RedStateEclectic

LP VP Candidate on the War on Drugs

One gets the feeling that the now Johnson-Gray 2012 Libertarian Party ticket is a different sort of LP ticket.  Self-made millionaire with 8 years of experience as Governor of New Mexico + a U.S. Navy JAG veteran who served as a Judge in California. 

 

I hope Johnson and Gray can get a place on the stage of the Presidential debates.  Win or lose (and I think they’ll pull votes from both the Republican and Democrats), it would be refreshing to see something different, and a true debate about ideas.

LLE

In the Era of Unaccountable Permanent War

Read the fascinating story of the cheap lies you are being told to make you feel patriotic in the face of unjust wars:

It is now clear that CIA officials were blatantly misrepresenting both bin Laden’s role in al-Qaeda when he was killed and how the agency came to focus on his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Read The Truth Behind the Official Story of Finding Bin Laden.

Would YOU Support Ron Paul….

…with your vote, your time, and your dollars?

It seems that one of the beefs against Ron Paul supporters in the larger Republican Party—and to be fair, with many Paul supporters, it is a legitimate beef if you look at it from the perspective of the Party—is that if/when Ron Paul loses the race, those supporters will bolt for somewhere else (Gary Johnson), not vote at all, and will not even be helpful to other Republican candidates.

I get the concern of the Party regulars in that regard, and indeed, I’ve encouraged Paul supporters in Nebraska to find other candidates who they could support--locally or at the state level—and get involved.  A willingness to get involved beyond the very visible Presidential race might give party regulars at least some pause in writing them off as one trick ponies.

I tell friends that it’s best to avoid the public “No one but Ron Paul” attitude.  In our own minds, we may or may not take that position—but to publicly state it sends a very visible message to the larger GOP—people who many of us are still going to need to at least nominally win over if we want to move through the convention systems—it sends the message that we’re not a team player.

But when we’re asked whether we will support the ultimate nominee of the Party, perhaps we ought to turn that question around, and ask: Would YOU support Ron Paul if he’s the nominee of the Party?    What result will we get from hard core Romney supporters (there’ve got to be a few of them around, right? )?  I suspect that question will throw them back on their heels, and we’d get an answer like “I intend to support the nominee of the Party.” 

In reality, many of those people would only nominally (if that) support Paul for President.  They wouldn’t give to his campaign, and they wouldn’t actively work for him, but they also (probably) wouldn’t openly criticize him, and they’d probably leave the presidential box empty, or vote for him as the somewhat-lesser-than two evils.

The thing that distinguishes Ron Paul supporters from the supporters of every other Republican that’s been in the race (besides enthusiasm for their candidate) is the open willingness to say “Paul or no one”.  One has to admire that level of commitment by supporters, but can still be critical of that somewhat petulant attitude.

We can argue about whether Ron Paul’s been “shut out” by media blackout (I would argue that compared to 2008, he’s been very visible); and we can fight over whether the Party has it “in” for him and his supporters (indeed, anecdotal evidence would suggest that much of Party establishment “does”).  But, while many Republicans probably wouldn’t like a Ron Paul nomination, most of them probably wouldn’t be out there visibly fighting against him once he won—because ultimately, they like the Democrats even less than they like Paul.

I’m not suggesting that Paul supporters flock to Mitt Romney if he wins the nomination (which, at this moment, it looks like he will).  What I am suggesting is a more measured approach.  In terms of long-term influence in the Party, saying nothing might be more effective.  And regardless of whose name you check off in the voting booth, loudly proclaiming an intention not to vote for the Republican nominee does little other than peg YOU as one that the Party regulars shouldn’t trust.

We have a *secret ballot*, after all.  Vote for who you will.  The Party folks—if there are significant votes for a third party, will figure it out—they’ll understand why their nominee didn’t do as well as he should have.  But they won’t be able to pin a vote to any individual, and then you won’t have further damaged your own reputation in the Party. 

Regardless of what happens this year, chances are, there will be other elections. In 2014, there will be local, state and federal elections.  The whole political world is infinitely bigger than just Ron Paul, and we would be well served by remembering that.  Change will not come solely from the top—it’ll come when we start electing (and holding accountable) state legislators, House members, Senators like Rand Paul and Mike Lee, and even lower position like City Council members. 

So support our candidate enthusiastically, but don’t imply that you’re going to take your ball and leave if he doesn’t win; if you’re going to leave, just leave quietly.  And then get to work for the future.

LLE

The Tea Party Lives?

Orrin Hatch is facing his first primary battle in decades…

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Everyone is a Speculator

It is impossible not to speculate.

Speculating is a form of behaviour, active or passive, resulting from a view taken on the course of future events. If you do not participate in the stock market you are effectively taking a speculative position. Your speculative position will be rewarded if the stock market is doing badly; you will be punished if exchange-traded equities are doing well.

Probably the most risky and most questionable form of speculation is to be long, as it were, on government and the state, i.e. to rely on these forces to influence and shape your fate.

My own generation is likely to become part of a long and uninterrupted sequence of generations totally destroyed (physically and/or materially) by the German state (First World War, hyperinflation, depression, Third Reich, Second World War, impending currency collapse and break down of the "welfare state").

Don Boudreaux has an excellent letter to the editor, where he brilliantly debunks the unthinking emotionalism - "the stakeless and idle yammering" - of those who blame rising oil prices on speculators.

You speculate that “excessive speculation, mainly by Wall Street index-fund traders, is needlessly driving up [gasoline] prices” (“Speculators and the Gas Pump,” April 19).

Speculative buying is excessive only if it pushes prices higher than will be warranted by tomorrow’s conditions.  But no one – not even the academic authors of papers to which you link – knows for certain just how tight gasoline supplies will be tomorrow.  Many investors are speculating that these supplies will be very tight indeed.  If these investors are correct, they’ll earn profits and their purchases today will be revealed tomorrow not to have been excessive.

You, in contrast, insist that these speculators are mistaken (that is, you think they’re destined to lose money on their investments).  So put your money where your mouth is: invest contrary to these speculators by going short in gasoline.  If you’re correct that today’s speculation is excessive, not only will you make a killing when proof of your prescience arrives tomorrow in the form of gasoline prices that are lower than are expected by the speculators who you criticize, you’ll also put downward pressure on today’s gasoline prices.

Rather than opine with no skin in the game, get involved!  Show the world that your intellectual speculations aren’t idle.

The source.

Glenn Beck: How do Warren Buffett and Sen. Ben Nelson benefit from the White House killing the Keystone pipeline?

Now Glenn Beck is on it.

Readers of the RedStateEclectic first read about my rant in regard to the Keystone Pipeline one year ago, here and here. In those blog posts I also discuss the Warren Buffett connections. (Joe Herring at American Thinker picked up on the story from here last fall too.)

Now, Glenn Beck is all over this. It's about time. All Aboard, Glenn!

h/t ZeroHedge

###

 

How One Man Has (Almost) Ended the Indefinite Detention of Americans (NDAA)

On December 15, 2011 Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which contained a provision giving the President of the United States the authority to indefinitely detain Americans who were classified by the President as terrorists or provided material support for terrorists or terrorist organizations. This is the story of how one man (and his office staff) helped expose this dangerous provision and has nearly killed it.

The NDAA is an annual bill that works its way through the Armed Services Committee and includes all the mundane funding and provisions outlining military spending, personnel strengths, and procedures for the country's national defense. The act works its way through the Senate and House committees and then goes to the floor of each chamber for passage and is signed by the president. It is not unusual for there to be arguments about funding issues and discussions about how the military operations/wars are being conducted, but there is usually very rarely Constitutional 'controversial' material that ever comes to light. [It is worth noting that Don't Ask Don't Tell came through these committees but I don't find that a Constitutional question but I recognize that it was very controversial]

Last year, that all changed. 

The NDAA had worked its way through the appropriate committees in the Senate and House with little resistance.It moved through the House committee chaired by Rep. Buck McKeon (R) on a 60-1 vote and became HR 1540. The bill then passed the House on May 25 on a vote of 322-96 (only 6 dissenting Republicans).  It passed through committee on November 15th in the Senate chaired by Sen. Carl Levin (D) on a 26-0 vote and became SB 1867. 

Freshman Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI3) has made it a habit of reading all the legislation that he votes on and posting all of his votes and reasoning on Facebook. He began this process when he served in the Michigan State House of Representatives and has continued it now in Congress. He and his office in reviewing the NDAA recognized that Sections 1021-1024 of the NDAA of 2012 contained new 'clarification' of what the President's new powers were to be. As a lawyer, Amash quickly recognized the vagueness of the wording within the new provision and saw that it could be construed as giving the President broad new detention privileges while denying the defendant any legal recourse.

Now before we go any further it is important to point out that Amash is a freshman legislator in Congress. This is in a chamber where seniority rules decisively and completely. Rarely are freshmen allowed to introduce legislation. They serve on the lowliest committees and are expected to follow along and not cause trouble. The new Congressmen also know virtually no one in the chamber except maybe fellow members from their home state so their ability to find the 'go-to' guy or gal is almost zero. Finally, since they have barely been serving (in Amash's case in this example May of 2011 he'd been in Washington only 4 months) they certainly don't know anyone in the Senate either.

In May this NDAA of 2012 which includes the provision in Sections 1021-1023 for indefinite dentention passes the House with minimal resistance - especially from Republicans. Rep. Amash recognizes the danger of the law and also opposed Section 1034 which gives the President sweeping ability to conduct extended military operations. With the military operations in Libya hot on the minds of Americans this was probably seen as a good way to get some public opposition to the NDAA.

Over the next few months Amash begins to meet more of his colleagues and develops a friendship with Senator Rand Paul (a clear ally politically both on governing principles and he is the son of Rep. Ron Paul who endorsed Amash in the August 2010 Republican primary). Amash describes the potential risk for the new provision and Paul convinces a few Repbulicans and Democrats in the Senate to oppose the law. 

By this point, Amash is recognizing that the indefinite detention rule is a nonpartisan issue that people from all over the political spectrum should rightly oppose. He then goes on the offensive both on Facebook and (allegedly) during the House Republican strategy conference where he actively opposes House Armed Services Chair and long time member Buck McKeon.

Imagine the scene if you will. In December, before most of the Republican delegation of Congress (Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy, etc.) Amash rises and addresses the group to explain how the NDAA Section 1021-23 provides for the power of indefinite detention of American citizens. He cites the specific language and tries to convince people who probably have little knowledge of him that the nearly 20 year veteran and chair of the powerful Armed Services Committee is mistaken. McKeon counters that Amash is flat out wrong.

The battle then leaves the room and heads to the ethernet.

McKeon writes a rebuttal to all of the 'misinformation' about the provision and has it posted at Redstate.com. Amash counters with this post rebutting the rebuttal. Amash manages to sway a few more Republicans including Representatives Huizenga and Walberg who are also new members from Michigan.

Amash starts hitting the ether hard on Facebook calling all of his 'followers' to call their representatives knowing that many are not his constituents. Still, he only has 18,000 followers or so in a nation of 310 million people to put the heat on Congress.

In fact, on the vote in December to adopt the Senate version (which was basically the same as HR 1540) Amash succeeds in getting 43 Republican defections instead of the previous 6.The bill still easily passes the House and becomes law after President Obama signs it a few weeks later. If this were the end of the story, it could almost be viewed as a Don Quixote mission where we might give the Congressman an "atta boy, thanks for trying, keep your chin up."

But the story was only beginning.

Through those 18-20,000 followers there was intense outrage. They did call their Representatives. And told their friends. And those friends told their friends. And... well you get the picture. 

Suddenly, at town halls Congressmen were getting questioned about their NDAA vote and pilloried if they voted for it or praised for voting against. The NDAA issue was showing up in the presidential campaign as Ron Paul would use it to point out the growing power in Washington and it even came up at a presidential debate where all the candidates except Huntsman and Paul said they would have signed it (as Obama did).

Stories about the NDAA and its detention provisions are no longer just contained on ACLU and InfoWars websites but it's also appearing in the Washington Post and International Business Times. There is a definite possibility that the Armed Forces Committees in both chambers will have to revise or potentially remove the provisions entirely from the NDAA 2013 bill!

The indefinite detention provision is close to dead. I believe we have reached critical mass and one man has maintained just a little bit of our liberty. It is very important to recognize that even one person can have a profound impact if they are tenacious and don't settle on 'just voting' or just speaking out once or twice. I am proud to say that Justin Amash is my personal Congressman but hope that you see he is defending the liberties of not just my district in West Michigan but those of all Americans.

Keep up the heat until the indefinite provision is killed. Call your Senators and Representatives today and tell them to axe this un-Constitutional provision from this year's NDAA and beyond. Here is the Congressional Switchboard #1-866-220-0044 and here is a little 'how-to' when calling Washington D.C.

Don't forget to wish Rep. Amash Happy Birthday on April 18th on Facebook. You might even want to send him your two cents (maximum donations up to $2500 I'm sure would be accepted as well.)

The Worst Get to the Top

This post is by way of addendum to Eric Parks' recent article The last exit ramp on the road to unlimited government. I find Eric's post noteworthy not least because it reminds me of how undiscerning and crude people have become in the face of the most blatant violations of justice and the rule of law. The position taken by the Institute for Justice (see Eric's post) is a pleasant exception, deserving wide dissemination.

On a different level, this post on Hayek's thesis that in a politicised society the worst get to the top forms part of the background to Eric's observations.

I like the author's definition of a statist, i.e. a person passionately asking for leadership by the worst:

“Someone who learns nothing from human nature, economics, or experience, and repeats the same mistakes over and over again without a care for the rights and lives of people he crushes with his good intentions.”

Even the worst features of the statist reality, Hayek showed, “are not accidental byproducts” but phenomena that are part and parcel of statism itself. He argued with great insightfulness that “the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful” in any society in which government is seen as the answer to most problems. They are precisely the kind of people who elevate power over persuasion, force over cooperation. Government, possessing by definition a legal and political monopoly of the use of force, attracts them just as surely as dung draws flies. Ultimately, it is the apparatus of government that allows them to wreak their havoc on the rest of us.

I Refuse to Join!

I hit the half century mark of birthdays in a few months.  I’m not really one to get all that worked up about birthdays (or even anniversaries).   It’s just another day, as far as I’m concerned.

But sometime after my 49th birthday last summer, I started getting occasional letters and e-mails from the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons).  The fact that they are tracking the ages of (presumably) every living person in this country is a little disconcerting to me.  But beyond that, I resent the membership solicitations at this stage of my life.

FIFTY!  As my brother pointed out to me two years ago, when I claimed a “middle aged moment”, the actuarial tables suggest that I’m past the midpoint—probably well past it.  But 50 is really kind of the old 35, isn’t it?  At least in our house, where a 13 year old and an 8 year old reside, I like to think of it that way.

I remember when my grandparents were 50—I thought they were OLD (they lived another 30+ years, and my grandfather didn’t retire until weeks before his death).  Of course my grandparents, at the age of 50, had 5 grandkids already, so maybe that contributed to my notion that they were old, since I was the 10 year old grandchild.

Worrying about how “old” I’m getting, or how much time has passed me by, or how little time (relatively speaking) I have left, just isn’t my way of doing things.  I guess maybe it’s the realist in me.  I’ve seen people live to be 95 in both exceptional and awful health; and I’ve seen people die much younger than I am now—of both accident and disease.  None of us really knows how long we’ve got, so while I look forward to the future with a hope that I’ll see it (and with a sense of anticipation for an afterlife), I guess at some level I try to live  by the notion of carpe diem.  But I digress….

My real point here is about AARP, and their insidious efforts to lump people like me into an interest group made up of self-interested grandparents who are eager not only to save money (AARP does have some good discount deals) but also to grab as much “goodies” away from the government (i.e. their children and grandchildren) as possible—all in the name of respecting the “contributions of our elders.” 

I get that this is the way these things work.  Thousands of “interest groups” are out there, trying to get what they can from the government trough.  I even belong to some of those groups, I guess—but the groups I belong to tend to just want government to leave us alone and quit taking away our rights, not demanding more of them, or expecting to get government goodies.

So, when (if ever), I get to the point where I really feel like I want to “retire”, AARP can be sure it won’t have a friend in me…

LLE

Too Crooked To Fail

Image credit.

In a politicised society crime and corruption can be conjured away by political will. Our highly politicised Western societies have become infested with excessive levels of legalised crime and corruption.

So much so that I think 'too crooked to fail' is the motto that summarises the present state of Western societies -- fraud and contempt for the truth abound and define success of the few at the expense of the duped and complicit majority:

In a pure capitalist system, an institution as moronic and corrupt as Bank of America would be swiftly punished by the market – the executives would get to loot their own firms once, then they'd be looking for jobs again. But with the limitless government support of Too Big to Fail, these failing financial giants get to stay undead forever, continually looting the taxpayer, their depositors, their shareholders and anyone else they can get their hands on. The threat posed by Bank of America isn't just financial – it's a full-blown assault on the American dream. Where's the incentive to play fair and do well, when what we see rewarded at the highest levels of society is failure, stupidity, incompetence and meanness? If this is what winning in our system looks like, who doesn't want to be a loser? Throughout history, it's precisely this kind of corrupt perversion that has given birth to countercultural revolutions. If failure can't fail, the rest of us can never succeed.

The source.

Relatedly, get this from Greg Smith's op-ed in the New York Times "Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs"

The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.

What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.

See also my post One More Cobblestone ...