2016 Republican Primary Prediction

Unfortunate for the Liberty Movement, Ron Paul will not be gracing the field with his presence as he did in the 2008 and 2012 primary seasons.  Instead his son, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, will likely take over the Paul family quest to secure the presidency in the name of political sanity and individual freedom.  Of course on the political landscape of today where politicians seem bent on perpetual war and suppressing natural rights for the sake of scratching the backs of special interests, candidates such as the Pauls are likely not wanted by those with the clout.  Surely the Republican Party has already implemented a strategy attempting to quell the potential nomination of the younger Paul.  This is the subject of my 2016 Republican Primary prediction.

In my opinion the most logical strategy to be taken up by the Old Guard would be to build trust from the libertarian population in someone other than Rand Paul over the next couple of years.  For the time being, talk of this other person running in 2016 would be relatively quiet so as not to tip off the hyper vigilant and skeptical followers of Ron Paul.  Once the primary season emerged, I would use the state-run media to bash Rand and sometimes just outright ignore him in the true spirit of how Ron was treated.  At the same time, I would paint the other candidate - the candidate I had bolstered previously - as a viable option for the Liberty Movement that actually had a chance of winning - a person the Republican base could support as well.  If successful, the other fellow would likely get the nomination, but even better, the other fellow would get a large portion of the liberty vote which could likely result in a win for the flailing party of old white men.

I suggest to you - and mark my words - this strategy is already at play, and the other man is very likely a man named Ted Cruz.  Consider what The Hill reported on May 3, 2013 in their piece Ted Cruz's rocket ride:

Will Cruz run in 2016?

I think it is a distinct possibility, because the groundswell of support will be overwhelming. The grass roots admire his intelligence and ability to make (and win) an argument. His personal story and Cuban heritage are appealing.

Texas is a fantastic state in which to raise money. He is not facing reelection until 2018. There are many good reasons.

At the same time, the article downplayed the possibility stating:

Let’s be clear about what has, and more importantly, what hasn’t happened.

Cruz has taken no direct steps toward running for president, barely three months into office. He has not expanded his operation, hired new consultants or sought out major donors.

The Washington Post also said there was "rampant speculation" Cruz will run in 2016 on May 8, 2013 in this piece regarding the Canadian born senator which has an American mother.  In addition, The Dallas Morning News reported recently on "an influential Iowa conservative" predicting that Cruz would be atop the Republican field of candidates if he decided to run in 2016 - here.  These articles coupled with the regular television exposure Cruz is getting from the ever reliable bastion of conservative information Fox News, such as the video below where the first term senator takes up the position of abolishing the IRS (and somehow implementing a flat tax that doesn't require a collection agency?), suggests to me that Senator Ted will make a bid in '16, and further, he is trying to swoon Paulites in the meantime.


Compounding the likelihood that the Republicans are putting their eggs into the Cruz basket is the fact that Ron Paul himself endorsed Cruz in his Senate campaign in 2012.  A few facts that many may not know about Ted Cruz are:

Cruz served as an associate deputy attorney general in the U.S. Justice Department and as the director of policy planning at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission under President George W. Bush.

Cruz did legal work during the Florida recount for the Bush campaign.

Ted Cruz's wife is a big player at Goldman Sachs.

For further reading on Cruz, his wiki page is equipped with plenty of sources.

In my opinion, Ted Cruz is tailoring his rhetoric for acceptance from the Liberty Movement so that the establishment can avoid an ever dreaded Paul Administration (which has a nice ring to it if you ask me).  Nonetheless, I say be ever vigilant and never place full trust in a politician, a lawyer, or anyone that has financial ties to Goldman Sachs.  Ted Cruz has been walking like a duck and talking like a duck, but he smells of skunk to this author.

Be weary, please comment, and remember what I've said come the primary season.



Follow @DerrelWalters

@GovGaryJohnson Twitter Bombs - Schedule your tweets BEFORE the bomb!

If people are interested in participating in future Gary Johnson Twitter Bombs, it is encouraged that they schedule their tweets ahead of time using a free application such as TweetDeck.  Scheduling your tweets ahead of time provides several benefits:

1. You do not have to physically be at your computer or on your smartphone during the Twitter Bomb.
2. You do not have to come up with original tweets using the new hashtag "on the fly."
3. You can more easily create a theme with your tweets.  For instance, you may want to present the Gary Johnson Ads in a creative way by including his YouTube videos in your tweets.
4. You get to just sit back and enjoy the Twitter Bomb without rush to actually do anything.
5. You can avoid reaching your tweet limit early in the Twitter Bomb. 
6. Short-term distractions do not take away from your participation.
7. Most importantly, scheduling tweets ahead of time insures the hashtag will trend for the longest possible time.

Note: When scheduling ahead of time, spacing tweets to occur every other minute (30 tweets per hour) will help you to avoid problems with tweet limits while still allowing you the freedom to retweet your favorite tweets.

Please participate in achieving your freedom.  Join the Twitter Bombs. Visit GaryJohnson2012.com. Follow @GovGaryJohnson on Twitter.  Like Gary Johnson's Facebook page.  Vote for Gary Johnson in November.

Follow @DerrelWalters

Virgil Goode - Ron Paul Reincarnate?

How close are Ron Paul and Virgil Goode on the issues?

Here is a quote from Virgil Goode:

"When the commentary begins in the Middle East, in no way do I want to comfort and encourage the radical Muslims who want to destroy our country and who want to wipe the so-called infidels like myself and many of you from the face of the Earth. In no way do I want to aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the green flag of the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country. I fear that radical Muslims who want to control the Middle East and ultimately the world would love to see ‘‘In God We Trust’’ stricken from our money and replaced with ‘‘In Mohammed We Trust.’’

I am not sure that reinforcing the existing troops by 20,000 will save us from the jihadists, and I am not sure it will prevent chaos in Iraq. I do hope that these additional forces will stabilize Baghdad and will lead to democracy and a tolerance of divergent views and religions in Iraq. Unfortunately, the history of that region does not bode well for such conclusions."

 

Retrieved from the official government account (PDF)

Goode voted against - D 110 1st U.S. House of Representatives 99 H CON RES 63 Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq. The resolution also contained language such as:

"DoD has awarded contracts for its foreign deployments that have been grossly more wasteful than domestic contracts, especially in Iraq."

Ron Paul voted for this resolution, while Goode voted "Nay."

Here is the official vote and a copy from thomas.loc.gov.
 
******************************************************************

In addition, Virgil Goode was a cosponsor for online poker prohibition - The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act - in 2006.

Source from thomas.loc.gov.

*****************************************************************

So, Is Virgil Goode a Ron Paul reincarnate? Quite simply, based upon my assessment: No.

Follow @DerrelWalters

How does federal debt affect freedom?

I thought it would be a fun exercise to display how government debt affects Our freedom.  As a measure of freedom, I will use the United States incarceration rate - which is the highest in the world - and compare it to the gross federal debt for the period of 1940-1999.  I think you will find that the results are telling.

Consider the following graphs.  The first shows the incarceration rate as a function of time (red curve), and the second is a plot of gross federal debt as it has grown over time (black curve).  Notice the similarity in the curves.  Both indicate when the U.S. was taken off the gold standard by Nixon.

They look very similar.  Don't they?  Given the striking resemblance of the two, one may have a feeling a correlation exists.  Well, what would a curve look like that plotted the incarceration rate as a function of the gross federal debt?  See below.

Damn near a straight line!  The R² value is used as a measure to determine the degree of correlation between two sets of data (for those not familiar with statistics). The closer R² gets to one, the stronger the likelihood a relationship exists between the two sets.  ~0.99 is about as close to one as it gets!

This data would lend support to the hypothesis that - "As the federal government gets deeper and deeper in debt, society becomes less and less free" - just as an Austrian would predict.

How about we get that budget balanced?


Follow @DerrelWalters

Doug Wead: What now for the Liberty Movement in 2012? 2016?

From DougWead.wordpress.com:

Post Paul: What now?

Don’t assume that Ron Paul is going to ride off into the sunset, with his cowgirl, Carol, at his side.  He made it clear during his light hearted exchange with Jay Leno that he isn’t finished with us.  And I, for one, am not finished with him either.

If Romney wins, Senator Rand Paul’s trajectory would be on hold and in 2016, Ron Paul, the father, would be the best primary challenger to a Republican establishment president, owned by the FED and the few.

[...]

Here’s a toast to Ron Paul, 2016.

But what do we do now?  And more urgent, how should we vote in the 2012 presidential election?

 1. Vote to re-elect Barack Obama?

[...]

 2. Vote for Mitt Romney?

[...]

 3. Write in Ron Paul’s name?

[...]

4. Vote for Virgil Goode?

[...]

5. Vote for Gary Johnson?

[...]

 Bottom line?  I haven’t decided yet but I would like to hear your opinions, without profanity please.  Or join the discussion at: http://www.facebook.com/DougWeadOfficial

*****************************************

Read everything Doug had to say here.



Follow @DerrelWalters

All the Gary Johnson Ads to date

Ask Any Country That's Tried Government Healthcare:

End the IRS:

End the War on Drugs:

Elect one of our own. One time:

Live Free:

You ARE libertarian:

Job Boom:

We the People ARE libertarian:

Gary Johnson will protect Internet Freedom:

Ron Paul r3VOLutionary:

America Needs A Handyman:

 

Follow @DerrelWalters

VIDEO: DNC takes one out of the RNC playbook and railroads delegates

Many of you are aware of the railroad job that the RNC committed against the state delegations in Tampa at the Mitt Romney scripted coronation.  A user named PlanetEarthAwakens01, recently uploaded this video to YouTube, and apparently, the Democrats were jealous of the level of treachery the Republicans got away with and had to one-up them.  I thought it would be appropriate for me to share the video.  This needs to go viral.

Without further ado, here it is:

Follow @DerrelWalters

What should the Liberty Movement do for POTUS 2012?

My intentions here are only to encourage rational consideration of the available options left for Paulites in the general election and to attempt to spark a healthy discussion with no name-calling or other actions stemming from anger, disappointment, spite, etc. I hope you will set the emotional nature of the current times aside and genuinely consider what I have to say.

Option 1 - Vote for Obama:

Pros:

•  Delivering the election to Obama is a method of punishing Romney
• Romney may be considered unelectable in 2016 given that Obama is much weaker than he was in 2008 and Romney may likely do worse than McCain did

Cons:

• Our troops remain in Afghanistan until 2014 (at least - whatever happened to the recent 2024 extension? Is 2014 election year fodder?)
• We may end up engaged in more needless militarism in Iran, Syria, etc, putting tens of thousands of American lives at stake
• Indefinite detention clauses in the current NDAA will remain
• The UN Small Arms Treaty will likely be signed
• Draconian censorship laws will likely be levied against internet freedom
• Whistle blowers will continue to be treated like sub-human criminals
• The government will continue to grow at an alarming pace
• We will likely get stimulated again with the current economic outlook
• The War on Drugs will continue even in states that have put in place legalization/decriminalization laws
• The healthcare mandate will endure
• There will be no audit of the Fed
• Foreign aid will remain untouched or maybe even increased
• The Welfare State will likely continue to expand

Option 2 - Vote for Romney:

Pros:

•  Slight possibility that Romney would listen to Austrian solutions in another economic crisis (I doubt it though)

Cons:

• Romney will be rewarded for his underhanded tactics used to attain the nomination
• Our troops remain in Afghanistan until 2014 - at least
• We may end up engaged in more needless militarism in Iran, Syria, etc putting tens of thousands of American lives at stake
• Indefinite detention clauses in the current NDAA will remain
• Draconian censorship laws will likely be levied against internet freedom
• Whistle blowers will continue to be treated like sub-human criminals
• The government will continue to grow at an alarming pace
• We will likely get stimulated again with the current economic outlook
• The War on Drugs will continue even in states that have put in place legalization/decriminalization laws (likely at a more aggressive pace than Obama. Romney equated drug use to murder in a speech aired on HLN earlier in the year)
• The healthcare mandate will endure
• There will be no audit of the Fed (I don't trust Romney's sincerity)
• Foreign aid will remain untouched or maybe even increased
• The Welfare State will likely continue to expand (Medicare promises)

Option 3 - Write-in Ron Paul:

Pros:

• You get to vote for one of your heroes

Cons:

• No one outside of your personal contacts will know you did so
• A write-in campaign has no chance at successfully electing Dr. Paul

Option 4 - Vote for Johnson:

Pros whether he wins or loses:

• The votes will be counted (to some varying degree depending on the state - I doubt there would be 100% vote flipping) which would send a clear message to the GOP that the Liberty Movement won't just fall in line based on political rhetoric and/or coercion
• 5% of the vote puts the LP in major party status for 2016 which would likely help to solve problems with gaining participation in the debates
• Johnson will not be the last LP POTUS nominee. Others after him may be more universally acceptable to the Liberty Movement, and major party status would give those potential candidates much firmer footing
• It will piss off both the Democrats and the Republicans (Johnson affects the duopoly candidates differently depending on the state in question)

Pros for the outside chance he wins:

• Afghanistan will immediately be drawn down
• Avoid war with Iran, Syria, etc, potentially saving tens of thousands American lives
• A budget with $1.4 trillion in cuts - enough to balance year one (more than the $1T proposed by Paul) - will be submitted to Congress which would likely lead to real cuts (not just baseline cuts)
• In the event of a financial crisis, no economic intervention will be employed thereby creating an environment for real recovery
• If Audit the Fed hits his desk, it will get signed
• The Drug War will end
• If the legislation passes, the 16th Amendment will be repealed, the IRS abolished, and a consumption tax implemented which would eliminate all federal payroll withholding (saving entrepreneurs a fortune), eliminate taxes on all used goods (clothes, cars, etc), and distribute the federal tax burden over everyone that interacts with our economy (illegal aliens, tourists, other visitors) not just the employed citizens. Texas and Florida - two of the biggest economies in the world - employ consumption taxes, and as a former Texas resident, it was nice to have no state withholding.
• Religious influences will no longer be employed to provide collectivist, government benefits to straight couples while punishing the gay and lesbian community. Separation of Church and State should not have exceptions, and the only argument that exists is based in religion.
• Although Johnson is pro-choice up to independent viability of the fetus, he takes the same policy approach as Ron Paul in saying it should be left to the states, thereby negating the importance of his personal opinions on the issue

Cons:

• If the legislation passes, some are concerned that the Fair Tax would create a new entitlement system due to the prebate that would be distributed to all US citizens. However, I would argue that collectivism is avoided because all citizens will receive it, and the prebate only represents the amount of tax that would be paid based on poverty poverty level income (~$2000/yr) which is not nearly enough to survive on and provides a logical solution to the regressive nature of other consumption taxes
• Johnson said he may be willing to militarily intervene for humanitarian reasons in other countries; however, he said he would only do so with approval from Congress (giving respect to the process provided by the Constitution)

----------------------------------------------
Did I leave anything out? Please discuss.

One last note: To illustrate the unreliability of emotion based decision making, please consider the following questions -

What percentage of people in prison (barring victimless crimes) are there because they acted out of emotion? I would venture to say greater than 90%.

What percentage of people in prison (barring victimless crimes) are there because they made rational decisions? Very few.

Did your parents ever tell you to "think before you act?" If so, why did they tell you that? Was it because making emotional decisions out of anger or other emotions can often get you into trouble?

Is the purpose of the Liberty Movement to gain liberty? If not, what is the goal? Given the above information, what is the most productive choice for Liberty with respect to the 2012 race for POTUS on a rational basis, neglecting emotion?

The factors stated above are what led me to where I stand now.

Thanks ahead of time for your genuine consideration and responses.

Follow @DerrelWalters

The Inconsistent Logic of Matt Larson Regarding Ron Paul and Gary Johnson

Many passionate Ron Paul supporters are guided by their emotions for the good doctor. A good example is the unqualified disdain for Libertarian POTUS Candidate - Gary Johnson.

One of the greatest influences in Ron Paul's life seems to have been Ayn Rand - creator of Objectivism. Objectivism professes that logic and reason are Man's only reliable guide to interact with objective reality.

It troubles me that some Paulites choose solely to listen to Ron Paul without exploring the foundation of his thought processes. Where will these type of folks get their opinions when something new arises, and Ron Paul is no longer there to steer them? The formulation of such opinions can only be reliable through the use of reason and logic.

Emotions and faith are NOT reliable guides to reality.

I hope widespread self-education begins soon within the Liberty Movement. Our long-term success depends on it.

A video released on 9/2/12 by Matt Larson provides a good example of the inconsistent logic that I often witness with respect to fighters for liberty.

Here is a video that I prepared to clearly demonstrate this point:

Follow @DerrelWalters

"The intellectual is dead. Long live the intellectual."

The title is a quote from Ayn Rand.

Most humans fall in the trap of employing emotions in their decision making processes. Often times, this is a destructive approach. Logic and reason are the only reliable means for people to interact with objective reality. Refusing logic and replacing it with emotions and/or mysticism is one of the major culprits for the retardation of human progress.

 I urge everyone to listen to the following Ayn Rand interview conducted by James McConnel in 1961 and listen to what Ayn had to say. Enjoy!

Follow @DerrelWalters

Abortion in the United States - The Reality

Abortion is a tough issue for many people in the United States.  The right to one's own life is paramount to the success of a free society.  However, the outright outlawing of abortion presents practical dilemmas that cannot be ignored.

In Ron Paul's Liberty Defined, the elder statesman addresses the issue of abortion in the first chapter.  The following is the first paragraph from the text:

"On one occasion in the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, while visiting a surgical suite as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately two pounds. It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice. Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue."

The key point to realize from that terrible experience is that it occurred at a time when abortion was still illegal.  Regardless of laws, abortions will still be performed.  Morality cannot be legislated into existence.  

In the event that abortion was completely outlawed in the United States, affected women would flock across the borders to get the procedure done anyway.  Many that could not afford to make the journey to another country would likely attempt to self-abort at home.  There would be unqualified individuals - analogous to drug dealers - performing abortions.  Prohibition has been proven to be a failing tactic repeatedly.     

While I disagree with abortion and would advise women against it given the opportunity, I realize that logic and reality predict that the use of government force is not the answer.  It rarely - if ever - is the answer.

Please, ask yourself this question - If you walked in on a woman performing a coat hanger abortion, would you call the police on her, if a ban existed?  Or, would you try to counsel her?  With that in mind, is government force really the answer?

If an individual wishes to end abortion, education and activism are the most reasonable solutions.

Follow @DerrelWalters