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

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

Ron Paul: Willing to Deal with America's Problems

The regulations that Jesse Thorsen violated were put in place to assure that the military (especially the brass) would not publicly endorse candidates in order to diminish the potential of a military coup...

So, in direct address of those concerns, I am not fearful Cpl Jesse Thorsen has placed us in danger of a military coup. 

Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate, the only candidate not interested in the power that comes with the Presidency, the only serious candidate that will get ObamaCare repealed, the only candidate that will return the war powers solely to the Congress, the only candidate that understands the economy and predicted - in 2002 - the housing bubble and economic collapse of 2008, the only candidate that will stand up against indefinite detention without due process for American citizens that was signed into law by Obama in late December (NDAA), the only candidate that will make sure we are informed about the attempts to censor the internet contained in the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) that will be voted on after the holiday recess, the only candidate that realizes it is irresponsible to break our nation by continually funding the governments never-ending military adventurism by taking out loans from China, the only candidate that will attempt to restore the states' rights of nullification, the only serious candidate not in support of a value added tax (socialist French system), the only candidate that believes individual rights are more important than "group rights" and would not endorse the participation of government in collectivist policies like the TARP bailouts, the only candidate that can get America back to work...

The only candidate that is willing to address the REAL problems facing America.

Please take the time to check out Ron Paul... for the sake of us all.

He's all over YouTube and his official Campaign website is located at www.RonPaul2012.com

Follow @DerrelWalters

Why Ron Paul?

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist that believes the federal government's primary responsibility is to protect the civil liberties of its citizens.  In addition, he believes the federal government should protect our national borders and provide a strong, domestic national defense.

He, like many of us, is tired of the never-ending wars.  He wants to return the power to declare war solely to Congress, where it was originally. Currently, it is now acceptable for the US President to go to war for 90 days without Congressional approval.  This has placed too much power in the hands of one man.

He believes that our interference in other nations' affairs has caused resentment over the years and has, in the end, caused more problems than it has solved.  Take for instance Iran.

We were friends with Iran pre-WWII.  They were largely a country becoming "westernized."  Then in 1953, the CIA overthrew the Iranian Prime Minister.  Many Iranians have not forgotten this.  Then, we sponsored a Saddam led Iraq in a war against Iran.

What would your opinion of the matter be if the shoe were on the other foot?  What if Iran had done those things to us?

"Paul serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee (having been on the Western Hemisphere and the Asia and Pacific subcommittees); the Joint Economic Committee; and the Committee on Financial Services (as Ranking Member of the Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology subcommittee, and Vice-Chair of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee)." ~Wikipedia: Ron Paul

He has been an advocate and voice for responsible fiscal policy since the 1970's.  He warned of the housing bubble LONG before anyone else even knew there was one.  There is little argument, Ron Paul is the best on economic policy among all the candidates.

He has real plans to get America back on track.  Please don't stop reading here...

Please go to youtube and watch some Ron Paul videos and hear what he has to say. 

I promise it will be time well spent and will benefit us all.

Ron Paul 2012! Follow @DerrelWalters

Government Healthcare and Keynsian Economics

I believe the government subsidizes healthcare because they REFUSE to encourage Americans to consume less.  They say, "This could only hurt the economy."  However, by encouraging lethargy and excess over the years, the government has, in essence, subsidized wasteful spending by the citizenry. 

It is always one subsidy to take care of the short-falling of another subsidy!  They argue:  "Last time, we just didn't spend enough.  This is the reason for this RECURRING situation."  This is a very circular argument to say the least!  It is a dogma that continually adds to the inevitable downside of these type policies; the consequences become more serious the longer we continue.

So, what happens if the government were to take a different approach?  What if, instead, they decided to form a committee to gather scientific evidence about all the health risks directly tied to our eating habits.  In addition, the committee would build a strong case and start initiatives to better educate the public about the consequences which exist from such behavior.  However, they avoid any subsidies, which can only create false demand and create hostility among market competitors due to fairness.

Likely, as with cigarettes, sound education would finally begin to overcome many of our vices (except for those that continue to CHOOSE to take part in risky behavior).  This would entail a likely decline in the market for unhealthy foods and behaviors.  The government would have you believe this is horrendous!  We have lost jobs! 

However, what happens in reality is a reallocation of employment to sectors such as the health food industry, gyms, etc.  This is a natural process.  Retrospectively, what occurred was that by subsidizing special interests, the government spurred a sort of false demand in economic sectors which otherwise would not have existed.  WITH THE USE OF SUBSIDIZING POLICIES, THE GOVERNMENT REALLOCATES EMPLOYMENT TO AREAS OF THE ECONOMY WHERE IT OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN!

This is an unavoidable fallacy of Keynesian economics. Follow @DerrelWalters

A Practical Tax Plan: A Plan for Efficiency and Transparency

The income tax we pay to government is part of a system that produces the least accountability for politicians in Washington D.C.  The generic label "income tax" is a disguise  that hides from American citizens where there money is being spent.  So, what should be done?  Below, I outline a plan which returns more power to the citizenry and increases the accountability of elected officials.

Plan to Increase Transparency in the Tax System (PITT)

I will suggest to you that this is not a very difficult proposition.  Of course, it is up to me to convince you of this.

Suppose you receive your paycheck and on the check stub there is a list of taxes in decreasing order of the top ten expenditures of where that tax money will ultimately been spent, what would be the consequences on the American tax payer and on the federal government?

Scenario:

John Smith, after being in such a tax system for some time, picks up his paycheck.  He has noticed that on the news, the U.S. government has invaded a small country in Africa and realizes that, as a result, defense spending must increase. 

Well, in the PITT system, there exists a mandate that the tax appropriations represented on the check stub must necessarily fluctuate with government spending. 

Returning to John Smith, he notices all of the sudden that the category "Defense Spending" has increased by a large portion (although his actual tax burden may be similar as before).  A light bulb appears above Mr. Smith's head.

Hmm... Mr. Smith thinks as the rolls of news flash through his head of the new invasion. 

I leave you to imagine any particular outcome.  However, a large number of "John Smith's" would become concerned and take this information into account the next time he enters a voting booth.

The PITT system returns power back to American citizens.  We must hold our politicians accountable!

In addition, I will add that very few taxes should be levied as an income tax.  Taxes should be generated by user taxes as much as possible, such as tolls on turnpikes.  People that actually use the service pay for its convenience.  However, national defense is a tax that must be levied on the entire population because we all benefit (or suffer) similarly.

Do not allow the U.S. government to continue to disguise the taxes under the alias "income tax."

Please leave comments.  Your constructive criticism and suggestions are welcomed.



 

Follow @DerrelWalters

A Plea to America: Do we need government intervention in all parts of our lives?

Over the last 70 or so years, the U.S. government has pursued an ever expanding policy of interventionism.  Regulation and government involvement in our lives have been increasing at an alarming rate, and all these new laws to break has led us to have the highest rate of incarceration in the world, higher than any communist or tyrannical country.  Below, I give a brief explanation of why government interventionism is, most of the time, unnecessary.

We ban drugs because we say they are harmful and can kill people.  Is this policy based on sound logic?  No matter what your position on the issue, please consider the following.

How many people have died from "The War on Drugs"?  Well, literally tens of thousands of Mexican people are still dieing from this policy in addition to those that die everyday here in America.

Now, suppose the drug war had never been enacted.  How many people would have died over the same time period from the use of now illegal substances?  I would argue far fewer!

Take for instance, Coca-Cola, which still by the way uses a cocaine free extract from the coca plant (the only company still allowed to import coca leaves):  Early consumers of Coca-Cola became concerned with its use of coca extract.  People said, "Coca-Cola will make you a 'cocaine head'."  Due to public pressure from the CONSUMER, not the government, the product soon eliminated the active alkaloid from the leaf extract to trace amounts until technology allowed the complete removal around 1930.

We do not need the government to be our nanny.  We can take care of ourselves.  Our history proves it.  The U.S. has been here longer than 70 years. I beg you to explore our history prior to that. 

It is a more educated and well informed consumer that improves our economy and directs labor to more efficient and higher demand economic sectors.  In the 1990's, the U.S. government would have us believe that Microsoft would rule the computer industry forever.  How many of you are now sitting on an Apple device reading this?  That was the result of American innovation and American demand.

For the sake of us all, Americans please help stand up for our freedom!  Bring awareness! Follow @DerrelWalters