In the October 30, 2008 Third Party Presidential Debate between Bob Barr (L), Chuck Baldwin (Const.) and Ralph Nader (I), one attendee posed the question, "Why don't you all combine forces?" A quite logical question, perhaps thought of by some before. Barr arrogantly quipped back during his response that he would be willing, only if, "they would join my campaign." And thus, the strong growing third party movement in the United States will gain votes this year, but will most likely divide 3-4 percent between these three candidates. If the third parties could gain a combined 15% this year, the election could hold within its ugly confines a moral victory for a real hope in 2012.
Interestingly enough, Chuck Baldwin had an intelligent position on the future of the third party movement. Quick to reference libertarian American statesman Ron Paul, he mentioned that if the current Freedom movement could combine under a single banner and influential leader, a strong third party would be viable. While Greens and Libertarians would have much to disagree on, especially on domestic policy, a Liberty Party would give leverage to America's civil rights and anti-war campaigns.
Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader held a press conference as the third party candidates in mid-September and pledged to follow four distinct planks of the same platform. The four points are as follow:
We Agree
"Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.
Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.
The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.
The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds."
Such a remedy for America is highly needed and a good start to combine efforts. Once established, a new party can now emerge with the wisdom and good will of these disparate groups in mind. The Liberty Party would give America a new chioce, a party which focuses on details of the issues, rather than the personalities of dim-witted politicians.
And for those of libertarian thought who fear a compromise with others who advocate coercive socialist-oriented public programs; it will only be a matter of time before we will convince our fellow good intentioned liberty seekers of the rightness of the cause. For they know that "freedom is popular" and that while we differ on ways to achieve freedom, the fact that one party could represent that dream would be a much needed improvement on the world stage.
So for young and old, liberal and libertarian alike, it is time to unite our efforts and form a Liberty Party which will enumerate the values we all hold dear.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Czech Parliament to Vote on Radar Agreements
According to CTK (the Czech news service) and Respekt.cz, the Czech Parliament today meets to discuss whether to approve two radar agreements previously signed with the United States this summer in Prague. One agreement allows for the stationing of a radar missile defense system in Brdy, Bohemia, about 80 km southwest of Prague. The missile defense system is planned to be connected with 10 nuclear interceptor missiles based in neighboring Poland. The other agreement, called SOFA, is centered on the legal conditions on stationing American soldiers in the Czech Republic. The last foreign soldiers to occupy the Czech Republic were Russian troops, who finally withdrew in 1990 after invading and occupying the nation since 1968. The ability to pass these two agreements in Czech Parliament is the main factor whether America's Central European missile defense system will come about.
Unlike the Munich Agreement in 1938, where neither the Czech government or Parliament was consulted, these votes on the radar agreement symbolize the nation's representatives last chance to claim Czech sovereignty before being made into a defacto American military colony.
We can only hope that the tragedies of 1848, 1938, and 1968 are avoided by the People's last resort against a government willing to sell out the entire nation. For rather than an overhaul of national sovereignty, if the votes come out NAY, 2008 could be as symbolic as the declarations of independence and liberty in 1918 and 1989. Now, is the decisive time.
Unlike the Munich Agreement in 1938, where neither the Czech government or Parliament was consulted, these votes on the radar agreement symbolize the nation's representatives last chance to claim Czech sovereignty before being made into a defacto American military colony.
We can only hope that the tragedies of 1848, 1938, and 1968 are avoided by the People's last resort against a government willing to sell out the entire nation. For rather than an overhaul of national sovereignty, if the votes come out NAY, 2008 could be as symbolic as the declarations of independence and liberty in 1918 and 1989. Now, is the decisive time.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The Genius of Freedom
As the behemoth known as the federal government doubled in size since 1997, it is no surprise that Americans have incrementally lost more freedom than was even conceivable in the past century. Yet, as Election Day 2008 draws nearer, few have made the connection betwen the centralization of economic and political power and the loss of human rights in America.
Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom once wrote, that the "free-market as a system of economic freedom and a necessary condition for political freedom," (4) must be preserved at all costs, despite well-meaning popular demands for state intervention in education and healthcare. In Friedrich A. Hayek's masterpiece The Road to Serfdom, he dismisses the impracticality of socialism while dissecting its covert attack on liberty. In brilliant prose, he lays out the true meaning of nineteenth-century liberalism, highlighting its success and goal toward complete individual liberation. In a clear and concise form, Hayek makes a strong intellectual argument for the preservation of the free-market and through this, autonomy inherited through individual and local means. Pointing to the authoritarian nature of socialist means to achieve ends, it becomes ever too obvious to the reader that Hayek's defense of liberty remains of the highest moral perogative and ultimately necessary to achieve a free society.
While the aims of socialism are often noble and emotionally endearing to all, its vision of justice and equality falls short of its goals due to the coercive means which must be used to attain its ultimate goals. Instead of revolutionizing society with a change of consciousness, (the only true method of change), socialism relies on ancient iron-fisted dictatorial methods. At the barrel of a gun, one, a victim of success, is coerced to relinquishing his or her rewards of hard work to give to those incapable in their present capacity of attaining such wealth. Like the Church tithe of Old Europe, the government sets moral absolutes on the People. Hayek claims that while such "values" are imposed upon the People, "they must become their beliefs," (153) essentially limiting free thought and giving the State the absoluteness of divinity in all of its dealings. Such a road is dangerous, especially considering our present governing coalition, who mandates war, torture, and imprisonment not only in America's local communities, but also in distant nations.
Furthermore, the government mandated idea of collectivism, so-termed "group rights" undermines the autonomy of the individual and rejects the reality of personal decision making which affects all interactions in life. It is this collectivism which has created centralized power and threatens our free existence.
Whether the group consists of "the poor", "the middle class", or the "corporate CEOs" (now seen in the $2 trillion+ Bank Bailout Bill), our fredom to personally choose our own fate is destroyed. The fact that "discrimination between members and nonmembers of closed groups" (214) now exists poses the political reality we face. It is thus in these type of aimed conglomerates that "collectivists must create power - power over men wielded by other men - of a magnitude never before known" (144) which wildly discriminates and has no tolerance for liberty or independence of thought. Hayek describes its effects as that which "creates a degre of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery" (146). Thus strikes the death knell for a free society.
Thus, forces beyond the individual have controlled American society since the creation of The Federal Reserve System and the never ratified Sixteenth Amendment in the fateful year of 1913. Even worse, many of America's trade agreements (G8 summits, WTO, GATT, NAFTA, etc.), limit competition, discourage free trade, and structure society along collectivist, protectionist lines all ot the detriment of the creativity and ingenuity of the individual. Hayek describes this "'sharing' of markets" as "the [conglomerate] control of investment and development of natural resources" (229). In fact, with the rise of the multi-national coroporation, little has been done in government's most essential economic function, regulating monopoly.
Without competition, freedom is limited and starved for new outlets for creation. Today, our government discourages ingenuity, progress, and new ideas. In the interest of preserving the status quo, it now rejects freedom and adheres to a fascist ideal of the organization of the most personal and intimate workings of society. Hayek writes, "the machinery of monopoly becomes identical with the machinery of the state, and the state itself becomes more and more identified with the interests of those who run things than with the interests of the people in general" (198). Thus, is the present tyranny of The Establishment.
While the abolition of the State, (and along with it the demise of The Establishment), may seem an answer to these problems, anarchy does little to work as an impartial arbiter, a watchdog for personal liberty. A limited government is essential to preserving the rule of law, and holding all accountable to their actions. But, to safeguard liberty and give a framework to empower the People, it is necessary for the People to independently obtain their own material supply and social well-being in battling the tyranny of the established "aristocracy". For when government is no longer impartial, but rather a "group rights" conduit for power, its essential purpose is thwarted and more liberty is lost. For it is individual rights, "the system of private property [and private production] is the most important guaranty of fredom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less than those who do not" (103). While it may seem incredulous that such rights defend the liberty of the landless and propertyless masses, their ability to decide their rent, employment, personal purchases and even where they choose to passt heir precious limited time all effect the future of these independent entities, and ultimately, the destiny of the People.
It should not be ignored that we all derive our life from the land of Earth, and without the ability to freely navigate and acquire its bounty, our benefit from its vast resources will be diminished and the natural state of man will be denied. Total control of the Earth by the monopoly, and in particular the coercive Establishment is the gravest threat to humanity.
Thus, such developments have now distorted the noble Enlightenment-logic behind liberalism of the "Golden Age" of thought embodied in our republic. Now, a collusion of high and mighty powers control our future. More frightening, as our monetary currency further loses its once impeccable legitimacy, the threat of inflation rips at the heart of freedom and prosperity for a large majority of our citizenry. For Hayek warns of the oppression of poverty; "It should never be forgotten that the one decisive factor in the rise of totalitarianism on the Continent (1940s Nazi Germany) [...] is the existence of a large recently disposessed middle class" (209). More than ever, America's backbone, the middle class, faces annihilation of liberty; economic, political and personal. Our very concept of liberty njow hangs in the balance.
Yet, as Ron Paul once said, "freedom is popular" and Americans' thirst for it and its rewards will never be satisfied. And rightly so! On the brink of the New World Order, we must think about what we value. Faced with freedom or security, many will clamor for security. But, even its guarantee of being "taken care" of is far from the reality of life. Rather, those that do not desire entitlement to physical goods or services, but focus only on the need for freedom, will fight for the good will of all.
Thus, socialism "must be regarded as a reactionary movement, the decisive change which has taken place in our time and the source of mortal danger to everything a liberal must value" (200). For if we truly believe in the freedom of our actions and contributions to one another, we must vote with liberty as the first and foremost of our aims.
Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom once wrote, that the "free-market as a system of economic freedom and a necessary condition for political freedom," (4) must be preserved at all costs, despite well-meaning popular demands for state intervention in education and healthcare. In Friedrich A. Hayek's masterpiece The Road to Serfdom, he dismisses the impracticality of socialism while dissecting its covert attack on liberty. In brilliant prose, he lays out the true meaning of nineteenth-century liberalism, highlighting its success and goal toward complete individual liberation. In a clear and concise form, Hayek makes a strong intellectual argument for the preservation of the free-market and through this, autonomy inherited through individual and local means. Pointing to the authoritarian nature of socialist means to achieve ends, it becomes ever too obvious to the reader that Hayek's defense of liberty remains of the highest moral perogative and ultimately necessary to achieve a free society.
While the aims of socialism are often noble and emotionally endearing to all, its vision of justice and equality falls short of its goals due to the coercive means which must be used to attain its ultimate goals. Instead of revolutionizing society with a change of consciousness, (the only true method of change), socialism relies on ancient iron-fisted dictatorial methods. At the barrel of a gun, one, a victim of success, is coerced to relinquishing his or her rewards of hard work to give to those incapable in their present capacity of attaining such wealth. Like the Church tithe of Old Europe, the government sets moral absolutes on the People. Hayek claims that while such "values" are imposed upon the People, "they must become their beliefs," (153) essentially limiting free thought and giving the State the absoluteness of divinity in all of its dealings. Such a road is dangerous, especially considering our present governing coalition, who mandates war, torture, and imprisonment not only in America's local communities, but also in distant nations.
Furthermore, the government mandated idea of collectivism, so-termed "group rights" undermines the autonomy of the individual and rejects the reality of personal decision making which affects all interactions in life. It is this collectivism which has created centralized power and threatens our free existence.
Whether the group consists of "the poor", "the middle class", or the "corporate CEOs" (now seen in the $2 trillion+ Bank Bailout Bill), our fredom to personally choose our own fate is destroyed. The fact that "discrimination between members and nonmembers of closed groups" (214) now exists poses the political reality we face. It is thus in these type of aimed conglomerates that "collectivists must create power - power over men wielded by other men - of a magnitude never before known" (144) which wildly discriminates and has no tolerance for liberty or independence of thought. Hayek describes its effects as that which "creates a degre of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery" (146). Thus strikes the death knell for a free society.
Thus, forces beyond the individual have controlled American society since the creation of The Federal Reserve System and the never ratified Sixteenth Amendment in the fateful year of 1913. Even worse, many of America's trade agreements (G8 summits, WTO, GATT, NAFTA, etc.), limit competition, discourage free trade, and structure society along collectivist, protectionist lines all ot the detriment of the creativity and ingenuity of the individual. Hayek describes this "'sharing' of markets" as "the [conglomerate] control of investment and development of natural resources" (229). In fact, with the rise of the multi-national coroporation, little has been done in government's most essential economic function, regulating monopoly.
Without competition, freedom is limited and starved for new outlets for creation. Today, our government discourages ingenuity, progress, and new ideas. In the interest of preserving the status quo, it now rejects freedom and adheres to a fascist ideal of the organization of the most personal and intimate workings of society. Hayek writes, "the machinery of monopoly becomes identical with the machinery of the state, and the state itself becomes more and more identified with the interests of those who run things than with the interests of the people in general" (198). Thus, is the present tyranny of The Establishment.
While the abolition of the State, (and along with it the demise of The Establishment), may seem an answer to these problems, anarchy does little to work as an impartial arbiter, a watchdog for personal liberty. A limited government is essential to preserving the rule of law, and holding all accountable to their actions. But, to safeguard liberty and give a framework to empower the People, it is necessary for the People to independently obtain their own material supply and social well-being in battling the tyranny of the established "aristocracy". For when government is no longer impartial, but rather a "group rights" conduit for power, its essential purpose is thwarted and more liberty is lost. For it is individual rights, "the system of private property [and private production] is the most important guaranty of fredom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less than those who do not" (103). While it may seem incredulous that such rights defend the liberty of the landless and propertyless masses, their ability to decide their rent, employment, personal purchases and even where they choose to passt heir precious limited time all effect the future of these independent entities, and ultimately, the destiny of the People.
It should not be ignored that we all derive our life from the land of Earth, and without the ability to freely navigate and acquire its bounty, our benefit from its vast resources will be diminished and the natural state of man will be denied. Total control of the Earth by the monopoly, and in particular the coercive Establishment is the gravest threat to humanity.
Thus, such developments have now distorted the noble Enlightenment-logic behind liberalism of the "Golden Age" of thought embodied in our republic. Now, a collusion of high and mighty powers control our future. More frightening, as our monetary currency further loses its once impeccable legitimacy, the threat of inflation rips at the heart of freedom and prosperity for a large majority of our citizenry. For Hayek warns of the oppression of poverty; "It should never be forgotten that the one decisive factor in the rise of totalitarianism on the Continent (1940s Nazi Germany) [...] is the existence of a large recently disposessed middle class" (209). More than ever, America's backbone, the middle class, faces annihilation of liberty; economic, political and personal. Our very concept of liberty njow hangs in the balance.
Yet, as Ron Paul once said, "freedom is popular" and Americans' thirst for it and its rewards will never be satisfied. And rightly so! On the brink of the New World Order, we must think about what we value. Faced with freedom or security, many will clamor for security. But, even its guarantee of being "taken care" of is far from the reality of life. Rather, those that do not desire entitlement to physical goods or services, but focus only on the need for freedom, will fight for the good will of all.
Thus, socialism "must be regarded as a reactionary movement, the decisive change which has taken place in our time and the source of mortal danger to everything a liberal must value" (200). For if we truly believe in the freedom of our actions and contributions to one another, we must vote with liberty as the first and foremost of our aims.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Iraq: Catch Word for U.S. Imperialism
In an epic Presidential battle for the hearts and minds of all types of Americans, one place, one word sums up much of the nation's angst: Iraq. It has become a symbolic battle which some believe is necessary to expel the marauding Muslim, others see it as a death knell for civility and the values set forth in the U.S. Constitution. But, despite what many may think of the War in Iraq, besides a few peppered acknowledgments and shallow gests of grandstanding, both McCain and Obama refuse to deal with the heart of the issue, and instead use Iraq as a con-game on the American people.
While Obama consistently remarks on his long-time opposition to the War in Iraq, he believes a war and occupation in Afghanistan is a good thing, and that the bombing of civilians' homes and restricting their freedom is necessary. But, apparently, to Obama the freedom of Iraqis are now worth more than the freedom of Afghanis. Thus, is the shame of power politics and the ever-changing standpoints of our so-called "top dogs" to deal with the real issues. At best, Obama has come off as a hypocritical naysayer with peace not at the heart of his agenda.
Similarly, McCain has also railed against unnecessary government spending, but has repeatedly refused to cut excessive and wasteful defense spending. Rather, the wars abroad to him are a necessity for the People, and while he rants against abuse of the taxpayer in the ever stasi fields of education and healthcare, he fails to carry those same principles over to America's most damaging and damning policy, Foreign Policy.
Like the members of the CFR, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderberg Group, these globalists will stop at no costs for political gain with little adherence to values or Constitutional guidelines. Instead, they look forward to plunging the United States into more wars, so that the private military contractors will continue their lucrative adventurism in the Middle East.
Hardly have we mentioned the other countries so deeply tied up and help captive by American policy. These are names of great nations, who once themselves may have had imperial ambitions. These are nations who are major players on the political-financial stage and their names are hallmarks of our own history.
These nations are Germany, Japan, Czech Republic and Poland, South Korea, and Indonesia. Many more are within in their ranks. These are only a few of the 130+ nations in which American military is stationed at over 700 bases.
And while America mindlessly squabbles over "victory" in Iraq, our national wealth and good name are being polluted by the likes of Halliburton and KBR in the heart of Central Europe. The real question is when will the U.S. get out? Isn't time for a more sensible and realistic foreign policy?
My greatest fear is that the answers to these questions will come too late.
While Obama consistently remarks on his long-time opposition to the War in Iraq, he believes a war and occupation in Afghanistan is a good thing, and that the bombing of civilians' homes and restricting their freedom is necessary. But, apparently, to Obama the freedom of Iraqis are now worth more than the freedom of Afghanis. Thus, is the shame of power politics and the ever-changing standpoints of our so-called "top dogs" to deal with the real issues. At best, Obama has come off as a hypocritical naysayer with peace not at the heart of his agenda.
Similarly, McCain has also railed against unnecessary government spending, but has repeatedly refused to cut excessive and wasteful defense spending. Rather, the wars abroad to him are a necessity for the People, and while he rants against abuse of the taxpayer in the ever stasi fields of education and healthcare, he fails to carry those same principles over to America's most damaging and damning policy, Foreign Policy.
Like the members of the CFR, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderberg Group, these globalists will stop at no costs for political gain with little adherence to values or Constitutional guidelines. Instead, they look forward to plunging the United States into more wars, so that the private military contractors will continue their lucrative adventurism in the Middle East.
Hardly have we mentioned the other countries so deeply tied up and help captive by American policy. These are names of great nations, who once themselves may have had imperial ambitions. These are nations who are major players on the political-financial stage and their names are hallmarks of our own history.
These nations are Germany, Japan, Czech Republic and Poland, South Korea, and Indonesia. Many more are within in their ranks. These are only a few of the 130+ nations in which American military is stationed at over 700 bases.
And while America mindlessly squabbles over "victory" in Iraq, our national wealth and good name are being polluted by the likes of Halliburton and KBR in the heart of Central Europe. The real question is when will the U.S. get out? Isn't time for a more sensible and realistic foreign policy?
My greatest fear is that the answers to these questions will come too late.
Third Party Presidential Debate
Yesterday, on October 23, 2008, two third party presidential candidates Independent Ralph Nader and Constitution Party Candidate Chuck Baldwin debated REAL issues for the REAL America.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Futility of War
There exists a perfect image,
In one's own mind.
Often it's a place most like Paradise, bathing in the Sun,
Untouched by the small raptures of man,
Forever lush in its wealth, its bounty.
Thus is the futility of war.
For in war, no such image exists
All is shattered by the poison of a bullet's lead
Wars unspeakable, unaccountable by all,
Hidden from the TV screen, only referred to in past tense,
Yet they grow and multiply without pretense.
Even Obama calls for war,
Constant expansion, humanitarian issues, what more!?
To rob the People of our bounty,
And to send it off to another Sadami.
All while old man Brzezinski plans over Afghanistan,
Stuck in the panic fans,
They bombard it with a tsunami.
In one's own mind.
Often it's a place most like Paradise, bathing in the Sun,
Untouched by the small raptures of man,
Forever lush in its wealth, its bounty.
Thus is the futility of war.
For in war, no such image exists
All is shattered by the poison of a bullet's lead
Wars unspeakable, unaccountable by all,
Hidden from the TV screen, only referred to in past tense,
Yet they grow and multiply without pretense.
Even Obama calls for war,
Constant expansion, humanitarian issues, what more!?
To rob the People of our bounty,
And to send it off to another Sadami.
All while old man Brzezinski plans over Afghanistan,
Stuck in the panic fans,
They bombard it with a tsunami.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
