A Short Response to Last Night's Non-Debate

By Gary Johnson

America’s challenges and the crises we face demand a real debate — not dueling Phil Donahue acts carping at one another over who is worse.

I defy anyone who watched the debate to identify a plan from either the Republican or Democrat that will achieve a balanced budget. Behind the fuzzy math and the quibbling, there was nothing more than a commitment to continue the status quo — with at most a few minor adjustments. We don’t need adjustments. We need a fundamental reduction in the role and cost of government, and both Romney and Obama are fundamentally big-government guys.

We watched a blame game over immigration, while the problem festers with no solution in sight.

We heard quibbling over whose government plan would have saved GM better, but nothing about why the government should be bailing out any company at all.

And we heard cheap shots about government-run health care from two candidates who both support it. Where is the reasonable argument that government shouldn’t be running health care in the first place?

On the attacks in Libya, the debate we must have is not over what we call it or when; we need a debate over why we were there at all.

There are clear choices in this election, but they weren’t on the stage tonight.

Gary Johnson - The Other Guy

People who read this blog regularly know that I'm not a supporter of either of the two political parties that have a stranglehold on American politics.  My problem with Republicans is that they are too much like Democrats. And my problem with Democrats is that they are too much like Democrats.

It's also no secret that I think that the Obama Presidency has been a nightmare for our liberties and our country.  By comparison, I expect a Romney Presidency to be only a bad dream.

One more term for Obama and his ideology may very well put the country into an unrecoverable slide into the historically familiar condition of top down rule of the elitists over a second class of subservient drones. It's not a stretch to say that a return to a "bread and circuses" world, not unlike that of the Roman Empire, is almost a certainty. We're very nearly there already.

With almost half of the population being a net recipient of government "largess" while the rest pay for it, we are perilously close to the tipping point. At 51%, it's game over folks. The majority of voters will never vote against cash in their own pocket, no matter who else's pocket it comes out of. So it's for certain that I oppose the re-election of Barack Obama and the "progressive" agenda.

Does that mean I support Mitt Romney? Hardly. Anyone who thinks Romney will "save America" merely by being elected over the worst President in history is suffering from a delusion shared with Democrats and Independents who thought everything would be better with GWB in retirement. Oh, it's good that Bush and the neo-cons are out of power, but things are hardly better. In fact they are worse. It's rather like favoring plague over small pox.

So, do I recommend voting for the above named "third choice", Gary Johnson? Well, maybe..it depends on where you live. Huh?

I live in a city I call, Unfortunately, Illinois. My town is not worse than most, but my state is. And one of the reasons that Illinois is in a hot race for "worst in the nation" is that it's run by crooked people, mostly Democrats. But Republicans have shown that they are plenty crooked too whenever they get a chance to run things. The point is, Illinois is going for Obama. Probably in a big way. It's a blue state and people vote with their political tribe no matter what. The feeling here seems to be, "They're all crooks, I'll vote for my band of crooks."

So here's the deal for me: if the polls show (I hate polls, BTW) that Romney is within realistic striking distance of Obama, I'm going to do what I have never advocated before, vote for Romney in order to dismiss Obama and the progressives.

But, that "ain't gonna happen." So I'm going to do what I've always done, vote for what I want. And I want to be free again, or at least more free than I am now. So I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson. I agree with 95% of what he is running on, and right now I can't think of the 5% I disagree with.

I advocate that you do the same, depending upon where you live. If you live in a state that's "safe" for Romney, or "safe" for Obama, and you value your freedom and that of your children and grandchildren, you should vote for Johnson as well. If you live in a battleground state, well, you have the short term fate of the country in your hands. If you want to live in France, please move there, don't bring the Euro-misery here.

From my perspective, the ideal outcome for this election would be for Obama to be dismissed, Romney to be elected, (because a third party candidate will not be elected) and Johnson to get a huge number of popular votes. That will push both parties to take the freedom movement of smaller government seriously in the elections of the future. And time has almost expired on the greatest experiment in political history.

Here is a video of Gary Johnson on the Daily Show. Jon Stewart is pretty funny in this spot and you can get an adequate feel for what Johnson is trying to accomplish.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Regaining Our Rights by Blacking Out the News Media

News media bias has been debated for a very long time and much of the debate has centered on whether bias exists in the first place. Of course, the people in the media have either denied it or said that only the amount that can be attributed to individual human frailty existed and in any case was balanced out by the sheer numbers of contributors.

Even though they do their best to paint those who claim a left leaning bias as loony conspiracy theorists, many of us are not buying that line. We have seen first hand that it exists in many forms, from the recent crazily slanted coverage of the two separate political movements known as the "Tea Party rallies" and the "Occupy everywhere camp outs" to the way the Republican presidential candidates must debate the "moderators" before they can debate each other. It's so obvious it pains me to watch as some folks twist themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise.

I wouldn't classify the problem as much more than an annoyance for the most part. After all, there are still enough alternate sources for the news that people (if so inclined) can figure things out without too much trouble. The Internet has broken the monopoly the networks had on national news. Even relatively small blogs like this one have an impact because there are so many of them.

Having said that, the most insidious type of bias is the kind that is used to decide what is and what isn't news and then use that tactic to decide for us things we need to decide for ourselves. The news blackouts are the most dangerous bias the "news" media uses to usurp our liberties.

It's not some grand conspiracy, it's the natural result of the wishes of people who really desire to shape events rather than report on them. And why not just ignore people and events that do not fit our narrative? It's human nature. But whatever the reason, and whether or not you excuse the people who practice the deceit as "absent malice", the effect on your rights is the same.

What liberties am I talking about? The one I have in mind is the right to choose our own candidates for office.

Back in the now defunct USSR, elections for office were held on a regular basis. But since there were only approved and selected candidates on the ballot, (often only one) very few bothered to vote. People knew it was a sham. And in this country, the turnout for elections is abysmal for similar if not exact reasons.

People simply don't turn out for elections when they hold candidates of both parties in equal contempt. The candidates are selected in a process that is so convoluted that the most common practice when casting one's ballot is to select the lesser of two evils. Having to choose between Barack Obama and John McCain in the last Presidential election is all the evidence you need to convict the current system.

But even the crazy order of primaries that give out of proportion power to some states at the expense of the rest of us is becoming less of a hazard than the news media blackout of certain non-approved candidates. We are allowing a few networks and pollsters to dictate to us who our choices will be and we do so at our own peril.

If we continue to allow this to happen we might be dumber than those in the "Occupy Wall Street" protests who cannot explain what their beef is or what they want to be done about it. And that number seems huge.

One well credentialed candidate (Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico) is excluded from the polls and then denied access to the Republican debates because he isn't polling high enough. It's a purposeful blackout. Another candidate who wins most of the straw polls and consistently polls in third place (Ron Paul) is systematically ignored in the vast majority of "news" stories that follow such debates. Also a purposeful blackout.

These tactics are designed to deny us the choices which we are entitled to and turn them over to the kingmakers who would be the target of the OWS protests if they were sober. It's all legal of course, and should be. But that doesn't mean we ought to stand for it. It seems as though the left leaning media has reconciled itself to their chosen one, Barack Obama, losing the White House in 2012 and now is turning it's attention to cutting their losses by choosing his replacement.

Empowering ourselves by blacking out the media itself, at least intellectually, may be what we need to do as a first step toward turning the country around and heading back toward the place it used to be. It was never perfect, but it slowly has become dreadful.

It's our country. No matter whom we choose to lead us, let's choose them ourselves.

Presidential Candidate Governor Gary Johnson Answers The Debate Questions

After CNN decided that they would invite non-declared potential candidates to their version of a Presidential debate while excluding a seriously qualified and formally declared former two term New Mexico Governor, I decided that someone deserved some answers. That someone is you, the American voter.

Of course Johnson deserved to be in the debate (such as it was), but more importantly, the country deserves to have the chance to find out about the positions of ALL the candidates, particularly those that champion the kind of positions that are entirely different from the ones that got us into the potentially fatal mess we currently find ourselves in. It is, after all, the purpose of debates.

I don't know whether the party that nominates people like John McCain, Bob Dole, George W. Bush or the rest of the cookie cutter big government stiffs they usually nominate has enough sense to start bailing out the sinking ship of state by nominating a sane candidate for a change, but it cannot happen unless you know something about the candidates and vote in the primary, or voice your preference to pollsters and friends.

A few of the candidates actually believe in the US Constitution and the limits on government found in it, but I'd be shocked if many people knew who they are. If they do, it's certainly not because CNN or any of the other left leaning "news" outlets are interested in having people decide for themselves.

So I'm doing my part by posting this video so you can find out from the source how Governor Johnson would have answered those questions if he had been given the opportunity at the time. Then you can decide whether you have the time to actually watch it or the inclination to pass a link to it along to others on your email lists so they can do an end-around on a media that doesn't want you to be exposed to some straight-forward answers to the questions others were asked.

Alternately, you may decide that the Governor is a nut and CNN was correct to filter your information. At least it will be your call, not some liberal decision maker at CNN who is terrified that people will be informed about a candidate who can attract significant support from other Democrats. Governor Johnson has that kind of appeal to Democrats, who elected him twice in a state that has twice as many of them as Republicans.

The old Republican party will give you a Romney, a Pawlenty or some other "same as before" candidate if you let them. Then you can decide whether you want the fast road to ruin that Obama offers or a slower painful death with another GWB type.

Not a great decision to have to make.

Gary Johnson's Campaign Protests CNN Debate Exclusion, You Should Too

The following post was taken from the Gary Johnson 2012 website. 

 

In my opinion it makes the argument very persuasively that the people who make the decisions at CNN have made a rather large error by excluding the former Governor of New Mexico from the upcoming Presidential debate, the very purpose of which is to give exposure to the candidates, their positions and their track records so that people can decide if their candidacies merit consideration. 

 

It's bizarre to say the least. Unless of course CNN is trying to mold the Presidential field instead of report on it.  

After you read it and all the excellent points and historical facts that are contained in it you can also watch Governor Johnson being interviewed about the subject on Fox News in the video below. In my opinion it's worth your time to learn about someone who is quite different from any other candidate of either party. 

 

If CNN won't do it, this blog will take up the job. It will serve them right when this blog gets bigger than their network because of their hubris.

June 6, 2011, Santa Fe, NM – A senior advisor to former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson’s presidential campaign, Ron Nielson, today sent the following letter to CNN concerning Governor Johnson’s exclusion from the June 13 New Hampshire primary debate:

“The Gary Johnson for President campaign has been overwhelmed over the weekend with phone calls and emails all asking the same question: How is it that Governor Johnson is being excluded from the June 13 New Hampshire presidential primary debate?  Of course, they are asking the wrong people.

“Having heard nothing to the contrary from you, the debate sponsors, we assume the decision not to invite Governor Johnson was based upon your “objective” polling criteria.  Certainly, you have to apply criteria.  We get that.  However, the idea that inclusion – or exclusion – from a critical debate in a critical state will be based entirely upon polling arithmetic, seven months before a single vote is cast, is not only absurd, but counter-intuitive to the very purpose of a debate.

“At this point in the process, a candidate’s ranking in the polls is almost entirely a factor of name identification, news coverage by outlets such as yours, money, and/or previous exposure on the national level – including that gained from previous unsuccessful campaigns. In short, relying solely on polling numbers at this stage simply grants an enormous advantage to “establishment” candidates – and excludes a successful two-term governor whose express purpose in running is to give Americans an alternative to business as usual, and who actually has a track record to back it up.

“Given that poll rankings at this point are largely the result of decisions by the elite media, such as CNN, about who and what to cover – and to whom to give precious air time, it is more than a little ironic when those same media use those poll numbers to deem certain  candidates deserving and others not.  That irony is not lost on Republican primary voters who most assuredly do not want media elites pre-selecting  their candidates for them.

“Consider:  In early 1991, then-Governor Bill Clinton was in 11th place in presidential primary polling with 2%.  By November of 1991, he was only at 6%,  a fact which led one commentator to later observe:  “If the front runners in the 1992 Democratic primary had been successful in excluding all the “non-serious” candidates, Bill and Hillary Clinton would have never made it to the national stage.” The “frontrunners” in 1991, by the way, were Mario Cuomo and Jerry Brown.

“And there is this excerpt from a memorandum sent to supporters by the Mitt Romney campaign in 2007: “Carter, Dukakis, and Clinton were all governors of small states who began their campaigns with low national exposure and went on to win their party’s nomination. At this point in 1975, Carter was polling at 1%; in 1987, Dukakis was polling at 1%; in 1991, Clinton was at 2%.”

“In short, applying your criteria, the ultimate nominees in several modern elections would likely not have been invited to a CNN debate.  And in each case, they were Governors of relatively small states who simply had not enjoyed the advantage of the national media’s attention – a rather precise description of Governor Johnson.  The polls were not predictive then, and they are not now.

“The fundamental unfairness of relying solely on polling criteria aside, there are obvious problems with the polling criteria themselves.  Even the most extensive and professional political polls carry margins of error from 3-5%.  When reporting polls in which candidates are separated by margins within that range, the news media invariably points out that those candidates are essentially tied or the race is “too close to call”.  While we have not seen your precise calculations, based on the polls we have seen, we have to assume that the “margin” between Governor Johnson and some of those who were invited to the debate were equally “too close to call”.  Yet you made a call – and decided to exclude Governor Johnson.

“Adding to the mystery of your arithmetic is the simple fact that Governor Johnson was not even included in much of CNN’s own polling during the month of April – one of the time periods you used to determine eligibility.  It is hardly surprising that a candidate would not fare well in a poll in which he was not included.

“Debates play an important role in the American political process.  They uniquely provide an opportunity for voters to hear, see, contrast and compare candidates – on a level playing field uncluttered by funding, name I.D., past notoriety and public relations machines.  Rather, they are about credentials, ideas, philosophies and policies.

“By those measures, a two-term Republican governor from a Democrat state — who turned a deficit into a surplus, vetoed 750 bills, and successfully governed from a philosophy many, many Republicans are today seeking – deserves a chance to participate in the June 13 debate.  Early and largely irrelevant polling arithmetic certainly should not trump the obvious:  Gary Johnson has a record, a resume and the proven accomplishments to merit inclusion among any serious gathering of Republican candidates for president.
“We respectfully ask that the decision to exclude Governor Johnson be revisited, and that the American people be given an opportunity to hear a voice on June 13 that otherwise will not be heard.

Sincerely,
Ron Nielson
Senior Advisor
Gary Johnson 2012”





Don't be timid about passing a link to this story around, it's not right to allow these news organizations to pick and choose what we hear. Particularly when we need to pay attention like never before.

Who is Gary Johnson and Why Would He Run For President?

I read a poll yesterday that claimed that well over half the people in this country could not name a single Republican Presidential candidate. While most of the people who read this blog are not among them, I still have doubts about whether even half of you know who Gary Johnson is.

A few days ago I wrote about the Presidential aspirations of a self promoting slickster with a super bad comb-over who has garnered some early poll support without ever having been asked any important questions about what he believes on the important topics of the day. It was a semi-serious piece about a semi-serious candidate.

The main thing that made it enjoyable to write was it gave me a chance to point out that he has a cat sitting on his head. Times are tough and amusement costs are up so it had a good "chuckle to expense" ratio.

But now it's time to turn our attention to a much more serious but less well known candidate who announced his campaign this morning and launched his website. Gary Johnson is known fairly well in libertarian circles but even though a huge number of Americans are actual libertarians, they do not self identify as such and don't keep abreast of the happenings in those circles.

Essentially they are just regular Americans who think it's better if we have a smaller government, lower taxes, less crazy regulations and fewer bailouts of crony capitalists. They generally think we should help our neighbors ourselves and otherwise just mind our own business. They think we should live within our means, personally and governmentally. In other words, they belong to the Tea Party even though they never joined. Like me, most of them were members for decades before it was even invented.

One of the most well read posts on this site was one written back in August of 2010 and was titled Maybe Gary Johnson For a Change? It went mini-viral when Gary mentioned it on his Face Book page. It was a short introduction to the former Governor of New Mexico (1994-2003) who was making noises about a run for the top executive job in the country and testing the waters by traveling the country making appearances at speaking engagements and on TV news programs.

So today is the big day for him to announce his run, and a good day for other people to learn something about him. I'll do my part by giving you the links and you do your part by educating yourself and your friends about him so you can better compare his positions and track record to the more well known candidates to come.

You don't have to endorse him. It's too early for either of us to do that. Too many things will be happening in the coming months as more people enter or exit the race and hopefully each of them receive a better vetting than our current President received by the so called press in this country.

Barack Obama was a little known, just elected junior Senator and former community organizer who jumped into the political scene on the strength of an ability to read a teleprompter and look cool to uninformed screaming college girls and other people of still  undeveloped intellectual curiosity. He got elected because people "hoped" he wasn't George W. Bush. (It turned out he actually was.)

Who ever heard of Billy Bob Clinton a year before he ran for President? Who ever heard of a peanut farmer named Carter a year before he was elected and ruined the country? So in my mind, name recognition isn't all it's cracked up to be. (For those who want to delve deeper into these issues, this site has info on political science classes: http://www.online-colleges.org/ )

It's better if we don't get Trumped this time out. That's why I'm asking;  Who is Gary Johnson and Why Would He Run For President?

A Liberal Translation

A few days ago I wrote a piece called "Maybe Gary Johnson for a Change." Interestingly, it went "mini-viral" as measured by the humble number of readers who usually read this blog. About 725%  more "unique visitors" came to this page to read it than the average number. Quite a jump.

Most of them came because the piece was "linked to" on Gary Johnson's facebook page. And although about eighty five people left some kind of comment there, very few were left here. That is not unusual among my readers (I get a lot of private email about my posts) and it's fine with me. In this case it's just as well in some ways, because many of the comments left on his page had nothing whatsoever to do with the main theme of the piece I wrote.

But a few comments were left here, and I always appreciate the feedback. One of them, left by an anonymous poster, got me to thinking about what people say vs what they really mean.  So it seemed like it might be fun to dissect it a tad and see what it looked like. Particularly since the anonymous commentator seemed fairly riled up about what he/she perceived to be my points.

So I'll take a quick stab at translating the comment by Mr/Ms Anonymous poster from a language I think may be "Liberalese" into plain English. (or at least my version of it)

First the comment in it's entirety, then my translation, then some observations for the poster.

Anonymous said...

What utter nonsense. The only "contrast" that most Republicans want to control is Obama's skin color, and any of you who draw a Social Security check or endulge in Medicare can kiss my a** about socialism. Nixon was the biggest "socialist" president in our history by bill signed into law, so get over yourselves, and the difference between Romneycare and Obamacare was that a white guy from the Republican party did not put his stamp of approval on the national plan (Love ya Mitt for yet another 180 on your policies). Gary is a neat guy, and progressive for a Republican. He'd get shot to he** in two seconds by the know-nothings for his views in a party which, outside of New Mexico, forces moderation out of any discussion, and makes even the "mavericks" kiss their reactionary rear-ends...

Translation:
"What utter nonsense" = I disagree.

"The only "contrast" that most Republicans want to control is Obama's skin color" = most Republicans are racists.

"and any of you who draw a Social Security check or endulge in Medicare can kiss my a** about socialism." = anyone who has had their money taken away (at gunpoint if necessary) to be put into ponzi scheme retirement and medical insurance programs without an "opt out" provision cannot ever oppose socialism if they ever get some of their money back out of those schemes, without having to smooch the anonymous person's booty.
 
"Nixon was the biggest "socialist" president in our history by bill signed into law, so get over yourselves," =  I didn't like Nixon and somehow that has something to do with you.
 
"the difference between Romneycare and Obamacare was that a white guy from the Republican party did not put his stamp of approval on the national plan" = white guys are bad and Republicans would support nationalized health insurance if they had thought of it first.
 
"(Love ya Mitt for yet another 180 on your policies). " = I don't like Mitt Romney.
 
"Gary is a neat guy, and progressive for a Republican." = I like Gary because he wants to decriminalize Pot.
 
"He'd get shot to he** in two seconds by the know-nothings for his views in a party which, outside of New Mexico, forces moderation out of any discussion, and makes even the "mavericks" kiss their reactionary rear-ends.."  = Republicans in all places except New Mexico are reactionary and like their booty kissed too.
 
So here are my comments to the "anonymous" poster now that his/her comments have been translated.
 
Dear Poster,  
I am not a Republican and I don't spend time defending them against charges against them, fair or unfair.
But if you know any Republicans, maybe friends or relatives, I suggest you take a hard look at them and decide if they are racists. If they are, tell them you think they are and "un-friend" them. Of course it will be harder to do anonymously.
 
You may want to give some thought to all Obama's policies to see if there are any YOU disagree with, and then decide if you oppose them because of the color of his skin. It's worth contemplating.
 
Nixon was a big government liberal. Which party owns his legacy is of no importance to me. Other big government liberals include all recent Presidents of both parties.
 
 Government interference in our lives, (most notably in your post, government run health insurance)  is more than a bad idea no matter which party proposes or administrates it.
 
Nannystate-ism is different than socialism. The government owning automobile companies and banks and mortgage companies is socialism, and the current government oligarchy are socialists. Both of those "isms" are destructive to freedom, and freedom is the issue of this blog.
 
My essay was about the country finally beginning to have the great debate on the proper role of government in a free society. It really wasn't about Gary Johnson the person, but the type of person the country might need for a REAL change. Not just a shift change of the clowns in the circus.
 
If you would ever like to exchange some ideas on that topic, please return and participate again, even if anonymously.
 
Thanks for reading,
Grant Davies

Maybe Gary Johnson for a Change?

"Change" has gotten a bad reputation lately as a large number of citizens have awakened from their fantasy world sleep, come to their senses and have thus realized that nothing has really changed in the way things are being operated by the agents of the now infamous "Hope and Change" mantra.

Change? Government is not more transparent, things are not more fair, attitudes among different racial groups have not suddenly improved because a multi-racial man was elected President, politicians still do what they want to do instead of what the people want them to do, and the recession (depression?) has not ended. It's a partial list for sure. And the few things that have changed, have changed for the worse, not the better. The latter list is at least as long as the former.

Real change, not just a change of which clowns are running the circus, is what those newly awakened people are thinking about. I have been preaching (ad nausem) about having a fundamental change in the debate in this country for so long it makes my friends and relatives weary.

But instead of blaming Barak Obama and the leftist oligarchy currently in power for lurching the country towards socialism, I would opine that they deserve our gratitude. (in a perverse sort of way) They have adjusted the contrast control on the national TV set in ways they never intended. The contrast between the traditional values of earlier Americans vs the way we are actually living has become stark enough to change that debate to the only one which really matters in determining the outcome for the American experiment in republican governance.

Although a media stuck in a Utopian fairy tale re-run never mentions it (or gets it), that debate has become  more clear. Namely, as Dr. Walter Williams puts the question in framing that debate, "What is the proper role of government in a free society?"

Oh, many in the political sciences, academia and a few other largely irrelevant groups have debated it one way or the other for generations, but only now has it become the great debate of the people.

Tea Partiers, although not a formal or organized group, set the debate in motion by embracing the only core notions that bind them together. You can be sure that people counted among that group disagree on a whole range of issues. But the notions they have rallied around are; a smaller government that taxes less and is more fiscally responsible, and a less intrusive government that leaves people alone more often to solve their own problems in a free market. They agree that government should not be the agent to pick winners and losers or subsidize supporters while punishing objectors.

It's not actually a group, but a movement. And it belongs to no political party although there is no room for it's ideology in the current Democratic Party. (And recently they have punished Republican old-schoolers at the ballot box quite visibly.)

Naturally, some other groups oppose their ideas, but now they are being forced to address them even as some among them are trying to avoid it by attempting to demonize those they oppose as racists and ignorant rubes. This time it's not working, so now the actual debate has begun.

Which brings us to the question; Who is Gary Johnson and why does it matter who he is?
It matters because he is different in many ways, and in his philosophy, he is definitely different than the type of politicians being held up as future leaders by the establishment types of both of the two (so far) relevant parties.

 Even though he works within the framework of the Republican Party, he isn't a favorite, or even on the radar screen of those who control that party. He probably scares them to death because they are kindred spirits with liberals in as much as they also believe that government exists to solve societal problems. They merely differ in their approach and selection of  the "problems."

Does anyone really think that Mitt, Sarah, Newt, Hillary, Barak or any of those old party types will actually shrink government's role in our lives if they lead the next government? I don't. They may rearrange the Legos, but the toy Tower of Pisa will still eventually topple over and our lives will need to be picked from the rubble.

I am not suggesting Gary Johnson is the answer, time will tell. But I do know the question. Do "we the people" want actual change or just the continued decline into ever larger government controlled chaos?

One of the greatest thinkers and writers of the 20th century, C S Lewis, once wrote; "We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."

Someone like Gary Johnson, someone from outside the establishment, might be the greatest "progressive" in that context, and must come to the fore, or we shall miss what might very well be our last chance to live our lives as we see fit, not in some Orwellian nightmare of what Thomas Sowell calls the Vision of the Anointed.

Watering the LiberTree

Ever since my fast forwarded, semi-retirement began in 2008, I have found a good deal of pleasure in planting and maintaining the landscaping around the house which we own, but still pay the local government a huge amount for the privilege of living in. And even though planting low maintenance flora is my goal, even that standard requires quite a bit of moisture if you want it to thrive.

And so it is with the propagation and nurture of concepts and ideas as well. To that end, I constantly comb the internet for interesting information, ideas and people about which to write. Recently in an article written for this page, I referenced an interesting person and his blog. His name is Wesley Messamore and his blog-site is called The Humble libertarian. I recently included a link to it among the others I recommend in the right hand column of this page.
My idea of a good blog-site is one where you can learn something you didn't know before and where there is some original, quality content to agree or disagree with. It's what I try to deliver here, and what Wes & Co. succeed in doing over at The Humble libertarian.

Without really knowing much about Wes, I was intrigued by the grasp he seems to have on issues concerning liberty and the talented writing he and his contributing editors publish on the site. The reason for my intrigue was his apparent age. Even with only a good ball park estimate of his age (he has since informed me of his two decade plus presence among us) I had concluded that I have been bloviating about freedom issues for longer than he has graced this earth. In fact, as my old Berghoff lunch-mate “JO” used to say after encountering a whiz-kid trader on the floor, "Hey, I have kids older than him, Hell, I may even have tennis shoes older than him!"

I'm not sure of the path this young man took to his arrive at his beliefs, or how he got there with such eloquence so quickly, but as the saying goes, the fruit always falls close to the tree, so I would guess it has some connection to his parents or family in general.
As I remarked to Wes in an email, "While most people your age have Levis, you seem to be wearing freedom genes".

On a personal level, our own offspring have a fondness for liberty that can probably be traced back to the long love affair my wife and I have had with freedom, (one second only to the one with each other) so the concept of passing your beliefs along to your children isn't peculiar only to Chicago Democrats or others beholden to the machine for their daily bread. (Even Republicans are Democrats in Chicago if they want to eat.)

The left long ago recognized the obvious; that the young people are the ones who matter when planning for the future. So they seeded many of the government schools and universities while the frog was cooking and today we are seeing the fruits of that farming. From my perspective, the fruit is bitter, millions upon millions of “twenty somethings” embracing the politics of personality and swooning at the prospect of big government “solutions” to societal problems. Short on analysis but long on adoration of the anointed, they are at least partially responsible for the latest crop failure of American governance.

But there are always some weeds in the lawn, and the emergence of a growing number of freedom minded folks of that same age demographic gives me some un-Obamesque hope for actual climate change, of the political variety. And if it can change at anything like the rate the dandelions multiply in my lawn, my children and grandchildren still have an outside chance.

Tonight, Wed. Dec. 2, Wesley will be interviewing the former Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson on his web-blog radio program. By the time this is posted, it will be concluded but you can replay it anytime afterward from a link at his site. I snitched a few U-Tube clips from his blog and have added them below so you can see what this former Governor accomplished in his eight years using small government principles in the real world instead of merely making speeches and organizing communities to demand more government programs. Maybe we can all learn something about a guy few of us have ever heard of before.

Although probably not delighted to be described as weeds, young freedom spokesmen need to be "watered" to grow, so even though I think Wesley has already been baptized in a much more important ceremony, I'm going to pour some cyber water on his cyber head right here in an effort to irrigate the tree of liberty with something other than the blood of patriots.