Ron Paul's Farewell Address

I don't think that anyone who visits this site will watch this entire speech. But I thought I'd post it here anyway. If you only watch five minutes of it you will be five minutes better off than if you don't.

The day is approaching when a lot of people will wish they had paid more attention to what he said.

It's Beside the Point

For quite a while now I have been telling any Obama detractor who would listen that I think they are missing the point by focusing on our organizer-in-chief.

It's not to say he isn't a problem, because he is. But it's kind of like your cough is a problem when you have strep throat. When it comes to your health, the cough is really beside the point. And like Obama's damaging presidency, it's actually useful to a degree.

As Thomas Sowell has said; "Barack Obama is not so much the cause of our decline but the culmination of it." The ideas he holds are the problem and he is only the latest in a long line of people who push them. And so it goes with the candidates for the Presidency in this messy Republican primary season.

For many conservatives, the Mitt Romney candidacy is heresy. He isn't a conservative and therefore should not be the Republican nominee. True enough, but it's beside the point if your goal is to turn the situation around before it's too late. What passes for conservatism now-a-days won't fix the situation. Nor will electing a technocrat who thinks that the only problem with our government is that he's not in charge of it.

Then there is the newest "anyone but Mitt" candidate, Rick Santorum. Rick, whose trademark sweaters are only slightly more stylish than Jimmy Carter's were, is basically a clone of George W Bush. Bush was godfather (or the puppet, perhaps) of the neo-con version of what passed for conservatism in the eight years before people signed on to the dream of hope for leftist change. George made the situation worse during his turn, and so will Rick if he gets the chance. Between trying to pound his version of morality down the country's throat and attacking the people who favor individual liberty, he seems anxious to attack Iran for good measure. Whatever he would do as President other than those things would be beside the point of saving the currency or addressing the debt catastrophe.

So now let's turn to the last Republican in the "anyone but Mitt as long as it's not Ron Paul" candidate. The music seems to have stopped for Newt Gingrich's dance with the nomination, so he himself is beside the point. I thought about leaving him off the list, but darn it, it's just not fair that someone as grandiose as Newt should be left without a chair when the music stops. But alas, that's just the way it is. Life ain't fair, I guess.

Which leaves one last candidate, none other than Ron Paul. At least in his candidacy we finally find some honesty because Paul has been telling anyone who will listen that he himself is beside the point when it comes to addressing the situation we find ourselves in. That makes one person in this whole mess who finally "get's it." The most unlikely of candidates; he's too old, he's not a slick campaigner, he doesn't articulate the positions as well as so many others in his movement, and he has been proclaimed a million times as irrelevant by the media pundits. But, he "get's it."

He knows it's the ideas that matter if you are actually trying to do something other than just get elected. It's the ideas that turn into the policies that will finally address this situation. It's not the guy, it's the ideas.

And since the country has tried all the other ideas of the left and right, and none of them have done anything except spend, borrow and print money while making things worse, the country might finally be ready to try the only thing that has ever worked over the long term. Freedom, not intervention. It works everywhere and always. Government doesn't have the answers. You do.

And THAT is the point.

A Real Interview With Difficult Questions

Just a few minutes long, it actually lets you learn some things about the candidate and his positions.

An Open Letter to Dr. Ron Paul

Dear Dr. Paul,

I am a supporter and I have done all that I possibly can to promote your candidacy on my website and in personal discussions with friends. I've done that despite breaking my own goal of making the site about concepts and ideas rather than politics or people. I think it's that important because I think it may be too late if the country gets even one more term of Obama/Bush governance. And I want my freedom back.

Having said that, what the heck are your advisers doing to earn their money? Last night, the incompetents at ABC news finally gave you an opening that you should have made for yourself long ago. They asked you the ONE question in last night's debate that, if answered correctly and passionately, could ignite your campaign like no other single thing.

They asked you (I paraphrase) about how you could envision something different for the country if you were elected.  About what might happen to us if we elect you to the White House. It was the equivalent of teeing up a political golf ball for you.  AND YOU WHIFFED!

The time for telling the country what is wrong and what caused the problems is over. Not everyone "gets" it, but most of them never will, no matter how many times you repeat it. So it's time to change lanes, hit the accelerator and work on the "vision thing." Not your vision, but theirs.

Not the vision that your supporters have in their imagination. They "get" it. They have formulated it from what you say at the rallies and on the college campuses. You are preaching to the choir with them. It's the vision of the non-political types you need to inspire, those who don't have the time or the inclination to follow politics or economics because they are caught up in the struggle to live their everyday lives. They escape into sports or entertainment when they need a break from that. They need something to focus on in this election.

I didn't major in business or marketing in college.  In fact I didn't even go, but I know the difference between a feature and a benefit. You have been talking about features.  It's time to close the deal by emphasizing benefits. People buy cars or houses because they can envision themselves in them and "feel" how their life will improve if they sign on the dotted line.

People want to know how their lives will be better, or at least how they can expect them to be better after a few years of a Paul presidency.

Will they be more free? How can you say it so they can see themselves "out from under?"
Will they be more likely to get a job? They need to see themselves working again because of your policies.
Will they have a more predictable life?
Will they be able to plan again instead of merely survive the recession? Make them believe it because it's true, but not just because you say it.
Will the value of their houses begin to slowly rise again? Why?
Will they be safer from terrorists because you are president? Why?
They think Obama is an appeaser, you need to tell them the difference between his approach and yours and allow them to envision why they will be safer with your approach.
Will their crushing health-care expenses begin to get better? Tell them how and why. Convince them to envision why they will have better lives with your approach, not just why the current system or Obama-care is unacceptable.

These things seem obvious to me, but if they are to your advisers, it's not apparent, and I've seen every debate. I'm not a political consultant and this advice is free. But unlike most free things, it's worth something. At least I think so. So get the people you pay to polish up the concept and prepare you for tonight's debate. Or kick them out and do it yourself.

Your campaign needs to learn from two very different, but successful candidates. Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. They both sold hope. And the people were buying.

Now Obama sells resentment. And the "hope product" the people bought is being returned to the store. You need to sell them a product that actually delivers what his failed to.

You have been scolding the people for a long time, and they deserved it. But the "Dutch Uncle" message is old now, they need an inspirational pep talk now. It's past time to give it.

Tonight is the time to start.  It may be too late already, but you'll never get too far past your current support level with the old game plan. If it's too late for your candidacy, it's probably too late for the country. That is why I'm risking being so presumptuous as to tell a future President what to do.

Start now.  There isn't a moment to waste. The ball is on the tee and it's begging to be hit right down the fairway.

God bless you for your efforts no matter whether you take my advice or not.

Yours for liberty,
Grant Davies
American citizen

PS ---   Pick your son Rand as your VP. Do it soon. People want continuity when they sign on to a vision. They have their antenna up for what they perceive as cynical choices for geographic electoral advantage. You are 76, they want to know that they will still be free if you cannot continue. So pick Rand. It's bold and it will work. (He's going to be President someday anyway, might as well get him started now.)

Leno and Ron Paul on the Tonight Show - Conclusion

Here are the last three full segments of the interview we started yesterday. Please leave your "vote" on whether you found them useful in the poll on the right. It only takes a second and it's totally anonymous. I have received several comments that the information is more clear than in the debates, which relatively few people have watched.

Jay Leno Interviews Ron Paul on the Tonight Show - Part One

New poll results 12-19-11

After missing the Tonight Show appearance of Ron Paul the other night, perhaps because I haven't watched a late night talk show in a few decades, I stumbled upon these videos and it occurred to me that it was likely that many of you might have missed it too.  And also having been informed by readers that the series of interviews of Dr. Thomas Sowell that we ran here recently was well received, it seemed like a fit when I came across these YouTube videos of the interview.

We may be able to learn more about a candidate's positions in this kind of a setting than from a "gotcha contest" masquerading as a debate. Of course it has to be done correctly or it can turn into a circus or a love fest. After watching part one it seems this one is neither, so let's give it a go to see if we can learn anything of use.

Most of the Republican debates so far have been more political theater than anything else. It can be argued that on that level they have had some success. But I'm not sure that they have succeeded as well at being a device for shedding light on a candidate's positions and vision for leading the executive branch of our federal government.

Here is part one. Please let me know in the poll box on the right if you find it/them to be useful or enlightening.

You have to Balance Your Budget, the Government is not Different

As Ron Paul moves into a statistical tie for the lead in the Iowa polls a few weeks before the caucuses there, his son Rand Paul, US senator from Kentucky, rises on the floor to make a short speech about the balanced budget amendment to the constitution.

Speaking common sense (as he always does), he makes the case for fiscal sanity and the possibility of saving the country from committing monetary suicide. Absent dementia, even people who love big government programs (both on the right and the left) understand that you cannot go on borrowing money to pay for them indefinitely.

If Rand were running for President, he would be my first choice, but it isn't his time yet. So I keep hoping his father will gain the nomination and choose him as his VP candidate. It's a hope that seems far-fetched. But so did his father's chances just a few months ago.

Some would call me crazy, but I think they would win the election against Obama handily. Rand Paul connects with people on a personal level, even as his father's ideas connect in spite of his perceived grouchy demeanor.

No matter what happens in that election, before we can even think about regaining our lost freedoms, we need to avert a catastrophe that will certainly occur if the imbeciles in Washington don't seriously address the inevitable collapse of our monetary system caused by the massive, unsustainable national debt.

The budget deficits are the cause, the debt is the issue, and the spending is the actual problem. We must have balance to survive as a nation, just as your household needs balance for you to survive as a family.

Look Ma, No Teleprompter!

It's odd that one of the few places that someone can view an entire half hour of a logical presentation of what a candidate thinks and why is a you-tube provider from, of all places, Russia.

I was lucky enough to find this video on my Facebook feed by way of the Cato Institute. They posted it via a source named "Russia Today." It is a video of Presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul's presentation recently at the 29th annual Cato Monetary Conference where he gave a speech for the National Association of Home Builders.

You won't find any soaring rhetoric or a polished stump speech when you watch it. And you may notice as he speaks that he doesn't have a teleprompter or read from a prepared text. Once in a while he glances down at what must be the list of topics that he wants to cover in his talk.

I understand that the video is thirty minutes long and that now-a-days many of us do not have the time or attention span to watch it all at once, (I plead guilty myself) but so far, there is no law prohibiting you from bookmarking this page and returning as time allows. I promise that it will be worth it to know where a candidate stands even if you decide you don't agree with everything (or even anything) he says.

With the most important election in the history of the nation* less than a year away and the final selection of candidates even closer, why let the spin-masters at the big networks and/or the slanted and incompetent newspapers feed you the latest "horse race" statistics about the candidates in lieu of actual information about what they will do if they become President?

Knowing who made the latest gaffe or has the most baggage won't matter a whit if we end up choosing between two goofs again because we couldn't stand the other guy and our final choice was our "lesser of two evils" selection once more.



* Not because of who will be elected, but because it may be the last chance to change the philosophy of ever expanding government power before the final tipping point is reached. (If Romney or one of his ilk are elected it will be the same thing as picking Obama again, we will just reach the bottom at a slower pace.)

Fact Check Time as Paul Ties for the Lead in Iowa Presidential Poll

A lot of people, including much of the media, wish Ron Paul's inconvenient candidacy would just go away. But to their amazement, things don't always happen according to the way they have scripted them.

Here's a news story that points that out and examines Dr. Paul's actual positions as opposed to the nonsense being pushed by the establishment big wigs of both political parties. They are terrified that people might actually make up their own minds instead of being led through the election process by their noses in the usual manner.

It remains to be seen whether people will choose to regain some of their liberties or choose to complete the process of giving themselves over to government control and crony capitalism. But they deserve to know that they have the option.

One Year Out From the Election of Our Lives

Making predictions about elections is a fool's errand, but I'm just fool enough to do it anyway. And there is very little downside to doing so because no one expects you to be right and whatever you predict is forgotten almost as fast as it hits the page. So you can brag to people who don't care if you turn out to be correct and no one will remember if you are wrong. So here goes;

The mid-term elections of 2010 were only the opening battles in the political war for the future of the teetering republic. The people who wanted to reject Obama-care and what they see as socialism (or the direct path toward it) won pretty handily in those elections. But for them, it is only the beginning. And for those who favor ever larger and more intrusive government, it may have just been a temporary setback on the way to what they see as a more "fair" society.

From my perspective, the coming election is probably the last chance freedom loving people have before the point of no return is reached. Unless there is a repudiation of Obama and his followers next November, Obama-care will remain, the debt crisis (an actual crisis, not to be confused with alleged global warming and other manufactured bugaboos) will lead to the destruction of the currency and most other issues will shrink to insignificance. By my reckoning, the tipping point will have been reached.

Many may think that assessment is over the top. Clearly, I do not. So where do we stand with just a tad less than a year before we get to the fateful election of 2012?

The Republican party, by default the last chance to stop the descent, is currently in shambles. Deservedly so. They have been partners with the Democrats in the decline. Differing only on details and scope, but never on the philosophy that government exists to fix societal problems, they share the blame. (There are a few exceptions, such as Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and a handful of newly elected Tea Party favorites.)

So far, none of the current crop of Presidential candidates on the Republican side have inspired a majority of those who will ultimately choose the candidate to rally behind them. In my opinion, if they nominate Mitt Romney or his ilk, even if he is ultimately elected, the Republican Party is finished. And if so, I say good riddance. That opinion will not endear me to Republicans but most of them aren't in love with people like me anyway, so, oh well.

So here are the choices. Since Obama is not getting a primary challenge, it's him against one of the following:
Romney, Gingrich or Paul.


Santorum and Huntsman never were a factor. Gary Johnson, a legitimate candidate, was never allowed by the media to be considered so he never was a factor either. Michelle Bachmann's star was burnt out in only a few short weeks, and only shone at all because she wasn't Romney. Rick Perry led the opinion polls for the briefest of moments and also because he wasn't Romney. His popularity has been on a slide that coincides almost exactly with the amount that is known about him. The more people know, the less they want him to be President.

Which leaves Herman Cain. He has already started to fade, and despite what the talking heads and political know-it-alls say, it's not because of the allegations that he made some ladies uncomfortable. It's because of the "Rick Perry syndrome", the more people see of him the more they know Cain is not ready for the biggest job in the world.

Cain continuously displays a lack of knowledge about important topics and has already used up his allotment of forgivable gaffes and backtracks. His 9-9-9 plan is a non-starter among Democrats and Republicans in legislative reality and was only useful as a debate tactic. His use of it to answer any question, no matter how unrelated, has worn itself out.

For Cain, the questions will only get tougher as the process advances and his lack of depth on the issues will only become more apparent. Only dreamers think he wouldn't be thrashed by Obama in debates and in the general election. Even the hapless Republicans aren't suicidal enough to nominate him. And that was before he all but announced yesterday that he is actually running for VP or even a cabinet position.

Therefore I make the following prediction, something only a fool like me would do with a year left before the big choice is made. Romney will not be the nominee. He has an excellent chance to win in New Hampshire early, but that will be the high water mark of his candidacy. Most Republicans don't want him as the nominee, he is too much like Obama.

That means it's between Gingrich and Paul. And it's not the worse choice for Republicans to have. It will be a clear choice between being comfortable with a change of captains for the foundering ship of state (from Obama to Gingrich in the hope that we can get free from the reef which will surely sink us otherwise) or the choice to take the uncomfortable but necessary option of returning to a constitutional course that leads to a completely different way of governing ourselves than the current generation has ever known.  And make no mistake, the Paul choice is uncomfortable for most people.

It's usually human nature to take the comfortable option. But it's my hope that, as a nation, we still have the ability to step out of our comfort zone and do what we must do to regain our liberty. Whatever people choose, now is not the time for comfort, so if they pick Gingrich, I hope it's not for that reason.

So even as I make these predictions, I don't know what the American people will choose to do, either with the Gingrich/Paul choice or the Obama/Republican candidate choice. But I do know that we have reached decision time, not just on candidates, but on the whole governing philosophy we will move forward with. And no matter what we choose, things will never be the same as they are now.

In that regard, Obama was finally right about something when he talked about change coming. One year from now things are going to change, in the election of our lives.

Puzzling Over the Lefty Love-fest for Ron Paul

A curious phenomena has manifested itself lately as left wingers continue to fawn over Presidential candidate Ron Paul. This blog has chronicled it before.

Jon Stewart -who pretends to be a journalist on a comedy show- started the whole thing when he decided he couldn't afford to be left a block behind the parade of his fans who were defecting to the Paul way of thinking on a number of issues. And it has continued with the three liberals (two of whom also pretend to be journalists) in the video below as they fawn over him in a way usually reserved for Democrats only. It's quite amazing, to me anyway.

Perhaps they guess that they can safely pander to some of their Democratic viewers and a whole slew of anti-war and anti-federal reserve college students. Some of whom might actually vote for Paul in a one on one match-up with the totally inept failure that Barack Obama turned out to be, because they see him as unlikely to get the Republican nomination anyway. It also doesn't hurt that they know that tons of Neo-Con Republicans are outraged at anyone who gets any accolades at all from liberals like them. ( For those who want to delve deeper into these issues and if you want to learn more about politics, accredited online
colleges have information on classes.)


I discount the idea that they fawn over him because they actually would like to see his candidacy succeed or him actually become President so he can begin the long process of dismantling their beloved welfare state.

So I'm puzzled by it, but it's not worrisome to me since I spend most of my time in that state.

Why the Cain Ascendancy is Good News for Ron Paul

The manner of coverage of Presidential elections by the so called news media usually focuses on the "horse race" aspects of the campaigns. And for someone who reads as much political crapola as I do, I try to ignore that nonsense as much as is possible. But it is fascinating, even if it should be irrelevant, so I plead guilty to some bottom feeding here. I'm never as far above the fray as I'd like to be, indeed I fail more often than I succeed. So let's descend together and take a look at the horse race for a bit.

The current President seems to have decided on his strategy for trying to be the worst President to ever be re-elected. It's nothing novel in politics, but rather an old tried and true plan. You just give stuff away as fast as you can and see how many of the simple minded or morally corruptible electorate you can attract in an attempt to turn your re-election chuck wagon into a bandwagon.

In the last few days Obama has circumvented the constitutional process once again as he announced that he intends to change the rules for underwater home owners so they can re-finance their mortgages with taxpayer's money if they were fortunate enough to have had their obligations purchased by the fascist* entities Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

And today it was announced that he would exercise executive authority to jigger the system for student loans so that he buy the student vote that he enjoyed for free the last time out. He figures these younger voters can be bought for a few dollars a month as long as they were dim witted enough to have not learned a thing in college during the time since he was elected and this cynical move was made.

It remains to be seen if it's that easy but he has history on his side since they fell for all that nonsense about hope and change last time. So we shall see, but it didn't work out so well for the Illinois Governor (Blaggo) Obama so enthusiastically endorsed because that guy is on his way to a stretch in the federal pen despite having employed the exact same strategy.

But as long as we're talking about campaign strategy and such instead of addressing concepts and ideas, (which is what I usually at least try to aspire to) let's take a look at what has happened to the early front runners in the Republican primary race as they rise and fall faster than the stock market.

No one of sound mind who actually wants real change from the disastrous course we are on is a true Mitt Romney supporter, but he has a lot of votes from the "anybody who can beat Obama" crowd. So even though he can be found as "Obama lite" on your presidential beer menu, he has seen some amount of steady, if unenthusiastic, support in the polls. He is first choice of the left leaning media for certain.

But among rational people the game plan has been to find an "anybody who can beat Romney" candidate to take Obama on. So let's look at those who have occupied that spot and what has happened to them since they were "scrootened" by the media when they reached the top.

First there was Michelle Bachmann who dropped like a rock in the polls after a few gaffes and a little more scrutiny. She is currently at about 1% support.

Then there was Rick Perry who zoomed to the front of the race as soon as he announced his candidacy but before he was scrootened in the debates. He has dropped to  fifth place as he tries to figure out if he can regain some sparkle with a fresh look at Obama's birth certificate, a strategy meeting with nut job Donald Trump, and a new stab at the flat tax proposal that Steve Forbes championed way back when.

Leaving aside all those who were hopeful they could be the "Anybody but Romney" candidate when their candles flickered out before they could be seen, (Tim Pawlenty, Huntsman , Santorum, etal.) we have next "flame out" candidate Herman Cain as the front runner.

Herman is a nice guy (as I have written about) who is clearly in over his head in his first at bat against political major league pitching. Realistically, his 9-9-9 plan is a non-starter after being scrutinized by both the left and the right and his early gaffes (mostly forgiven so far), bizarre new TV ad, and lack of funding and professional staff even in the early primary states tell me that he will be an easy target and I predict he will not make the final cut when all is said and done and the actual voting starts.

If I am correct and he fades, what will the final four look like? Assuming Romney doesn't totally flop (one can only hope) in New Hampshire and Iowa, that leaves Perry, Paul and old standby Newt Gingrich to oppose him.

Many pundits have dismissed Gingrich and Paul long ago and might have a hard time backtracking, but one thing is for sure, Paul is in it for the long haul because he has tons of money coming in from tens of thousands of small donors in the so called "money bombs", has extensive organisations on the ground in almost all the states, and he has the most enthusiastic supporters of anyone left in that group. He also has the track record of consistency and willingness to take on the media from both sides of political spectrum. Additionally, he is a known quantity. No surprises are coming because everyone already knows who he is, what he stands for and that he won't be flip flopping, because he never has before. So there is no "flash in the pan" dimension to his candidacy that would allow a fade away like the others.

Paul also has the advantage of being the most different from Obama and his ideology of any other candidate. His campaign against Obama will provide America with a choice of directions that will be more stark than any in modern history. A chance to choose between big government socialism or constitutional Americanism. 

Predicting elections and political trends is a fools errand. So even though I have been called a fool on more than one occasion, sometimes correctly, I won't prove it this time by doing that. But I will tell you what I think might happen now that things are starting to get closer to actual elections. My fools errand scenario goes like this;

After Cain proves only to be  the "leader du jour", and the voting starts, Paul will benefit from lower expectations by the media as Romney fades away after disappointing the higher expectations he never deserved. Perry never shows broad enough support in (or at) the polls except from donors and people start to look at Newt as a possible resurrected savior. Could it end up to be Paul vs Gingrich on "Super Tuesday?"

Politics is strange. Maybe not as strange as this scenario, but strange nevertheless. A Paul win would provide clarity in the general election. And clarity is something I think the country is ready for.

Potential employers and the stock market love clarity. But personally, I for one would just love to know whether it's time to rebuild the country or start stocking up on shelter supplies and hoarding precious metals.


*One good definition for the word fascism is ; an economic system where property is privately owned but government controlled.

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.

Ron Paul, a Truly Dangerous Man

"Paul is dangerous to the status quo. And that's a reason not to ignore him." So said John Kass, a columnist at the Chicago Tribune, in a piece which appeared in yesterday's Sunday paper.

Many of you who don't get the Tribune missed his comments. But since his column is one of the few things in the "Trib" worth reading, no one could be blamed for not subscribing to it. I often wonder why we do.

The article is worth your time for a few reasons, but the most compelling of them is that Kass goes where most journalists refuse to go. He actually covers a story that only is a story because of the purposeful manner by which it is being ignored by the vast majority of the media. Heck, even lefty comedians pretending to be journalists (John Stewart) have noticed the "ignoramuses" cover-up attempts.

It's amazing that "journalists" who see stories in almost everything that isn't important, can resist the temptation to write about a trend that definitely is a story. I suspect it's because they find it unsettling to their worldview. After paying so much lip service to "change" that wasn't, they seem terrified at the prospect of actual change.

And "statusquoers" at both ends of the political spectrum have good reasons to be afraid. If Ron Paul or someone like him gets elected, they will lose the power they have, to ideas, instead of merely to other people. And power lost to ideas is decidedly more difficult to regain. Just look how many hundreds of years it took to destroy the constitution and the ideas behind it.

To have it back (as it was written) would end their power to meddle in even the most minute details of our lives for the rest of their lives. So the stakes are high, and the political poker game may be down to the last bet. In ignoring Ron Paul and his ideas they are trying to put on their best poker face.

It's a helluva way to go "all in." But it may be their best strategy.

Be sure to read Kass' column, it can be found here.

Progressives Should be Careful What They Wish For

Here is a  factoid  that many political pundits would like to become an actual fact. In the coming campaign for President, "Ron Paul can't win."

I'm here to tell you folks, like most of the things these talking heads pontificate about, it's nonsense. I'm not here to tell you he will become President, or even for that matter, the nominee of the Republican Party. (Which is a much more difficult task.) I'm only telling you that he can win.

And believe it or not, I am beginning to think that he might actually do both.

In fact, in my opinion, the biggest obstacle that he must overcome is the notion that he is unelectable. For any number of sensible sounding, but inaccurate reasons, many people have become convinced of that.

And now that the less suicidal liberals among us (think Steve Wynn and his recent anti-Obama rant) have begun to desert the current President in ever growing numbers they are looking for someone to vote for before their US currency turns into the Monopoly variety. And guess where they have begun to look? If you answered Newt Gingrich or Tim Pawlenty, go get your dunce cap.

Ron Paul would seem to be an odd choice at first glance. Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson might be a better choice for them, but it seems that most of them have never heard of him. Particularly since the main stream media is terrified they will like him a lot if they ever find out who he is, so they have excluded him from any mention at all and managed to keep him out of the last introductory style debate.

But they can't do that with Ron Paul anymore and it's getting ever more difficult to marginalize him after many years of doing their best in that pursuit and largely succeeding. He has been right on too many things.

So some of the darlings of the left have discovered him and apparently they like what they see and are talking him up on their pretend news shows. They also like it a lot that people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh oppose Paul's candidacy.

But they better be careful of what they wish for because while they love his anti-interventionist foreign policy and his constant expose of the continuing failure of the "war on some drugs", they will be aghast at his never wavering attempts to dismantle the nanny state once he gets into office.

It should be interesting to watch how they twist in the wind and scramble to back off their fawning admiration for "Paulism" when he is going head to head with the hapless Barack H Obama in 2012. A really interesting video is below which might shock some of you no matter what you think of the people praising Paul.

Two candidates of totally opposite political theories and records going against one another at the precise time in history that the country needs to decide if it is going to camp or just fold up the tent.

This just might be the best political theater in our lifetimes. It's what I'm wishing for and I'm certainly not being careful about it.

Ron Paul Announces an Exploratory Committee - Rand Paul Comments on Video

The two best parts about this interview with Senator Rand Paul are where he explains just how healthy and robust Ron Paul is these days, and especially where he just tears Donald Trump to shreds. Absolutely classic. Enjoy:

By Wes Messamore- Guest Commentator
Editor of  The Humble Libertarian

Matthew and Paul - A Morality Debate

Normally the above title might be a Sunday sermon topic, not the lead-in to a remarkable U-Tube video of a politician being interviewed by a "journalist" on a lightly watched cable TV station. No, this is not a bible story or a sermon. I'll leave that to the professionals in the pulpits. It's "above my pay grade" as the President once said in dodging a question.

Instead, it is my observations on the above noted "interview" which actually turned out to be a debate between a leftist TV personality, Chris Matthews, and a libertarian MD turned U.S. Representative, Ron Paul of Texas.

If you just watch it once quickly it seems like a typical political interview, each side promoting their own philosophy. One extolling the virtues of big government intervention while the other champions individual liberty as the best route for solutions to societal problems. That is until you realize that each side is sparring for a moral high ground which transcends policy arguments.

Matthews uses his usual style to start things off. Namely, using the pretense of friendly banter even while ridiculing the intelligence of his "guest". He rather skillfully seems to embrace a historical person (Barry Goldwater, who presumably his guest also embraces) in order to show a common bond between them. However, once that is past, he claims it was only a youthful dalliance on his part before he grew up, got smart and grew a heart. He then asks Dr. Paul why he never got similarly smart and empathetic even though, he too grew older. I have to admit, Matthews has raised insult to an art form. (Keep in mind, even bad paintings are regarded as art by some.)

After the stage was set, both parties settled down to a dialog which I found fascinating. Matthews was clearly trying to discredit his guest and tie him to unpopular notions and historical figures, all to no avail in my mind. But then again, I do have a philosophical horse in this race.

In the end, I'm sure most people saw what they wanted to see and no minds were changed. But if you really never knew who Ron Paul was, (other than his portrayal by both Democrats and Republicans as some kind of kook who rambles on endlessly about the evils of the Federal Reserve) now you will at least have some actual idea of why both political parties in this country are terrified that the common sense American values he champions have caught on with a "Tea Party" movement which, so far, no one seems to be able to pigeon hole.

In my opinion, they have much to be fearful about. At least I hope so, because the realisation of the immorality of taking things (at gunpoint if necessary) from one group and giving them to another, (to whom they do not rightfully belong) might finally become the undoing of the kleptocracy this country has drifted into, even with all the best intentions.

A hat tip to Wes Messamore at The Humble libertarian for the video below.



Previously posted short clip of a similar interview of Dr. Milton Friedman on this blog.