Citizenship, Free Society, Trivia

Death of Parties

© 2013 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

I read of the death of the Republican Party. I have read this many times about both parties. Ross Perot was going to replace both. Political parties come and go and evolve.

A number of Federalists in New York affiliated themselves with the Tammany Hall wing of the Democratic-Republicans sponsoring Aaron Burr in 1804 as their gubernatorial candidate against against Morgan Lewis of the Clintonian (or anti-federalist) Wing. Burr’s program included his support of the secession of the Northern States (New York and New England) to form a confederation more favorable to Britain than to France. Federalists from Massachusetts actually supported Burr for Governor of New York because of his willingness to sign a bill of secession. There were those who feared the Louisiana Purchase would give Jefferson too much power. The Federalists had no candidate so two Democratic-Republican Candidates went head to head.

In steps Alexander Hamilton who wants absolutely nothing of secession because it would be bad for commerce. Hamilton disliked Jefferson and loathed George Clinton politically because they opposed the ratification of the Constitution. He also happened to despise Aaron Burr as a rival in New York Banking. An off-handed insult by Hamilton was perceived by Burr to have given the victory of Lewis and was the “proximate cause” of the oldest sports rivalry in the Ivy League. (Dueling: Princeton 1 – Columbia 0) While some credit the duel as the end of the Federalists, the party had become a northeastern parochial party after 1800.

The Democratic-Republicans, on the other hand were experiencing a similar breakdown. Morgan Lewis, while having some moderate support, was the last of the anti-federalist crowd. A supporter, DeWitt Clinton (George’s nephew who inspired a future governor to build canals) shifted to Tammany to run for Governor and even ran as a Federalist for President in 1812 to oppose Madison’s War.

TRIVIA WATCH

George Clinton was the longest serving governor in American history. He was the first vice-president elected on a party ticket rather than as runnerup for President. He served as vice-president for both Jefferson and Madison. His greatest accomplishment was in chairing the Ratification Convention in New York where New York’s entry into the compact was made contingent on the Bill of Rights. Some scholars believe he was the author of the Anti-federalist Papers attributed to Cato, but others say the authorship is still in doubt—fortunately dueling has been outlawed.

Speaking of dueling: Aaron Burr was the grandson of Jonathan Edwards and a well educated banker. He was involved in a plot to form an empire in Spanish Territory—That had to wait for Pres James Polk who was a cousin to Bishop Leonidas Polk who married a Granddaughter of Jonathan Edwards. The Burr family formed the Manhattan Company (not to be confused with the Manhattan Project) to transport water in Manhattan Island—it also had authority to issue notes and hold deposit. It remains in existence as JP Morgan Chase and owns Alexander Hamilton’s pistols.

DeWitt Clinton had a steam engine named for him. He is best know for the Erie Canal—in opposition campaign literature it was called, “Clinton’s big ditch.”

Modern Republicans are divided and ripping in several directions, but there will always be dissension. The great political philosopher of the 19th Century, Finley Peter Dunne, speaking in the persona of Mr Dooley, said, “if ye’re in a room where a man in one corner is shouting miscreant and in the other corner is one shouting thraitor, you know its only two loyal demmycrats trying to reunite the party.”

Remember: tags are invitations to research.

Standard
Citizenship

Debates – if you have nothing better to do

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

Thinking about debates I have always regarded them as roughly less interesting than going in a spare room and measuring how much the wallpaper has peeled since the last go round.

Some thoughts regarding debates and polls.

Explaining the shift in polls after the first debate indicates that the debate gave an nation a side by side look at the candidates showed that a) people were waiting to see how strong Romney could come off, or b) some people were waiting to see Obama as less than invincible (therefor inevitable), or…

The big OR. Or the electorate is highly fluid. If the tables turn in the next couple debates—or shift with each one—the electorate is also extremely volatile and the demagogue who gets the last shot may win.

Do not worry about prevarication. Lies about economic plans are relative. Paul Krugman, who will not debate an Austrian school economist, is not an expert worth listening to. Romney ignores the fact that we have not had real capitalism in this country since before the passage of anti-trust in 1890, and certainly before the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Obama, who snagged the name of a defunct CPUSA publication as a campaign slogan, lives in a fantasy world of centrally planned economy. His one venture into relevance was his reference to Lincoln—in those days Presidents did not propose or advocate legislation and the one of the three that required expenditure of funds was the Transcontinental Railroad in which he had a vested personal financial interest.

And I have a question for those who place great stock in the debates. Who cares or even remembers Quemoy and Matsu?

Standard
Citizenship, Free Society

RINO, DINO, who really cares?

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us! — Robert Burns

As I sit here watching the political infighting among Republicans I can see why they remain a minority party. One of the key words I here is RINO. The concept is that the individual is a Republican for the purpose of getting elected. It is a matter of perspective. Bob Dole mused that when he was deciding to run for County Attorney he weighed the number of Republican voters as opposed to Democratic voters in Russell County.

Now I would point out that in 1956, George Docking, a lifelong Republican, having been previously rebuffed for the Republican nomination for Governor of Kansas, registered and filed as a Democrat. The term DINO was not used. He won and his son Bob also won as a Democrat. Back then the lines were not drawn as sharply as in the national parties.

Jim Pearson, whose Republican credentials no one questions, switched from the Democratic Party to be appointed and thereafter elected as a United States Senator from Kansas.

Joan Finney, a Republican County Commissioner in Shawnee County, became upset when her mentor Frank Carlson did not support her for Second District Representative. She became a Democrat and ran for State Treasurer. She was elected and reelected and eventually elected Governor.

For a good deal of my life the major parties have been non-ideological. I identify as a Goldwater, conservative and see individual liberty, not populist family values, as defining my philosophy. What that may mean is that I will be at odds with those in power—and I have been a Republican longer than many of them have been alive.

The problem I see is that some of the Republicans calling others RINO are basically Populists in the guise of conservatives. Those who know history know that the Populists, with the aid of the Secretary of State, took control of the legislature until the Kansas Supreme Court certified the results of the County Clerks (whose authority is not subordinate to that of the Secretary of State) and the Republicans, aided by Winchester Arms, took the Statehouse back.

Now that Romney has been nominated he has become the “conservative” answer to Obama. That is not what the “conservatives” were saying at the time of the primaries and the caucuses. So what we have is a “center left” Romney as opposed to a “hard left” Obama, both of whom would have fewer problems with a Democratic Congress than a Republican one.

To find a conservative candidate we need to go back to 1964. No, Ronald Reagan was not a conservative, he was a Teddy Roosevelt progressive with conservative—even some libertarian—tendencies. Look at the record. Call him RINO. No, nor would anyone call Teddy Roosevelt who had plans to amend the Constitution to centralize power in the executive a RINO. They are part of the Pantheon.

And the question is: what happened to the “big tent” after it let in southern populists? And are Republicans going to get elected by trashing other Republicans?

 

Standard
Economy

Unemployment drops – Are you impressed?

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

So the unemployment rate dropped below 8 percent. October surprise? We will not know whether this is a sign of recovery for another six to twelve months. This is, of course, a figure that both parties will spend time spinning this figure. (How many campaign spinners will be out of work on 7Nov?) But how much does the figure really mean.

The unemployment rate is based on the number of individuals in the Civilian Work Force unemployed as opposed the total number of persons in the Civilian Work Force. This latter figure is the number of persons ages 16 through 64 minus undocumented aliens, military and naval personnel, the incarcerated, full time students, those committed to mental institutions, those working part time, the disabled (under SS guidelines), those who have ceased seeking employment and those whose unemployment benefits have expired.

I have heard estimates that the “actual” unemployment rate stands anywhere from 11 to 28 percent. Without actual figures there is no way to state an actual percentage and the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers are, however flawed, what we have to work with. The interesting thing is that both the right and left actually defend or attack BLS depending on who is in office. I have been told by Republicans that 4.9 percent figure was actually too high because it ignored those on unemployment who were “scamming” the system. I was also told by members of the other party that the same figure is too low because it ignores “underemployment.”

Sorry. I know there are scammers. They show up for interviews and get their card stamped, but deliberately offend the hiring authority and get another week by showing that they were “looking.” Near the end of their eligibility they obtain employment which they keep long enough to have worked in two quarters and then be discharged for less than competent work. The number of these folks is not large but they do exist. They will take advantage of any system—the system just needs to figure them out.

Sorry. I do not buy the “underemployment” argument any more than I buy the “overqualified” argument in denying someone employment.

So we are dealing with the numbers BLS uses. But what, statistically, is the difference between 7.8 percent and 8.2 percent? In terms of who is work and who is not, you have to look at factors of economic activity as well. Are factory orders increasing? Is output increasing?

Does the American manufacturing sector show an increase or are these jobs based on the fluctuation of the retail system or the increase of freelance companies wherein the self employed have decided to go it without the capital base they need because there are no other options? And if so, how much of this is going to last? I had a discussion with my late father-in-law back in the late 80s about the surge of service sector jobs without an agricultural or manufacturing base to support them.

Right now, through the Quantitative Easing, the Fed is creating money without wealth. The created money will possibly create some employment in the financial sector—until the next bubble bursts. Without real wealth creation, reduction of unemployment is temporary at best.

To butcher a saying from Abraham Lincoln, “You cannot fool all the people all the time, but you can possibly fool a plurality through election day.”

Standard
Citizenship

A case for a change

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

There are two major candidates, one of whom will be elected in December, with different aspirations. Mitt Romney wants very much to be President. To that end he will promise anything he needs to promise and will have a tough time following through on those promises if elected. This is not intended as an endorsement of Mr Romney.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is President. He made all those promises four years ago, and to achieve some he ignored others. He wants very much to transform America. It worked for FDR—four times. It was only after World War II ended and Truman lifted wartime restrictions that the nation began to recover from the recession of 1931.

So let us look at the transformation so far. The “bailout” of the auto industry involved a takeover of two companies in order to preserve the union welfare state of those companies and give the government a “stakeholder” place in decision making. The bankruptcy law was violated and preferred stockholders, many of them public employee and teacher pension funds, were left holding the bag to assure government preferred stakeholders—aka the UAW. When franchises were closed, the fact that some had paid serious money for their franchises was not a consideration. Apparently volume of sales was not either.

Another aspect of the transformation of the auto industry is the new green technology. An example of this is the new Chevy Volt. GM loses $49,000 on every one that leaves the factory in order to reach a price point of $40,000. In addition the taxpayers pick up another $7,500 in a tax credit to bring the price down to a level where people will buy the vehicle.

The genius of the American auto industry has been its ability to produce vehicles that capture the consumer. And scuttle those that do not. They did not have to deal with the fiat that “you will build this vehicle” mentality of the Combloc. The Edsel was a failure—Ford ditched it and followed with the Mustang. Despite Ralph Nader the Corvair was extremely popular—there is a 61 driving around town that is in better shape than Ralph.

Ford escaped the “bailout” by having shepherded its resources to where it would not have to take a reorganization. Not to worry. New EPA CAFE standards took care of the the popular Crown Victoria. The company will survive, but a solid, powerful vehicle has been removed from production. Its replacement, the AWD Taurus-SHO, is unlikely to last as many miles and has a higher price tag to begin with. And with Executive Order 13603 in place, Obama has “authority” to seize industries in the name of national security.

The “bank bailout” saved some companies that should have been allowed a quiet demise. The real estate bubble which brought it down was caused largely by federal requirements to “open up” the housing market. To avoid pressure by compliance agencies, the banks loosened credit requirements to the point that massive groups of people were approved for loans they could never pay. There were people in certain counties in Colorado who were refinancing every eighteen months. There was a joke in the consumer community about using Visa to pay Mastercard—eventually the house of cards (so to speak) tumbles.

As the Congress set about remedying the financial situations there were companies that should have gone under, but were “too big to fail” so they were propped up. The regulations bill that the President signed had not been read by its sponsors. Retiring Sen Chris Dodd said it would take a couple years to find out what was in it.

So we come to the quick fix comprehensive health care reform. Like the financial services bill it was rushed and rammed through without time for reading or reflection. So much for the promise of transparency. What is in it—other than a tax that is unlawful because it originated in the Senate or else in the mind of an intimidated Chief Justice—is not clear. What is not in it is: cost control, frivolous lawsuit control, and cost increase control. Without these, the temporary nature of the bill is apparent—the costs will crash the government.

Then we come to the assertion that the President has authority to order the assassination of anyone he deems a threat to the American people. In asserting this power—which was not asserted in the Divine Right of Kings—the President places himself with banana republic dictators as well as Vlad the Impaler, Caligula, Stalin and Rasputin.

The President has also issued executive orders giving himself authority Congress and the Constitution will not. He tires of waiting for Congress. He has always, from his own statements, been frustrated by the Constitution’s negative liberties. He would like to change this Constitution out for one that mandates redistribution. And he clearly is looking for three more appointments to the Supreme Court in order to achieve this.

Mr Obama recently remarked that is is nearly impossible to effect change from the inside. Perhaps the community organizer needs to get back outside.

Standard
Free Society

“Not my party”

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

The “teaser” on the Ron Paul’s response to Romney’s speech said, “It’s not my party.” Further, the Washington Post portrayed Ron’s supporters who walked out as spoiled brats who had never won a caucus or primary. Scratch WaPo as a reliable source.

The demonization and marginalization of Ron Paul has begun. This is a bad move by a political party that has a shrinking share of the electorate and only through good fortune is facing an incumbent whose record and negatives outweigh his positives. But this good fortune can be tossed aside by the actions of the Party and a pro-Obama mainstream media.

What Dr Paul said was not a repudiation of the Party but a statement that no one person owns the Republican Party. What he was saying is that the party is not owned by any person or faction. While the ham-handed tactics of the Romney faction prevailed at this convention, they are not etched in stone, but rather reflect a neo-conservative philosophy that may disappear as the ex-Trotskyites progress into senility and beyond. Youth, Hispanic voters and the disaffected are not jumping on the bandwagon in large numbers. And neither the “Romney vision” nor the Ryan budget are going to address the fiscal and social breakdown that is coming.

The glimmer of hope for the Party lies in the platform. If enough of the Congressional Candidates take it seriously, it could make a difference. Time will tell.

Standard
Free Society

I came out–Fighting

(c) 2012  Earl L Haehl Permission is granted to redistribute this in whole as long as credit is given.  Book rights are reserved.

Let me put this in perspective.  I write as loboviejo because I like the concept of being an old wolf–there is a great deal of wisdom in a council of wolves.  I consider the three little pigs to be feral swine.

There is a great debate going on in this country right now.  We are being led by an establishment that wants to continue the travel into a totalitarian world government with the kleptocracy of the UN Secretariat at the center.   And there are some working specifically for the dictatorship of the proletariat to run this country.  They attack capitalism which has not really existed in this country since the Coolidge administration.

So the Washington Post is covering the DISCLOSE Act debate.  The gist of it is that the Republicans are blocking the transparency needed to make politics accountable.  What they are attempting to block is a bill that would create an “enemies list” for any president.  No amount of spending or advocacy is going to neutralize the inherent advantage of incumbency–the only way for a challenger to get that much coverage would be to get pulling off the heist of the Century and Ben Bernanke already did that.

So the comments are basically the glories of transparency versus the evil Republicans who probably get billions in undisclosed….   Let’s be real.  Harry Reid wants power.  Harry Reid wants to know who is giving money to opponents of his program.  Same with Barack Obama.   Same with any number of incumbents.

So here is my comment.

Here is the deal. There organizations on both sides of the political spectrum who engage in harassment of those they disagree with. Some have been known to enter upon private property to intimidate the family of an executive of a company they disagree with. President John Adams sent thugs to “punish” opponents of his war and even those who dared insult his management style. Richard Nixon had a list of enemies whom he attempted to bring down the powers of the Government on. Abraham Lincoln had opponents jailed.

Anonymity is a tradition in American politics from Silence Dogood and Poor Richard to “an Englishman” to Publius, Cato and Brutus. I see no reason for the FEC to collect an enemies list for whoever gets elected. I will make this easy for the Progressives. My name is Earl Haehl, my blog is loboviejo.com, I am a Republican and I oppose any assault on the Bill of Rights.

Ultimately the fight is one that will go to the side with the most popular support–the Supreme Court has the tradition of Hugo Black opposing any infringement on the first amendment alongside the tradition of William O Douglas who had a much looser definition of necessity.

Standard
Free Society

After November–or Now

(c) 2012  Earl L Haehl – Permission is granted to redistribute this in whole as long as credit is given.  Book rights are reserved.

This is titled After November What?! The problem is that after the election lethargy sets in and everyone starts talking like the fan who calls into sportstalk radio after the BCS championship game to state that no wimpy SEC team that never played in Lincoln can call itself the National Champion. Everyone who has ever listened to sports talk radio understands this point. And there are thousands of fans that realize that bad calls happen and there is nothing that can take them back. They quietly wonder about next year and realize that there are five or six seniors for whom there will be no next year.

So every election night is like Super Sunday to the faithful—it just drags on like a game between two teams that have decent defense and no offense. And that is what makes it a spectator sport. Every election night, the losing side talks big about the next election. And a few make good on threats to move out of (city, county, state, country). And there will be a few for whom there will be no next time.

The reality of 2012 is that there are two major party candidates who are not defenders of the Republic. Romney does not understand and Obama is openly hostile. They believe in a system where they divide the spoils and they increase the influence of their respective parties. And they have a public that demands entitlements—yes, subsidies on agriculture, protective tariffs, and bailouts are all entitlements.

So I was writing this to talk about after November. What is going to happen? The party pros are going to be working on the next election, it’s the people who will be overjoyed or distraught. The pros are talking about marketing. What message needs to get out to win the election? How do they sideline the nuisances like Paul or Kucinich?

People are not going to be involved until they are needed—the strategy is to formulate the program and get people involved when there is work to be done. This is not a strategy—it is a habit. The establishment goes into sleep mode for three years, then expects to energize like Popeye slamming a spinach flavored AMP and take on the big boys.

Let’s look at it. The Democrats have been at this since Andrew Jackson lost the Presidency in the House of Representatives in 1824. Did he make a concession speech and go into Ostrich mode until September of 1828? No. He got off his duff and formed alliances. He wrote letters and met with leaders including Martin Van Buren who had organized Tammany Hall. 1828 was the year John Quincy Adams and the National Republicans went down in defeat. The main goals of Democrats are winning elections and governing. Since 1913 they have espoused a cogent progressive stance, and while out of power they still actively push their philosophy and agenda with a major consistency and do not sleep. In other words, campaign mode never ceases. And while they have been out of the White House more than in it since 1950 they have kept Congress with few exceptions.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have been in business since 1858 and, despite a run from 1861 to 1909 with two breaks for Grover Cleveland and one for Andrew Johnson, have been the minority party. If you look at American history, it is a hodge podge of defunct political parties—Federalist, National Republican, Populist, Progressive. The Republican Party may follow suit. The reason is that the Republicans eschew full-time politicians as a necessary evil. So the dilettante of the season with the program of the season is nominated—and surprise, it’s the nominee that the establishment wants except when there is a massive movement like Goldwater.

So how does the Liberty Movement take over a party. First, whether Obama or Romney wins in November the Republican establishment can best be described as moribund. It can hang on for one or two more elections, but it is looking back to the glory of Reagan without a sense of what Reagan was about. The Reagan years were not a significant dint in the march of Progressivism. What youth wants is a march to Freedom. And if they cannot get it, they will not put up with the Party.

FORGET NOVEMBER, START NOW.

I am of two minds on Romney. He is a dilettante who has a feeling of entitlement because his father was denied the nomination. His idea of foreign policy is the PAX AMERICANA. He supports the policies of Bush and Obama regarding “the war on terror.” His campaign has resorted to dirty politics for the purpose of making the Convention in Tampa a coronation that will lead to the conquest of Obama. The only reasons I can cast a vote for Romney are: 1) He would appoint some fairly vanilla justices to the Supreme Court whereas without a Republican majority in the Senate and even then a lot of them roll with “history.” 2) He would wake up a substantial segment of the anti-war movement that sleeps while “the chosen one” occupies the house at the juncture of New York and Pennsylvania Avenues.

Remember that our goal is not putting Romney in the White House. He would continue on the path to implosion at a slightly smaller pace—it is even likely that he will serve only one term, leaving Obama out there plotting to pull a Grover Cleveland. The more likely scenario is that a popular Democratic Governor will emerge. Both parties look for the (con)man on the white horse. Our goal instead is to advance the cause of the liberty movement, to bring down the Imperial Presidency and to restore the Republic with its limits on power and its individual rights against the tyranny of the majority.

There is the alternative of a “third” party which has been defined as any party not Republican or Democrat. American history is littered with third parties. The key is to capture the Party without getting sucked in. This means going precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state. It is better done outside of an election year, but you need to start where you are. Remember, the socialists never sleep, the establishment never sleeps. Unless we can take back the Republic we might as well sleep through it and line up for goodies.

THE REPUBLIC IS WHY REPUBLICANS EXIST.

This will not be an easy battle. No political battle is. But what is the alternative?

  • The alternative is an evergrowing government surrendering the sovereignty of the American people to the a world government under the United Nations. And it has been politicians who have given over the sovereignty that is not theirs to give.
  • The alternative is a copy of an East Bloc “Peoples Democracy” where your papers are being asked for.
  • The alternative is a national police force where the crimes are interpretations of vague concepts.
  • The alternative is an isolated Presidency, unfettered by the law and advised by commissars.
  • The alternative is an education system where the learning and literature of the past is thrown in the fire.
  • The alternative is the next generation (yet unborn) will have no knowledge of our history.
  • The alternative is a catastrophic failure of all the systems of government with no clue what to do other than beg from the Chinese.

Do we want these alternatives. Or do we want to spread the word, work for the future. Socialists believe in the inevitablity of their cause, that the end of history is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Long ago they abandoned the withering of the state—Marx was a crackpot; it was Lenin and Stalin who determined the course of history.

Are we ready to say no to that dialectic? Are we ready to say “YES” to the struggle for Liberty.

Standard
Free Society

Strategy toward a free society pt2 Alternatives

(c) 2012  Earl L Haehl – Permission is granted to redistribute this in whole as long as credit is given.  Book rights are reserved.

In my last missive in this string I went into reasons the President should be defeated. I harbor no illusions that this may not occur. I anticipated that Bubba Clinton would would not win in 1996 based on 1994 elections. My dislike for Bubba’s policies is exceeded by my respect for his political abilities. And I expected W Bush to go down in 2004—but he evidently learned the principle of keeping the war going through the election.  And it looks like Mr Obama is also learning this lesson.

So this is a range of alternatives to bring about freedom. The open revolution option is off the table—there may be a time when the level of chaos is such that it might become an option but I do not see it in my lifetime. We need to realize that we did not get in this situation overnight. See my article Smith to Keynes at: https://loboviejo.com/2012/03/08/a-quick-trip-f…es-and-krugman/

Alternative one: Vote for the Republican. This follows the strategy of a successful municipal campaign that took about five election cycles to get its point across. These things tend to be more dramatic on the local level so the message has to be emphasized. A large movement called “No Incumbents Without Cause” or some such that keeps tabs on officials is important.

Disadvantage: In this case it means Mitt Romney. The overall similarity between Obama and Romney is strong. Both are progressive who believe in big government and while Romney talks about reducing the deficit, he is unlikely to make any substantial cuts. The only difference I can see is that Romney would probably appoint vanilla judges as opposed to committed socialists.  Considering the performance of Justice Roberts in the Obamacare case, this may need reconsideration.

Alternative two: Vote for an alternative party. Gary Johnson (L) will be on the ballot in all states. A Green Party candidate is also available. Enough third party votes could force the election into the House of Representatives—the result would be dependent on who takes the house.

 Disadvantage: The last election decided by the House was in 1824 when John Quincy Adams was elected over Andrew Jackson—that year the political parties suffered meltdown. The last third party to receive electoral votes was the American Independent Party whose 1968 ticket (Wallace-LeMay) garnered 46. 1n 1912 the Progressive Party took second place with 88 electoral votes. In the 1992 election, Ross Perot’s performance in key Republican states gave Clinton the win. The minor parties played no significant role in 2000 despite Democrats’ contention about Nader. Harry Browne and Pat Buchanan took as many votes from Bush as Nader from Gore.

Alternative three: Do not vote. This is a principled decision as well. It is not my decision but it has a rationale that the lesser of the evils is still evil. Part of the theory is that extremely low turnout will discredit the electee and the real change comes from that.

Disadvantage: Low electoral turnout is a fact of life in the United States. Staying home to get energized may help but it may not translate into action afterwards. It is not really easy to get motivated by an event that is two to four years away.

Whatever the immediate strategy, it will probably not be enough to effect a change in and of itself. My next installment will be After November What?!

Standard
Free Society

Strategy toward a free society pt1 Where we stand

(c) 2012  Earl L Haehl – Permission is granted to redistribute this in whole as long as credit is given.  Book rights are reserved.
The Obama administration has to go.  While I still hold out some hope that the Republicans might come to their senses, the likelihood is that Mitt Romney will be the nominee.  Quite frankly, Romney’s views are not significantly different than Obama’s.  The only real difference I can see is who they would nominate to the Supreme Court of the United States.  Romney would probably defer to the American Bar Association and some Neocon groups in finding nominees.  This would result in social conservatives who are vanilla on liberty issues.
Romney would probably be unable to formulate a coherent legislative strategy which is not a bad thing in itself–liberty groups would have to push against progressives and conservatives alike, but that is not a change in status quo.
Obama is a committed statist.  He has, in addition to the enemies list most presidents have had, a kill list of those he has decided present a threat to the United States.
One of his re-elect campaign components is his “truth team.”  The following link is an example of what the team does to elevate the tone of the campaign.
Obama’s appointees to the Supreme Court believe in an extremely low threshold for infringing on speech.  They have also indicated a desire to return to the standards of US v Cruikshank on second amendment cases though not on first.  Kagan also declined to recuse herself from a major case involving a statute she had a hand in writing.
Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, currently up for a contempt vote, has as little regard for freedom as the President.  In the Reno Justice Department, Holder was aware of the Mt Carmel massacre and the mechinations to protect an FBI sniper from facing state charges.  He was chief deputy when INS agents and Deputy Marshals kidnapped, using armed force, a six year old Cuban child legally in the country without a custody decision by the court with competent jurisdiction.  (And no, Ms Reno, the child was not returned to his father but to the most repressive regime in this hemisphere.)  Eric Holder has lied to Congress with impunity while prosecuting Roger Clemens for the same thing.  When cornered, Holder’s general argument is that it is because his accusers resent a black man being attorney general.
Obama’s first chief of staff was an intelligence officer with the IDF during the first Gulf War.  Is this a serious conflict realizing that American interests in the middle east may not be the same as those of Israel.
In NDAA2012, Obama made a show of a veto threat because of provisions permitting the indefinite detention of Americans on US soil without habeas corpus or trial.  According to Sen Levin, the President had demanded the provisions.  To make everyone feel better the President said this administration will not use these provisions–he did not say he would not.  If reelected Obama will begin a new administration at noon on January 20, 2013.  Another provision of NDAA is the tacit repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits use of Army and Air Force personnel in civilian law enforcement.
Another blatant grab of federal power is an Executive Order which gives the President the power to seize industries when the incumbent judges that there is an emergency.  In other words, the order gives the current or future president a power the Supreme Court told Harry Truman he did not have.
There will be more to come including a discussion of alternatives.
Standard