected.  The mainstream media makes it sound like Obama and Romney are bitter ideological rivals but that is a giant lie.  Yeah, they are slinging lots of mud at each other, but they both play for the same team and the losers are going to be the American people.

Republicans are being told that they have “no choice” but to vote for Romney because otherwise they will get another four years of Obama.

This “lesser of two evils” theme comes out every four years.  We are told that we “must” vote for a horrible candidate because the other guy is even worse.

Well, millions of Americans are getting sick of this routine.  Perhaps that is why it is being projected that as many as 90 millionAmericans of voting age will not vote this year.

Yes, Barack Obama has been so horrible as president that it is hard to put it into words.

But Mitt Romney would be just like Barack Obama.

Those that are dreaming of a major change in direction if Romney is elected are going to be bitterly, bitterly disappointed.

The following are 40 ways that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially the same candidate….

1. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported TARP.

2. Mitt Romney supported Barack Obama’s “economic stimulus” packages.

3. Mitt Romney says that Barack Obama’s bailout of the auto industry was actually his idea.

4. Neither candidate supports immediately balancing the federal budget.

5. They both believe in big government and they both have a track record of being big spenders while in office.

6. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both fully support the Federal Reserve.

7. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both on record as saying that the president should not question the “independence” of the Federal Reserve.

8. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both said that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did a good job during the last financial crisis.

9. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both felt that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke deserved to be renominated to a second term.

10. Both candidates oppose a full audit of the Federal Reserve.

11. Both candidates are on record as saying that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has done a good job.

12. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both been big promoters of universal health care.

13. Mitt Romney was the one who developed the plan that Obamacare was later based upon.

14. Wall Street absolutely showers both candidates with campaign contributions.

15. Neither candidate wants to eliminate the income tax or the IRS.

16. Both candidates want to keep personal income tax rates at the exact same levels for the vast majority of Americans.

17. Both candidates are “open” to the idea of imposing a Value Added Tax on the American people.

18. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the TSA is doing a great job.

19. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the NDAA.

20. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act.

21. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the federal government should be able to indefinitely detain American citizens that are considered to be terrorists.

22. Both candidates believe that American citizens suspected of being terrorists can be killed by the president without a trial.

23. Barack Obama has not closed Guantanamo Bay like he promised to do, and Mitt Romney actually wants to double the number of prisoners held there.

24. Both candidates support the practice of “extraordinary rendition”.

25. They both support the job-killing “free trade” agenda of the global elite.

26. They both accuse each other of shipping jobs out of the country and both of them are right.

27. Both candidates are extremely soft on illegal immigration.

28. Neither candidate has any military experience.  This is the first time that this has happened in a U.S. election since 1944.

29. Both candidates earned a degree from Harvard University.

30. They both believe in the theory of man-made global warming.

31. Mitt Romney has said that he will support a “cap and trade” carbon tax scheme (like the one Barack Obama wants) as longas the entire globe goes along with it.

32. Both candidates have a very long record of supporting strict gun control measures.

33. Both candidates have been pro-abortion most of their careers.  Mitt Romney’s “conversion” to the pro-life cause has been questioned by many.  In fact, Mitt Romney has made millions on Bain Capital’s investment in a company called “Stericycle” that incinerates aborted babies collected from family planning clinics.

34. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the Boy Scout ban on openly gay troop leaders is wrong.

35. They both believe that a “two state solution” will bring lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israel.

36. Both candidates have a history of nominating extremely liberal judges.

37. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney also plans to add “signing statements” to bills when he signs them into law.

38. They both have a horrible record when it comes to job creation.

39. Both candidates believe that the president has the power to take the country to war without getting the approval of the U.S. Congress.

40. Both candidates plan to continue running up more government debt even though the U.S. government is already 16 trillion dollars in debt.

We cannot see how electing another person to the white house would change anything; if their beliefs and voting records are almost exactly the same as the person they would be replacing.

Click here for another 100 points!

But the biggest reason of all, is that Ron Paul still to this day, has enough delegates to make a difference at the convention, and should be allowed to make a speech. If enough of the delagetes, including those for Mitt Romney, switch sides (remember all the delagates are unbound) then there is also a good chance to get Ron Paul the ticket and beat Obama.

Ron Paul Will Have 500 Delegates at the RNC: 10 Reasons He Should Speak at the GOP Convention

With the Republican National Committeefinally conceding the fact that Congressman Ron Paul’s name will indeed be on the ballot at the GOP convention in Tampa this August, the RNC is beginning to warm up to the Paul campaign.

There is no word yet on whether they will offer Paul a speaking slot at the convention, but if the last few days are any sign, chances may be high that Paul will be invited to the convention.

According to a recent USA Today story, the RNC and the Paul campaign “have been working closely over the past few months to work out logistics in order to include the Texas congressman and his supporters in the August convention in Tampa. ‘They’ve just treated us like a friend and like a coalition,’ said Jesse Benton, a spokesman for the Paul campaign. ‘They have been honest brokers in working with us and treated us with respect.'”

This fair treatment of the Paul campaign — and by extension, his supporters — is a welcome change from the treatment that the RNC as well as state and local GOP parties have treated them since the 2012 Iowa Caucus (and even back to 2008). It is by now well known that Paul supporters, obeying the GOP’s own rules at the delegate selection process, have been shunned, ignored, and even strongarmed for their refusal to rubber-stamp Mitt Romney.

Are the RNC and the GOP finally waking up to the significant sized dissent that is their own party? Inviting Paul to speak at the convention will likely answer that question. Only time will tell. 

Here are 10 reasons why the Republicans would be foolish not to let Paul speak.

1) Delegates, Delegates, Delegates

From the media’s lack of good reporting to the sometimes confusing rules governing the delegation process, it is nearly impossible to tell exactly how many delegates Ron Paul has that will be headed to Tampa. The campaign admits that they have at least 500, though with alternates and delegates that are technically unbound, Paul could have significantly more than is reported. Even with the most conservative estimates, Paul’s delegates will play a major role at the convention.

Additionally, the Paul delegates could actually select the vice presidential pick if Romney indeed gets selected as the nominee. Much political coverage has been dedicated to the yawning “Veepstakes,” but if the RNC were to actually follow their own rules, Paul could easily be nominated VP.

With this much power, enthusiasm, and grassroots organization, a Paul-less GOP convention might cause some interesting chaos at the convention thanks to the amount of delegates Paul has. The Republicans can’t win without the support and votes of the growing libertarian wing of the party. Without proper respect shown to Paul, they will likely stay home or vote for Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson.

2) Ron Paul Will Not Endorse Mitt Romney

At nearly every debate and mainstream media interview, Paul was asked if he would endorse the eventual Republican nominee. Paul, principled and patiently, always answered in the negative. As of yesterday, he again reiterated that he would not endorse Romney, just like he didn’t endorse or vote for Senator John McCain in 2008. After all, Paul reasons, Romney agrees with little to any that Paul believes in, and an endorsement would be properly seen as a sellout to the GOP that scorns him and to the delegates and organizers that have worked so hard to push Paul this far.

Given that Paul won’t endorse Romney, a speaking nod helps mend that bridge with him and his supporters.

3) A Platform to Ignite the Party

Paul is the intellectual heart of the Tea Party and the libertarian/conservative movement that has ascended in this country in the last few years. Although the Tea Party has unfortunately been co-opted by mainstream Republicans, talking heads, and right-wing radio, Paul’s 2008 presidential run laid the groundwork for a real grassroots movement and puts actual teeth behind the rhetoric many Republicans give only lip service to.

If Paul’s eventual speech at the convention is anything like the hundreds of speeches he gave across the country in the last year, then the GOP won’t know what hit them. In the debates, Paul tended to be interrupted, asked “gotcha” questions, and at one foreign policy debate, was given 89 seconds to speak.

Without rude interruptions and all eyes on him, Paul will finally be able to address a (likely hostile) GOP crowd. And whenever he is given more than 2 minutes to speak, heads start nodding. Fellow PolicyMic columnist Allan Stevo reported that “After Ron Paul spoke in Sparks, Nevada … observers took note of Mitt Romney supporters crumpling up their Romney signs and vowing to vote for Paul. It was the first time many Republican activists had ever heard Paul speak outside of the several minutes of sound bites allotted to him during televised debates.”

Paul is the heart and soul of the grassroots and frustrated GOP, addressing the issue the party refuses to discuss, like ….

4) Actual Cuts in Spending

While the mantra of conservatives and the Republican Party has been “cutting spending” and balancing the budget, their actions haven’t exactly matched their words. Every other GOP candidates’ spendial proposals besides Paul promises to significantly increase spending, deficits, and the national debt. Romney, while uncomfortably posing as some type of fiscal conservative, promises to increase federal spending by trillions.

Paul has been warning about excessive government spending for decades, warning about billion dollar deficits in the 1980s. Now that the deficits are in the trillions, Paul’s message — and budget proposal that would cut $1 trillion and eliminate five cabinet departments — is something that needs to rub off on the Republican Party soon.

5) War and Peace

This is a crucial issue not just for the Republicans to pounce on, but for a broader appeal to the rest of the country as well. A majority of Americans want the U.S. out of Afghanistan and a reduction in foreign military intervention in general. With the Persian Gulf heating up, war in Syria a serious possibility, and President Obama waging war on an unprecedented scale, Paul’s message of peace and non-intervention helps make the GOP an actual alternative to Obama. Unfortunately, Romney doesn’t think Obama is being aggressive enough overseas, and with the possibility Obama and Romney arguing over who is the bigger warmonger, the Republicans miss a key opportunity to appeal to the growing anti-war sentiment in the country as well as cut spending and save American lives.

6) Civil Liberties

Romney has talked so little about civil liberties, I doubt he could even define what they are if asked, let alone why they are important. A Paul speech at the convention would no doubt include a firm defense of the Bill of Rights, opposition to NDAA, Bradley Manning, the PATRIOT Act, opposition to the drug war, and articulate why Republicans should value civil liberties just as much as economic liberties. This would also again be an effective strategy for the GOP to circumvent President Obama’s draconian record on civil liberties.

7) The Fed

With Paul’s “Audit the Fed” bill moving forward, now would be the most opportune time to make this a huge part of the convention. Paul’s speeches and rallies are infamous for their “End the Fed!” chants, and an understanding of the follies of central banking go hand in hand with a grasp of real, free market economics. With Paul’s help, the GOP could adopt a strong position on auditing the Federal Reserve and reversing course on decades of terrible monetary policy.

8) The Party Platform

Many libertarians and Paul supporters will scoff with cynicism at the influence that the party platform will have. Perhaps there is an element of truth to that, but in a time where it is becoming easier and easier to hound and hassle elected officials, maybe this method isn’t as hopeless as some might believe. Paul has said he wants to see the GOP adopt as part of the platform moves to audit the Federal Reserve, abolishing the Sixteenth Amendment, protection of civil liberties, etc. If the GOP does let Paul speak and addresses his very valid concerns, this forces the GOP to maybe be a little bit better on these issues than they have been in the past. Or maybe it doesn’t, and more and more people get fed up with party politics as a means for change. Either way, it’s a win-win.

9) Re-thinking Romney

While President Obama and Governor Romney bicker back and forth over tax returns and desperately trying to differentiate themselves from each other, Paul represents a synthesis of what many people already understand: that Romney and Obama are identical on any and every key issue facing America (literally 100 of them). In a similar way to what Allan Stevo reported in the article above, a chance to hear Paul speak may change the minds of people and make them actually vote for him at the convention. Seeing an authentic conservative — interested in conserving classical liberalism — and Paul’s bipartisan appeal could offer Republican voters the real thing and the GOP a political realignment for years to come.

10) Paul Deserves It

And lastly, Ron Paul deserves it. Since 1976, he has been an advocate of limited government, peace, free markets, a sound currency, and civil liberties in every step of his career as congressman, author, and even in his private practice as a doctor. He has given countless speeches on the House floor warning about the economic bubbles caused the Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary policy and predicting the chaos and bloodshed that would result from whatever country is the fashionable target of the Administration at the time. The least the GOP — who have ignored him for decades — could do is give him 15-20 minutes to help light the last brushfires of the liberty revolution he has been instrumental in starting with a speech that would tear the roof off of the convention.

Here’s hoping the GOP lets him speak! For the sake of the party, and more importantly, the future of the country, Paul needs to be heard loud and clear.

Mitt Romney does not carry enough support with the republicans, and none from the increasing number of libertarians. If Ron Paul is not the republican nominee, Barack Obama will win a second term.

Obama Will Win

Michael S. Rozeff
lewrockwell.com
August 16, 2012

Intrade has Obama at 56.7%, down from about 59%. Romney’s more pointed attacks and choice of Ryan have coincided with this decline. Nevertheless, I feel (based on no research except general reading and knowledge) Obama will win. Meanwhile, an excellent case of insider trading can be brought against Paul Ryan.  He had what is called “material nonpublic information” and acted upon it. Will the SEC do that?  Ha-ha-ha.

Ron Paul was the strongest candidate for the nomination, but the Republicans chose to die instead, wedded to their habits of thought and their ingrained channels of power, influence and money. Paul could have hit Obama very hard by melding the negatives of deficits (and looming breaking of social promises) with useless foreign wars and spending into a positive program of reducing government spending while cutting taxes and taking steps to restructure the social programs and eliminate whole departments. He could have attacked Obama on the TSA and on the FED.

So we will continue the fight for Ron Paul and to restore the constitution, all the way up until the convention, to give the republicans and all the freedom loving people of this country, a chance to beat Obama and restore the republic.  God speed to all those Ron Paul supporters heading to the convention, the eyes of the world will be watching you!

Insurance and fascism

Insurance and fascism are currently linked by government coercion.

From the time I learnt to drive, to the present day, I have never been in a wreck or needed to ‘claim my insurance’, and nor has my wife. And yet, between the two of us, we have paid a combined $8000 over the last four and a half years between all our vehicles. If I had not been forced by the state to buy insurance, I could have re-invested that money, or bought a whole new car by now. Why should I have to pay for other people’s reckless driving habits? I have driven in snow storms and on sheets of ice, and I’ve always maintained my cool. If I crash into someone else’s car, that is my fault, and I should have to pay for damages. But I should not be forced to put money into an insurance program ‘to save myself financial ruin’ at some later point in life. All the while, I’m being strapped down in the present by overbearing insurance costs.

The same applies to healthcare. Why should I have to buy healthcare? Is my health not my own? Who says I am property of the state? Who said I am a burden to the state? It is not up to government to take care of me. If I get sick, I should pay for it myself. If I cannot afford the care, I can make a payment plan with the hospital.

Since the intrusion of government into hospitals and healthcare, costs have only gone up, service has gone down, and people are unable to pay for their own healthcare unless they get insurance. But now insurance has become too expensive, and people can’t afford that, so now we are to be forced to pay for healthcare that we cannot afford. Where does it end?

Does this mean that it is more important for me to finance a healthcare corporation to save me from myself, than to put food on my table to maintain my very existence?

Think about it. If you’re forced to buy insurance, whether for health or auto, or anything, doesn’t it take away from your immediate concerns, such as eating a meal or repairing your property. We have now reached the top of the curve, and the very insurance which was supposed to save us sometime in the future from financial ruin, is now too expensive to buy to begin with, and now that it is mandated, the costs are ever higher, and out of reach. Financially, we are drawn and quartered, before we are even able to pay for our very survival through simple things such as food and shelter.

Fascist systems such as this do not last. Eventually they collapse in on themselves, or the state takes over completely. Either way the end is misery, through famine or bloodshed. The notion of forced compliance, especially with ideas of safety, or saving you from yourself, should be rejected entirely.

Forced insurance is a fascist idea.

Fascism is the merging of corporations with the state. All over the US we see that today.

This article displays many facts about fascism:

Fascism Anyone?

Fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for.

 By Laurence W. Britt

 The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.

 We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

 Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

 For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

 Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

    1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent  displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was  usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on  xenophobia.

    2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

     3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a  means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame forfailures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional  national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and“terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

    4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even  when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

    5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

     6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were  under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass  media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

     7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

    8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

     9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

    10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

    11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

    12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

    13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

    14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating an disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

 Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
 

“When facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the American flag.”  – Huey Long

The shocking truth is, that much of this has become true in America today:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

USA! USA! USA! ‘Isn’t this a great country?’, ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us’ and many other slogans, are passed around like candy in today’s society.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

Guantanamo Bay? The NDAA act?

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

Terrorists! Extremist Muslims! Need I name more?

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

Support the troops! I found a site the other day that said ‘if you’re not prepared to stand behind the troops, feel free to stand in front of them’. We hear all the time that the troops are heroes, and where that may be true in certain wars, and in protecting the country, our troops are currently used to protect ‘our oil’ in the middle east, and work for ‘the elite’ and their ‘special interests’.

5. Rampant sexism.

The debate still goes on for womens rights, even though they are equal to men’s in this country, and lets not get started on the gay marriage debate!

6. A controlled mass media.

I’ve written about this before, the media is completely controlled and bias.

7. Obsession with national security.

OK, let’s see; Homeland security, the TSA, grouping at airports, naked body scanners, need I say more?

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.

Yes, this is happening too, just look at nutty candidates like Rick Santorum and Michele backman. And what about our wars in the middle east and our love affair with Israel.

9. Power of corporations protected.

‘Corporations are people my friend’ – Mitt Romney

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

I don’t agree with labor unions, but they are being supressed, so I suppose it’s true.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.

When was the last time you saw an intellectual debate on TV? When was the last time you heard about philosophies or becoming a better world? Not sure about the arts though.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

The United States has the largest prison population on the planet!

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

Bailouts anyone?

14. Fraudulent elections.

2000 elections? No? Well what about all the lawsuits from the Ron Paul camp, because of election fixing by corrupt GOP members trying to get Romney elected. Oh you didn’t hear about the delegates in Maine a couple days ago?

Is this not absolutely shocking to you? I find it down right scary.

It’s the Corporate State, Stupid

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” – Benito Mussolini. 

David G. Mills

11/10/04 “ICH” — The early twentieth century Italians, who invented the word fascism, also had a more descriptive term for the concept — estato corporativo: the corporatist state. Unfortunately for Americans, we have come to equate fascism with its symptoms, not with its structure. The structure of fascism is corporatism, or the corporate state. The structure of fascism is the union, marriage, merger or fusion of corporate economic power with governmental power. Failing to understand fascism, as the consolidation of corporate economic and governmental power in the hands of a few, is to completely misunderstand what fascism is. It is the consolidation of this power that produces the demagogues and regimes we understand as fascist ones.

While we Americans have been trained to keenly identify the opposite of fascism, i.e., government intrusion into and usurpation of private enterprise, we have not been trained to identify the usurpation of government by private enterprise. Our European cousins, on the other hand, having lived with Fascism in several European countries during the last century, know it when they see it, and looking over here, they are ringing the alarm bells. We need to learn how to recognize Fascism now. 

Dr. Lawrence Britt has written an excellent article entitled “The 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism.” An Internet search of the number 14 coupled with the word fascism will produce the original article as well as many annotations on each of the 14 characteristics of fascism that he describes. His article is a must read to help get a handle on the symptoms that corporatism produces. 

But even Britt’s excellent article misses the importance of Mussolini’s point. The concept of corporatism is number nine on Britt’s list and unfortunately titled: “Corporate Power is Protected.” In the view of Mussolini, the concept of corporatism should have been number one on the list and should have been more aptly titled the “Merger of Corporate Power and State Power.” Even Britt failed to see the merger of corporate and state power as the primary cause of most of these other characteristics. It is only when one begins to view fascism as the merger of corporate power and state power that it is easy to see how most of the other thirteen characteristics Britt describes are produced. Seen this way, these other characteristics no longer become disjointed abstractions. Cause and effect is evident. 

For example, number two on Britt’s list is titled: “Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights.” Individual rights and corporate rights, at the very least conflict, and often are in downright opposition to one another. In the court system, often individuals must sue corporations. In America, in order to protect corporations, we have seen a steady stream of rules, decisions and laws to protect corporations and to limit the rights of the individual by lawsuit and other redress. These rules, decisions, and laws have always been justified on the basis of the need for corporations to have profit in order to exist. 

Number three on Britt’s list is the identification of scapegoats or enemies as a unifying cause. Often the government itself becomes the scapegoat when the government is the regulator of the corporations. Often it is lawyers or administrators who take on the corporations. Often it is liberals who champion the rights of individuals, or terrorists who might threaten state stability or corporate profit. Any or all may become scapegoats for the state’s problems because they pose problems for corporations. 

Other notable characteristics of fascism described by Britt which are directly produced by corporatism are: 

< The suppression of organized labor (organized labor is the bane of corporations and the only real check on corporate power other than government or the legal system);

< Supremacy of the military (it is necessary to produce and protect corporate profits abroad and threats from abroad); 

< Cronyism and governmental corruption (it is very beneficial to have ex-corporate employees run the agencies or make the laws that are supposed to regulate or check corporations);

< Fraudulent elections (especially those where corporations run the machinery of elections and count the votes or where judges decide their outcomes); 

< Nationalism (disdain for other countries that might promote individual rights);

< Obsession with national security (anti-corporatists are a security risk to the corporate status quo); 

< Control of the media (propaganda works);

< Obsession with crime and punishment (anti-corporatists belong in jail); and 

< Disdain for intellectuals and the arts (these people see corporatism for what it is and are highly individualistic). 

All of these characteristics have a fairly obvious corporate component to them or produce a fairly obvious corporate benefit. Even Britt’s last two characteristics, the merger of state with the dominant religion and rampant suppression of divorce, abortion and homosexuality produce at least some indirect corporate benefit. 

In sum, it’s the corporate state, stupid. 

As I have pondered what could be done about America’s steady march toward the fascist state, I also have pondered what can be done internally to stop it. The Germans couldn’t seem to do it. The Italians couldn’t seem to do it. The only lesson from recent history where an indigenous people seemed to have uncoupled the merger of economic power with governmental power is the French Revolution. The soft underbelly of consolidated economic power is that the power resides in the hands of a few. Cut off the money supply of the few and the merger between economic power and government becomes unglued. The French systematically took out their aristocracy one by one. It was ugly; the French couldn’t seem to figure out when there had been enough bloodletting to solve the problem. 

The thought of an American twenty-first century French Revolution is ugly. But the thought of an American twenty-first century fascist state is far uglier. It would be a supreme irony that the state most responsible for stopping worldwide fascism would become fascist 60 years later. But far worse than this irony is the reality that an American fascist state with America’s power could make Nazi Germany look like a tiny blip on the radar screen of history. 

For some years now we have lived with the Faustian bargain of the corporation. Large corporations are necessary to achieve those governmental and social necessities that small enterprises are incapable of providing. The checks on corporate power have always been fragile. Left unchecked, the huge economic power of corporations corrupts absolutely. Most of the checks are badly eroded. Is there still time to get the checks back in balance? Or will we be left with two unthinkable options?

America is undeniably under fascist rule right now, many call President Obama a socialist, marxist or communist. But he has all the hallmarks of a fascist, and the terrifying fact is, that Mitt Romney does too.

Many are left to wonder how the nation that defeated fascism could so completely have absorbed it. Joseph Campbell explains this as ‘the hero as the villain’  in ‘the hero with a thousand faces’. But that is for another article.

So how do we get out of this mess?

I say; stay informed, stop seeing things as black and white, and start looking at the grey areas. Obama is certainly not good for this country, but that doesn’t mean ‘anybody but Obama’ will be. And this mess goes far beyond the presidency, since the head of state is simply a symptom and not a cause. People have been guided like sheep, slowly for decades, into ‘left vs right’, instead of realizing that its ‘up vs down’, the state vs liberty. It’s really a case of the individual vs the collective, since both communism and fascism both center around the collective having the power, which essentially snubs out the lowest minatory which is the individual.

So do we need a bloody revolution to stop this? I hope not. But I know that a revolution is currently in full swing. Between the Tea Partiers, the Occupy Wall Street members and the Ron Paul Revolutionaries, we have an intellectual revolution roaring, and if we can find common ground in the constitution and our basic human freedoms, the fascists (or whatever word you want to use) don’t stand a chance!

As for the insurance, this bubble will burst in time, so save your money and only take out what you really need. The mandated provisions won’t last for long.

The case against Mitt Romney and the establishment

I will not endorse Mitt Romney because he is cut from the same cloth of all the other establishment politicians who have sidetracked our great republic over the last century.

The main reason that John McCain lost the 2008 election was because he was almost a carbon copy of George Bush. The same George Bush, who signed the patriot act and started up Guantanamo Bay. This same John McCain later went on to co-write the NDAA act. The same act that Mitt Romney supported, and that Barack Obama signed.

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are very similar. Mitt Romney introduced socialized medicine in Massachusetts, and Barack Obama copied this example when he signed Obama Care.

If you go to Mitt Romney’s campaign page you’ll see a lot of wording that looks like this; ‘an American century’. Which is curious, since ‘an American century’ is what the neocons came up with at the end of the last century, and helped provide a framework for this century.

The Neo Conservatives and their plan for a new American century has now come into fruition and we are now seeing the progression to an American dominated globe and a new world order. This is why I do not support Mitt Romney, nor Barack Obama and why the only candidate who I support is Ron Paul. There are many media talking heads, including Glenn Beck, who now profess the rise of socialism, and where they may be correct, they are wrong in suggesting that someone like Mitt Romney will help fix this.

If you do not support a candidate with a firm moral ground and a full understanding of the constitution, then you will be personally responsible for this country’s demise from liberty.

This country stands perilously close to a totalitarian society. We have now joined the ranks of communist Russia and Nazi Germany in regard to our own citizens as prisoners. It is time to wake up and take back our liberties. It is time to unite behind Ron Paul and overthrow the establishment. It is time to stop being afraid of ‘the other side’ winning, and realize that it is not about the left vs the right, but about us vs the state and all its bloated bureaucracy and control.