Sarah Palin's Republican Hotel Reserves a Room For Insane Libertarians

Yeah, and it's right across the hall from one marked "GOProud" and another marked "Log Cabin Republicans."

The Libertarians' room is easy to spot. Its sign says "Insane Asylum."

Video here:

"the GOP had better not marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters after tonight"

In Order For Third Parties To Rise, They Have To Have Representation

Third party candidacies for president fail in this country, as do those for representative or senator, because the two parties have a lock on the political process. The lock concentrates power and money in their hands, to the exclusion of the other interests which no longer have representation.

How did the two parties lock it?

Or to put it another way, how did Americans lose representation to the Republicans and Democrats?

The Republicans deliberately ignored the constitution's re-apportionment requirements after the 1920 Census, some say out of fear of competition from representatives of the massive number of then-new immigrants, and eventually prevailed in fixing representation at the arbitrary number of 435 in the US House through legislative fiat. There's absolutely nothing sacred about the number 435. It's just a number we reached when population required that number of congressmen after the 1910 Census.

Normally, the constitution's requirements have to be overcome by amendment, not legislation. But that's what we have, legislative fiat, because both parties found it in their best interests to concentrate power in themselves. The last thing they wanted to do was diffuse power to additional new players as the constitution requires. Since the constitution doesn't specify the upper limit of representation, only the minimum number and minimum proportion (Article 1, Section 1), a problem of first importance in the founding era but never resolved, they got away with it. But they shouldn't have. We're all the poorer for it.

Republicans in particular wear its stain. Today its Tea Party claims to wear the badge of constitutional originalism, but that badge is covering a huge blot of hypocrisy.

If Americans actually had the government the constitution requires but the Republicans of the '20s prevented, we'd have a US House today with 10,000 representatives, not 435.

There would most likely be a number of odd duck political parties represented in that sea of representation, like Greens, Communists, Fascists, Socialists and Constitutionalists. And probably a Gay Party from Saugaytuck, Michigan. But there might also be a rather substantial number of Conservatives and Independents. Considering that "conservative" is today's most identifiable political self-description, you can bet Republican golfers everywhere certainly don't want the competition.

But consider, for example, New York State. It has a Conservative Party, whose most famous public face is perhaps the radio host Sean Hannity. Another famous conservative from New York was the brother of William F. Buckley, Jr. US Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a Socialist, from a state with next to no gun laws! Why not have more of their ilk as the people desire in the US House? Lots more.

Once there, the give and take of politics on a grander scale would most probably change the dynamics of the current politics of not-a-dime's-worth-of-difference between Republicans and Democrats. New actors would arise and give voice to ideas which in the past have had to settle for one congressman's endorsement here, or one there, only to be squelched by the Republicrat party apparatchiks.

More importantly, Republicans and Democrats would have to make alliances and share power in exchange for support. This would increase representation of ideas which today see the light of day in legislation only infrequently. And more importantly still, candidates for national office would have to forge alliances with such representatives too, which means third party candidates for president would actually begin to have some credibility with legislative support, without which a tax reformer like a Herman Cain, Ron Paul or Steve Forbes goes nowhere.

Think about it America!

Stop settling for representation without representation!

"One Representative For Every Thirty Thousand!"

Net Worth of Poorest Republican Candidate for President is 10 X More Than 75 Percent of America

Here's the minimum net worth of the Republican candidates for president:

Sen. Rick Santorum: $880,000

Gov. Rick Perry: $1.1 million

Rep. Michele Bachmann: $1.8 million (Congressional disclosure is average of minimum and maximum)

Rep. Ron Paul: $3.6 million (Congressional disclosure)

Newt: $6.7 million

Gov. Jon Huntsman: $16 million

Gov. Mitt Romney: $190 million

Discussed here (link).

75 percent of the American people have a net worth in 2007 of $80,000 or less.

Even Ron Paul Does The Mussolini

Rep. Bachmann and Gov. Romney Support Obama's Murder of American Citizen

As reported here.

Rep. Ron Paul thinks it might be an impeachable offense.

Firing squad is more like it.

Libertarians WANT a Revolution, Real Conservatives are Trying to Prevent One

Rep. Ron Paul is at it again, here:

"The country is ripe for a true revolution".

If Republicans know what's good for them, they'll purge these cranks from the party.

My Congressman, Rep. Justin Amash, Is Way Out There.

At least he's in right field, sort of:

Story here.

It was reported on Monday here that Rep. Amash has endorsed Rep. Ron Paul for president.

I see that mycongressmanisnuts.org is still available.

Landslide Vote For Israel in Congress, Except for Rep. Justin Amash and 5 Others

The vote was a non-binding resolution, a shot across the bow of the Palestinian Authority, which Justin Amash, among others, could not bring himself to support:

The U.S. House of Representatives threatened to cut off funding to the Palestinian Authority if it pursues recognition of statehood outside of negotiations with Israel.

A resolution passed Thursday night by a vote of  406 to 6 "affirms that Palestinian efforts to circumvent direct negotiations and pursue recognition of statehood prior to agreement with Israel will harm United States-Palestinian relations and will have serious implications for the United States assistance programs for the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority."

The non-binding resolution is similar to one passed last month by the Senate. ...

Among those voting against was a freshman, Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), who is aligned with the Tea Party and who is of Palestinian descent.

Tea Party candidates were an unknown quan[t]ity to pro-Israel groups last year and since then, the Republican leadership has endeavored to secure assurances of support for Israel from lawmakers aligned with the Tea Party.

Most have done so, although there are holdouts like Amash. The five other members who voted against the resolution were Reps. Ron Paul (R-TX), Walter Jones (R-NC), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR).

Read more here.

How Doctrinaire Libertarians Co-Opt the Tea Party Illustrated

The latest example comes from Senator Rand Paul, son of Representative Ron Paul. Republicans, maybe. Libertarians for sure, who, like all our collectivist enemies, believe in permanent revolution:

Is Ron Paul the Republicans' Dennis Kucinich?

He was one of just three Republicans in the US House to vote with the Democrats today to send a bill to the Senate which extends the Bush tax cuts only to those making less than $250,000/$200,000.

Can't wait to hear from Dennis Ron the chapter and verse from the US Constitution which allowed him to vote Yea on a tax increase for only "wealthy" Americans.

TheHill.com reports here the independent Democrats who voted against Pelosi's class-warfare tax increase bill on the "rich":

Here are the Democrats who voted against the bill (nine of whom lost their reelection bids):

Rep. Brian Baird (Wash.)

Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.)

Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.)

Rep. Artur Davis (Ala.)

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Texas)

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.) 

Rep. Ron Klein (Fla.)

Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah)

Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.)

Rep. Mike McMahon (N.Y.)

Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.)

Rep. Walt Minnick (Idaho)

Rep. Gwen Moore (Wis.)

Rep. Jim Moran (Va.) 

Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.)

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.) 

Rep. Bobby Scott (Va.)

Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.)

Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.)

Rep. Pete Visclosky (Ind.)

Among the brave above who were re-elected to return next year I count Dan Boren, Lloyd Doggett, Jim Matheson, Mike McIntyre, Jerry McNerney, Gwen Moore, Jim Moran, Collin Peterson, Bobby Scott, Mike Thompson, and Pete Visclosky. 

Why couldn't the three Republicans have been more like these eleven Democrats and voted No?

Libertarians are nuts.

Rep. Ron Paul (TX-14) Calls For Airline Boycott

He's tired of getting frisked, over and over again. He's calling on Americans to boycott airline travel until the TSA gets reined in.

The story is here.

Not Your Daddy's CPAC

Ron Paul won the straw poll at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference because this year's meeting was infested with libertarians, which is why this happened:

CPAC is perhaps the nation's premiere conservative gathering, a convivial opportunity for impassioned right-wing activists to network, plan for upcoming elections and listen to the biggest names in the conservative movement. It's the sort of atmosphere in which the casual observer might expect someone like Ryan Sorba to receive a warm welcome.

Sorba, who wrote a book entitled "The Gay Gene Hoax," took the podium at this year's CPAC and immediately expressed his unhappiness that the conference had allowed a gay Republican group called GOProud to be a sponsor.

He didn't get very far. After delivering a rambling condemnation of homosexuality, Sorba was essentially booed offstage, prompting him to angrily complain to his conservative audience that "the lesbians at Smith College protest better than you do."

To read more, go here.

On the Dangers Posed by Libertarians

Consider this popular and influential enthusiast for Ron Paul.

He appears to favor a single payer system of federalized healthcare, an enormous interference in the personal liberties of individual Americans, many of whom freely eschew health insurance, from students in their twenties to the rich and successful like Rush Limbaugh. This from the same guy who wants to end the Federal Reserve because of its role in debasing the currency. It should bother him that he would swap debased healthcare for debased currency, but it doesn't.

He realizes, quite rightly, that a single payer system implies rationing of health care. But he's all for that, which means government will most certainly deny services when you desperately need them:

The press seemed concerned with a fear of rationed health care. Some republicans have raised the issue as well.

Mr. President I am concerned there will be no rationing of health care. . . .

Mr. President, unless something is done to rein in costs taxpayers will be footing the bill for a lot of things they shouldn't. In every country that has a single payer system, there is some degree of rationing.

Somehow you have us believe benefits will not be reduced, everything will be covered for everyone, there will be no rationing and somehow health care will cost less because of reduced paperwork. Mr. President, no one believes that, not even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. President, to prevent costs from spiraling out of control rationing is mandatory. Unfortunately, you do not have the courage to admit it. Yet until you do, it can't happen.

(Mike Shedlock, 7/23/09)

Then fast forward a few months and he considers it a flaw in the Senate version of the bill that abortions will not be covered (which happens not to be true). Sounds like rationing to me. Yet he's clearly upset abortion will not be paid for:

The bill does allow states to opt out of paying for abortions. This is folly given the huge ongoing costs of unwanted births.

(Mike Shedlock, 12/26/09)

Suddenly the advocate for personal liberty is transformed into a statist potentially as dangerous to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the crew of clowns now infesting Washington, D.C.

My Stand? I am all in favor of the right to die.

(Mike Shedlock, 12/31/09)

Liberty is not all. When it is, it becomes license, not liberty, and exposes one and all to the whims of the powerful, who make it all up as they go. In our time its young victims already approach 50 million since 1973. Now ask yourself how many elderly and infirm are in the gun sights of the rationers of today?

No, law and order must exist before there can be any semblance of liberty, and the sources of our law are too deep, ancient, and complex to be sacrificed to the caprices of the simplifiers of our age.

George Will Answers That Chirping Sectarian, Ron Paul

At Bernanke's recent confirmation hearing on his nomination for a second four-year term, Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who is co-sponsoring a Senate version of Paul's bill, asked Bernanke: "Do you believe that employment should be a mission, a goal of the Federal Reserve?" Bernanke, who had already noted Congress' "mandate" that the Fed "achieve maximum employment and price stability," answered that the Fed "can assist keeping employment close to its maximum level through adroit policies."

That mandate was, however, improvidently given. Congress created the Fed and can control it, and eventually will do so if the Fed eagerly embraces the role of the economy's comprehensive manager. America's complex, dynamic economy cannot be both "managed" and efficient. Attempting to manage it is an inherently political undertaking and if the Fed undertakes it, the Fed will eventually bring upon itself minute supervision by Congress.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., has, as usual, a better idea: Repeal the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978 that, he says, "dangerously diverted the Fed from its most important job: price stability." For 65 years after its creation in 1913, the Fed's principal duty was to preserve the currency as a store of value by preventing inflation from undermining price stability. Humphrey-Hawkins gave it the second duty of superintending economic growth.

There's just one little problem with this line of reasoning from George Will. It is that the Federal Reserve didn't do its principal duty from 1913 to 1978, either, during which time the purchasing power of the dollar fell to fifteen cents.

For the complete article, go here.