Posts Tagged ‘limited government’

The Modern Freedom Movement 1940-2014

 :: Posted by Limited Government on 08-17-2014

Libertarians & Conservatives Need To Unite To Recapture the Jeffersonian Ideal

It began in the early 1940s. FDR had launched the New Deal’s collectivization of America, and a small but prescient group of libertarian and conservative intellectuals were in rebellion – such thinkers as Richard Weaver, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, John T. Flynn, Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, and Ayn Rand, to be followed a decade later by the likes of Russell Kirk, Frank Meyer, and Murray Rothbard.

Out of their cerebral and activist efforts there began the movement to repeal the overweening statism that was infiltrating America from Europe via Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. The infamous year of 1913 was the infiltration’s major manifestation. FDR’s New Deal was its Rubicon. In reaction to the radical political changes taking place during the 1913-1940 era, today’s freedom movement was born.

It is not well-known by the general public, but when the modern freedom movement first began in the early 1940s, it was not split between libertarians and conservatives. It was one coalition unified in rebellion against FDR’s monster welfare state. By 1970, however, the movement had become tragically bifurcated. The radical economist Murray Rothbard took libertarians off into anarchy, while the traditionalist philosopher Russell Kirk drove conservatives into statism. This split has created two incomplete visions – contemporary libertarianism and conservatism – that are, in their singularity, incapable of effectively challenging the authoritarian mega-state.

Conservatives are caught up in the puritanical swamps of legislating morality and hegemonic conquest of the world, while libertarians chase the philosophical absurdities of moral subjectivism and ersatz individualism. Conservatives wish to return to the Middle Ages and mandate morality via the state, while Libertarians wish to do away with any reference to morality altogether. Conservatives revere leaders like Savonarola and John Calvin. Libertarians excite themselves with Larry Flynt and the Beatles’ “Nowhere Man.” Somewhere the Founding Fathers are twisting in their graves over each of these political movements and their embarrassing lack of comprehension concerning the requisites for a free and individualist society.

How do we confront this lack of comprehension? We must purge the libertarian and conservative movements of the fallacies they have adopted from Murray Rothbard and Russell Kirk. This will require a “rational theory of politics” that can bring together the two philosophical streams of John Locke and Edmund Burke so as to restore the original Republic of States that Jefferson and the Founders envisioned. More on this theory shortly.

The Tragic Bifurcation

In the aftermath of LBJ’s defeat of the Goldwater forces in the 1964 election, most libertarians, under the influence of the pied piper Murray Rothbard, split off from the official path of the freedom movement and wandered into the utopian forest of some very radical political-philosophical principles – those of anarchism.

In contrast, conservatives went the other direction by abandoning principle altogether to align themselves with Irving Kristol’s collectivist neo-conservatives and tolerate the very government usurpations their movement had been formed to repeal. They began their sellout when Richard Nixon declared in 1971 that, “We’re all Keynesians now.” They continued it with Ronald Reagan’s massive expansion of the welfare state and when George W. Bush launched a tide of spending, privilege, and corruption totally unhinged from sanity and reality.

Can today’s freedom movement be rescued from this tragedy of default? Can the American people be convinced to restore the Republic? Yes, but in order for such a revolution to actually take place, American libertarians and conservatives must face up to some unsettling realities and take appropriate action.

The conservative wing of the “freedom movement” has been grievously corrupted by Machiavellian statists. The most important cause of this has been Russell Kirk’s philosophical emphasis on tradition being transcendent to reason and his rejection of “equal individual rights” in favor of special privileges and a flexible Constitution. This has led conservatives into a Faustian bargain with the statist enemy and opened the door for the hijacking of their movement by neoconservatives, thus moving most of today’s conservatives to the left into lockstep with statist liberals.

The libertarian wing of the “freedom movement” has been equally corrupted, but in the opposite direction to the far right on the spectrum. The most important cause of this has been Murray Rothbard’s anarchist politics that privatizes all functions of the government, even the military, police, and courts of law. In addition his followers espouse an egoistic “do your own thing” culture that refuses to morally condemn the traditional evils of history. Whatever is peaceful is their creed. It is a sense of life that worships what the Greeks called the sin of “eleutheromania,” freedom without limits.

To better understand the nature of this disastrous split between libertarians and conservatives, a brief exposition of America’s concept of freedom is necessary.

Jeffersonianism Is America’s Philosophy

The American concept of freedom has its ideological roots in the Founders’ libertarian political ideal, combined with conservative metaphysics and culture. It is a blend of the 17th and 18th century thinkers, John Locke and Edmund Burke (one libertarian and the other conservative), which heavily influenced Americans from the start and up through World War I – the former emphasizing reason and individualism, the latter tradition and community. It manifested in what is called Jeffersonianism.

This political philosophy stands for the individual over the collective, a strictly limited constitutional government based upon federalism, equal “rights” instead of equal “results,” a free-market economy, no entangling foreign alliances, and an objective code of morality for society as opposed to the moral neutrality of Rothbardians and modern liberals. This is what needs to be restored.

The famous conservative philosopher, Richard Weaver, at the University of Chicago in the 1940s and 1950s, and author of the great classic, Ideas Have Consequences, understood well this Jeffersonian concept of America and shaped his defense of freedom around it accordingly. Unlike today’s neoconservatives, Weaver understood the necessity of limiting the tyrannical danger of the state. He would be horrified with today’s neoconservative attacks upon the Founders’ vision of laissez-faire. He grasped the philosophical common ground between libertarianism and conservatism:

“[C]onservatives and libertarians stand together,” he said. “Both of them believe that there is an order of things which will largely take care of itself if you leave it alone.” Weaver was a strict constitutionalist because a Constitution provided for a “settled code of freedom for the individual.”

This is the crucial issue of our time – restoration of libertarian conservatism in America and its “settled code of freedom for the individual.” If we, who believe in free enterprise and the Constitution, wish to reverse America’s drift into an authoritarian state, our goal must not be to accommodate, but to purge the Gargantua on the Potomac that usurps our rights and freedoms with impunity. Libertarians and conservatives must be reunited to effectively challenge this monster.

My book, The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values explains the need for this ideological unification and how to bring it about. I realize authors don’t usually promote their own books in their articles, but in defense of my lack of orthodoxy, I cite the popular economist, Walter Williams.

Several years ago he was writing a review in his newspaper column for one of his own books. And in defense of his partisan effort, Professor Williams explained to his readers that his mother had always told him, “it’s a poor dog who won’t wag his own tail.” So if the reader will indulge me, I would like to partake in a little tail wagging.

The Golden Mean is the philosophical answer to our immensely troubled times. It puts forth the “rational theory of politics” referred to earlier, and which we desperately need in order to challenge the authoritarian statism that has been destroying our republic ever since 1913.

The libertarian movement is lost in “utopian unreality.” The conservative movement is lost in “statist appeasement.” This is because of the disastrous libertarian-conservative split spawned by Murray Rothbard and Russell Kirk back in the 1960s. Without a correction of this split, freedom cannot be adequately defended and restored. Both libertarian and conservative activists are terribly misguided in their insistence on remaining separate movements. Conservatism needs libertarian politics in order to be just, and libertarianism needs conservative moral values in order to be workable.

The statist Gargantua controls our lives today because there is no effective ideological counterforce to overthrow its moral-philosophical-theoretical base. The Golden Mean provides that counterforce because it shows how to once again merge the two great systems of philosophical thought that brought America into being: libertarianism and conservatism. It shows how to recapture the Jeffersonian ideal.

By Nelson Hultberg
June 2, 2014

  • Share/Bookmark

AMERICA — From Freedom To Fascism

 :: Posted by Limited Government on 06-09-2014

AMERICA — From Freedom To Fascism (Full Length Documentary)

  • Share/Bookmark

Federalism: Our Founders’ Legacy

 :: Posted by Limited Government on 03-12-2014

Federalism: The Founders’ Legacy

For the first 125 years of our history (1789-1913), America was a country comprised of libertarian politics and conservative cultural values.

1) Libertarian politics is based upon the fact that man was meant to be free. Thus his government must be strictly limited by a Constitution rather
than determined by the dictates of an autocrat or the passions of the majority. And his economy must be a free marketplace, i.e., laissez-faire capitalism.

2) Conservative cultural values are based upon the fact that there is an objective moral order in the universe, i.e., certain rights and wrongs in
human life that are applicable to all of us for all of time. Man’s culture is to be guided by these objective moral values by instilling them into young people at an early age.

These are the two vital elements that built us into the most desired nation in history – libertarian politics and conservative cultural values. The Founding Founders believed that if political freedom is to avoid degenerating into license and anarchy, we cannot promote different opinions on morality within the same society, i.e., a “do-your-own-thing” moral philosophy.

For example, no rational person would tolerate different opinions on whether six-year olds would make good congressmen in Washington, or whether cyanide is as good a season as salt, or whether the sun and rain are necessary for a farmer’s crops. Why then would he tolerate different opinions on what is right and wrong in the moral realms of life? In other words morality is not, as today’s pundits insist, relative to the person and the culture. There are fundamental rights and wrongs that can be agreed upon and upheld by all members of society. To do otherwise is to create a culture of chaos and decadence, which is what is being created all around us today.

But the Founders also believed that if social order is to avoid degenerating into tyranny, we cannot allow politicians to be our moral guardians with the power to bludgeon society’s sinners into obedience. This is because, as Madison so wisely observed, man’s nature is not angelic, but forever flawed. Because it is such, allowing politicians to act as moral guardians of society through the coercive arm of the state is fraught with danger.

Therefore libertarians maintain that virtue must be freely chosen, not legally mandated. The linking of society’s moral guardians to the coercive arm of the state during the Middle Ages created enough evil and cruelty, that we should be cured forever of such a temptation. Society’s voluntary cultural institutions (churches, schools, families, unions, and associations) are far better regulators of our lives than the state and its armed police. In other words, government should not be in the business of legislating morality.

Conservatives argue that this was not the Founders’ view, nor should it be anyone’s view. They challenge this laissez-faire approach by pointing out that all law is the “legislation of morality” and that the two concepts cannot be divorced. When society passes a law against murder, it is “legislating morality.” The same goes for stealing and all other crimes of mankind. They all entail moral issues. Therefore it is impossible to legislate period without legislating morality. The only question is whose morality is going to prevail as our guide to the laws we pass.

The libertarian answer on this issue is that though all laws are in some way involved in determining moral questions, which makes the state a legislator of morality when it prosecutes murder and stealing, the state is also legislating against the violation of rights when it prosecutes murderers and thieves. This protection of its citizens rights is a much safer guideline to use in defining the government’s parameters of power. The state has to legislate morality, yes, but not all morality. There are two degrees of immoral behavior: that which involves violating someone’s rights (e.g. murder), and that which does not violate anyone’s rights (e.g., prostitution). The state needs to legislate against the former and leave the latter’s containment to the preachers. To the libertarian, this latter is not a crime because there is no victim. To criminalize such behavior is to prosecute “victimless crimes,” i.e., no crime.

Thus even though libertarian politics and conservative values fit together to form the free and ordered society, we still have a basic clash between libertarians and conservatives over the proper role of government in the ideal society. Is government to leave men and women alone and control vice with moral suasion as libertarians wish, or is government to legislate against vice as conservatives wish?

The Founders’ Solution

Is there an answer to this perplexing conflict? Yes, there is. It is the Founders’ political system of federalism, whereby the extent to which government was to legislate would be determined primarily on the state and local level. Whatever government functions could be done locally must be handled thusly. Only what couldn’t be done on the local level would be assumed by state officials. And only if the state governments couldn’t handle the governing issue, would the federal government be used.

In this way, there would be many different approaches to the preservation of a free and ordered community. If someone did not like the extent to which his government legislated to achieve freedom and order, he could always vote with his feet and seek a more “enlightened” state in another part of the country. Thus there would always be a competition among governments that would help to keep them honest.

But what libertarians often forget is that the Founders’ philosophy of federalism also left the diversity of states and localities to handle, within the parameters of the Constitution, the problem of men’s tendency to vice and degradation. For example, it was up to each state and locality whether they would promote laws against vice, i.e., legislate morality. If the citizens of any locality decided that the libertarian ideal of excluding government from prosecuting victimless crimes was what they wished for their community, then they could vote such a system into place. Other communities and states would be free to follow in their steps or proceed differently. In this way, there would be flexibility as to precisely how to govern the interactions of men, yet also a containment of the powers to be used because of the right of the people to vote with their feet.

The only requisite for the states was that they structured themselves as “republican governments,” i.e., limited democracies with separated powers that made protection of the individual’s rights and preservation of basic order the purposes of their being. Since men were rational creatures possessed of the capacity to learn from history, albeit not perfectly, they would then be able to develop a society in which the greatest amount of “freedom and order” would prevail.

Here then lies the solution to the libertarian / conservative clash. Under the concept of federalism, the ideal libertarian society (in which government does not prosecute “victimless crimes”) would have to move beyond theory and prove itself workable in a real life community setting. If government power was decentralized and strict federalism was restored, then libertarians would be free to influence their fellow community members to abolish all victimless crime laws in a specific community. Once such an approach is shown to be workable, it would then spread to other communities and states. Eventually society would evolve into a reasonably libertarian concept of government if such a concept showed itself to be, not just theoretically desirable in the ivory tower but also practical in the real world. This is the genius of federalism. It provides for us the vehicle to transmit theory into practice and develop as free a society as humanly possible.

What Could Have Been

How important is federalism? If it hadn’t been sabotaged by Abraham Lincoln and his massive centralizing agenda, the Federal Reserve and the income tax would not have come to America in 1913. Without the Federal Reserve and its engine of inflation, Woodrow Wilson would not have possessed the monetary capacity to drag us into World War I. Without our entry into that grisly war, the nations of Europe (so dissipated in both morale and manpower by 1917) would have had to sue for peace and go home. There would have been no Versailles Treaty, and thus no fervent Nazi movement in Germany. Without Hitler, there would have been no World War II. Moreover, without a Federal Reserve in America, there would have been no inflationary 1920′s boom, and therefore no devastating 1930′s depression. No depression, no Roosevelt-Keynesian New Deal. What a different 20th century it would have been if we had remained true to federalism.

If we who advocate a free political order are to challenge today’s liberal / neoconservative destruction of the American experiment, then we will have to coalesce around this most important legacy of the Founders. Federalism is the only means to unite libertarians and conservatives, and a unity of these two movements is our only hope to defeat the enemies of free civilization that rule us today in such an insufferably tyrannical way.

by Nelson Hultberg | Americans for a Free Republic

[This article is based upon an excerpt from his book The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values.]

Posted Tuesday 02/25/2014 – 17:37  at

  • Share/Bookmark

The Second American Revolution

 :: Posted by Limited Government on 09-08-2013

Second American Revolution Underway

The Declaration of Independence pledges Americans’ “unalienable Rights” through Governments “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …
“Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it …”

More and more of us are determined to alter our government by denying our consent to President Barack Obama’s continuous discarding of our individual constitutional liberties, as I’ve demonstrated in recent columns.

But the most starkly lucid reasons for this looming Second American Revolution have been detailed by Randy E. Barnett, a Georgetown University professor of constitutional law and author of the book Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (Princeton University Press, 2005).

In a recent column for The Wall Street Journal, Barnett provides a message of salvation to all Americans, regardless of political party. It is a model of unavoidable clarity defining who we are:

“In a republican government based on popular sovereignty, the people are the principals or masters and those in government are merely their agents or servants” (“The NSA’s Surveillance Is Unconstitutional,” Barnett, The Wall Street Journal, July 12).

Furthermore, he explains, “for the people to control their servants (in Government), however, they must know what their servants are doing.”

This proved essential over time for the first American Revolution to succeed (due to the efforts of Samuel Adams, the Sons of Liberty and the Committees of Correspondence).

Barnett writes: “Relying solely on internal governmental checks violates the fundamental constitutional principle that the sovereign people must be the ultimate external judge of their servants’ conduct in office.

“Yet such judgment and control is impossible without the information that such secret programs conceal,” Barnett continues. “Had it not been for the recent leaks, (much of) the American public would have no idea of the existence of these programs, and we still cannot be certain of their scope.”

He then gets to the ever-more pervasive and powerful Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Once again, through the media, Americans now know of the court’s existence, but hardly anything else about how this secret institution still enables the National Security Agency to do its work unknown to us.

Barnett’s solution: “Congress or the courts must put a stop to these unreasonable blanket seizures of data and end the jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to secretly adjudicate the constitutionality of surveillance programs.”

I, too, think that in view of its record through the years, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court must no longer exist. But any credible constitutional replacement would also obviously require the replacement of this president and the current, absurdly named Justice Department.

Eric Lichtblau’s recent front-page New York Times expose is a deeply important corollary exposure of the unconstitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and its prime beneficiary — the still boundlessly unconstitutional NSA. Reading what follows about this secret court’s utter contempt for the separation of powers — fully supported by Obama — makes me ask, again, how can this president not be impeached for ravaging the oath of office?

“The rulings, some nearly 100 pages long, reveal that the court has taken on a much more expansive role by regularly assessing broad constitutional questions and establishing important judicial precedents with almost no public scrutiny, according to current and former officials familiar with the court’s classified decisions” (“In Secret, Court Vastly Broadens Powers of N.S.A.,” Lichtblau, The New York Times, July 7).

Have any of you sovereign citizens in this constitutional republic been at all consulted on the appointments of these judges who are deciding on broad constitutional questions?

Again, Georgetown’s Barnett echoes Thomas Jefferson and James Madison when he reminds us that, “for the people to control their servants in Government, however, they must know what their servants are doing.”

And, thanks to the revelations of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, more members of the media have been awakened to these secret removals of the citizenry’s authority over crucial parts of the Constitution. But there has not been enough sustained media coverage with the depth and consistency necessary to expose what our ultimate servants in Government are allowing to happen.

By contrast, a precipitating cause of the original American Revolution was the Committees of Correspondence, which sent news around the colonies of how our British rulers here and in London were utterly ignoring our rights as British citizens going back to the Magna Carta.

One example of an American president who continued to act as if he were emulating King George III — even after our First Amendment was ratified in 1791 — is John Adams. Our second president led Congress to enact the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, which made it seditious for new American citizens to use speech that brought the president or Congress “into contempt or disrepute.”

As that news went through the new states, Adams lost his chance for a second presidential term.

If the media will now keep on this story while also gathering new information, at last Obama may be impeached before his years as president come to an end.

This article appeared on on July 17, 2013

  • Share/Bookmark

The Liberty Movement Is Thriving

 :: Posted by Limited Government on 12-19-2012

The GOP Is Dying Because The Liberty Movement Is Thriving

To the point of causing intestinal convulsions, there has been no shortage of analysis on the elections of 2012. Every no-name mop-head mainstream media hack with a niche audience has put in his or her two cents on the finale of perhaps the biggest non-event of the decade and almost every single one of them has been depressingly wrong or completely disingenuous – but perhaps this was to be expected. The word “journalist” has today become synonymous with “whore”, simply because success in the field makes whoredom essential. The job of news outlets is not to report on the facts, but to fashion an illusory world out of manure bricks and glossy paint, and this is exactly what they have done in their musing on the fate of the GOP.

For any saucer-eyed skeptic who still believes that all disinformation is mere coincidence or personal bias rather than an engineered and coordinated conspiracy, I would like to point out the sudden, similar and simultaneous conclusions of MSM pundits in the wake of Barack Obama’s “victory” in November. You would think that there would be hundreds if not thousands of conflicting ideas about what really happened this year, but instead, Americans are being presented with a chorus of identical viewpoints.

One meme that is being spread widely in the mainstream that I do actually agree with is that the Republican Party is “dying”. Oh yes, this is undoubtedly true. The GOP is on the fast track to the stew pot (or maybe another pot), but what the mainstream fails to mention is that this is something that alternative analysts in the Liberty Movement have been predicting for years, long before the name “Barack Obama” ever haunted the dreams of average Republicans, and this raises an important question; what did the alternative media see that the mainstream media missed?

The primary root of all the dysfunctional observations of the GOP is that most people today have no clue what conservatism is, and therefore, they have no idea how to diagnose problems in the Republican Party (an institution which is supposed to represent conservative values). You don’t send a lawnmower repairman to examine a cancer ridden human being, you send a doctor who knows what a healthy body is supposed to look like. You also don’t send a hardcore liberal or a Neo-Con flunky to comment on the failings of the GOP; you send a true conservative who knows how a healthy conservative organization is supposed to function. And, the only people left in this country who actually understand what conservatism really is are Liberty Movement activists.

Ironically, those of us in the movement who have deeply considered the election aftermath have predominantly concluded that it is WE who have taken the mojo out of the GOP, and frankly, we’re happy to do so…

The GOP is dying because it no longer supports or nurtures the progress of true and traditional conservative values or the people who hold them. The GOP is fading into the bowels of political history because real conservatives are LEAVING it behind, and searching for other more legitimate avenues. These are the cold hard facts which the establishment and those who aid in its dominance have tried to keep out of the mainstream limelight post election. They have concocted a swarm of unsupported and absurd talking points which have been unleashed shotgun-style on the unsuspecting American populace. Their goal? To hide the fact that the Liberty Movement has gained enough momentum to bury the Neo-Con led GOP and even swing state contests at will, simply by not participating in the farce.

During the 2010 mid-term elections, there was a mass resurgence in conservative voting based almost entirely on Tea Party optimism. Some might argue that the Tea Party was a sham, and I would have to agree…to a point. The Tea Party didn’t start out that way (I know because I was involved during its inception). In the beginning it was a legitimate force for reduced government power and spending, and increased protection for civil liberties revolving mainly around the campaign of Ron Paul. That changed, though, when Neo-Con elites began weaseling their way into the club, gushing about how they loved freedom.

What these vermin do not understand, though, is that it takes more than rhetoric to hold onto Liberty Movement voters; you also have to back your words with action, and this is exactly why some career Republicans were shown the door in 2012. Not because the Democrats were a better choice, but because the Republicans had not lived up to the promises they made two years ago. Neo-Con toadies would, of course, sneer at my observations, and tell a completely different story on why they are losers…

Let’s take a look at just a few of the mainstream media and GOP leadership arguments and propaganda initiatives and why they are shameless fabrications meant to hide Liberty Movement influence…

Lie #1: U.S. Demographics Are Changing And The GOP Platform Does Not Appeal To Minorities

The MSM and others are essentially suggesting that only white people will ever vote Republican, and by association, that only white people value conservatism and Constitutionalism. They are also cleverly and subconsciously implanting the idea that most minorities will only ever vote for a socialist and statist candidate (like Obama) in the future, or, that they will vote based entirely on skin color. That is to say, they are inferring that minority voters are predominantly narrow minded and stupid, and are also promoting a fabricated division based on race.

To illustrate why the demographics argument is a lie, I would like to use the examples of Allen West and Denny Rehberg; both high value Republicans in state races who “unexpectedly” lost to the Democrats.

Allen West, a black male candidate for the 22nd Congressional District of Florida, ran on a “Tea Party limited government platform” in 2010, and won by a margin of around 20,000 votes over Ron Klein, a white male Democrat. In 2012, West ran against another white male Democrat, Patrick Murphy, in Florida’s 18th District and lost by 2000 votes. Obviously, Florida’s vast population and myriad minority groups did NOT play the only part in West’s victory in 2010, or his loss in 2012. If skin color was ever the primary issue, then he should have won easily in 2012, just as he did in 2010 according to those who make the “changing demographics” race based argument. West’s opponents, Klein in 2010 and Murphy in 2012, had very similar and very standard Democratic Party policies, and neither man was overly interesting or influential. West did not suddenly have to face down a Dem. powerhouse in 2012; just another boring-as-crackers lefty.

West ran two campaigns against almost identical opponents under almost identical social conditions, somehow winning one, and losing the other. So, what happened? What was different in 2012? The fact is, the only thing different in 2012 was that this time around liberty based voters knew West was not a true conservative. West was a fraud, and a statist, and the Liberty Movement cast him out by declining to vote for him.

Almost immediately after West’s victory in 2010, his limited government constitutionalist persona began to change. He voted to strengthen pork programs which continue to pump fiat federal monies into local governments, generating massive national debt and making state officials beholden to federal control. He voted yes to line-item veto authority for the President, bypassing the constitutionally delineated powers of Congress. He supported CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing And Protection Act) which would have given government incredible legal power to violate the privacy rights of ordinary Americans. And last, but certainly worst, West not only voted for the NDAA despite its unconstitutional indefinite detainment provisions, he also worked to strike down initiatives to remove language in the NDAA that made it applicable to U.S. citizens. To ice the cake, he openly admitted to serving on the Armed Forces Committee which reviewed the bill before it was even released, and later attempted to lie about what it actually did.

Why would a supposed constitutionalist and conservative champion applaud the legislated rendition and indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without trial and without due process all on the mere accusation of “terrorism” by the President, and then pretend as if that power was not granted by the bill? Because, he is a fake conservative and an establishment thug.

In my home state of Montana, Republican Denny Rehberg ran a highly anticipated race for Senate against incumbent Democrat John Tester. Rehberg’s platform was just like Allan West’s; pro-Tea Party, limited government, thumbs up to the Constitution, and wrap up in the flag for good measure.

Rehberg had won many of his U.S. Representative campaigns by a vast margin leading up to his decision to run for Senate (around 60% to his opponent’s 30%). I can say that in a state like Montana, the idea of “changing demographics” affecting the election is laughable. Montana is freaken’ white! W-H-I-T-E! Rehberg, a Republican “dreamboat candidate” complete with carefully groomed cowboy mustache was thought to be a sure win in this state. By my personal observations seeing him at functions including a local Lincoln/Reagan dinner, I would say HE thought he was a sure win, to the point of ego-mania.

So in a predominantly white and predominantly conservative state, how did Rehberg lose? Because elections have little to do with “demographics” or party, and everything to do with the integrity of the person running, especially where the Liberty Movement is concerned.

Rehberg’s professed fuzzy feelings for freedom and limited government were undeniably false. His consistent support for big government programs aside, he voted for and viciously defended the NDAA. When approached by Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers at a Republican function about his vote for rendition and permanent detention without trial for American citizens, he side-stepped the question completely, and accused Rhodes (a veteran Army Paratrooper) of “not supporting the troops”. Rehberg’s attitude did not go unnoticed by the Liberty Movement population in Montana, and like Conrad Burns, the Republican incumbent who had been unseated in 2006, he lost by a substantial margin of voters who instead backed a Libertarian third party candidate.

The argument for “changing demographics” was certainly not applicable in either of these two incidences, along with numerous other state and local elections I do not have the space to mention. It also does not take into account the millions of Americans who refrain from voting because they feel utterly unrepresented in the election process. This lie is being pushed in order to hide the real change in America: a movement towards legitimacy and humility in government, rather than hubris and tyranny.

Lie #2: The GOP Does Not Appeal To Young Voters, Who Are Predominantly Liberal (Socialist)

I would still be considered a young voter, and so would many of my closest friends. They and I had all but abandoned politics in disgust years ago when we discovered Ron Paul, one of the only representatives in Washington D.C. that we felt actually embodied the traditional constitutional methodology (original conservatism). Not only had he received the highest amount of donations from the men and women of the U.S. military, he was also packing sold out speaking events on college campuses across the country while Obama and Romney were crawling on hands and knees throwing free tickets at elementary school children just to get a minor crowd. The point is, Ron Paul, a true conservative, was energizing the youth vote and even bringing some Democrats over from the socialist dark side.

The idea that a young voter is predestined to embrace collectivist nanny government and sell their soul to the Democratic Party is a lie of epic proportions. The GOP could have had them on board anytime they wanted; all they had to do was nominate Ron Paul as their presidential candidate. Instead, they went with yet another Neo-Con ghoul whose rhetoric and record was nearly identical to Obama’s. The GOP could have won, if they had actually wanted to win. But then, it would have meant disrupting the false left right paradigm, and surely, the establishment can’t have that…

Lie #3: The GOP Needs To Evolve With Our “Progressive” Times Instead Of Clinging To Traditional Conservative Principles

Ultimately, this lie is designed to infer that the Republican Party needs to take on a more collectivist attitude in order to appeal to the rising tide of a younger generation and our nation’s so-called “changing demographics”. Hilariously, the lie is suggesting that the GOP do what they have in fact already done: go full socialist.

The Republican Party has not “clung” to traditional conservative principles for a very long time. Over the course of the past several decades it has become a haven for the minions of Leo Strauss, a statist and Platonian fascist whose job was to subvert the core of conservatism and warp it into a festering cesspool of elitism – much like the Democratic Party. The GOP has failed because this elitism is now undeniably present, and the party has lost its ability to hide what it has become.

When a sad victim of academia tries to argue that the cause of our economic crisis is the “evil of the free market”, I always point out that he/she has actually never lived in a world where true free markets exist. They have, for their entire lives, lived under a socialized and centralized economic system, and so, blaming “free markets” for their financial woes is like blaming Tasmanian Tigers for the death of their Chihuahua. The same goes for conservatism. When people wail against the crimes of George W. Bush and the possible return of a “conservative” presidency, I always point out that Bush was not a conservative, and that there hasn’t been a legitimately conservative GOP since before they were born.

The Republican Party has already delved into the realm of centralized despotism as much as the Democratic Party has. Its only salvation now is to reverse course back towards limited government and freedom, not continue into federalized oblivion.

Lie #4: The Liberty Movement Had No Influence On The Elections Whatsoever

As I have shown, proponents of constitutional values have indeed swayed particular elections, at least at the state and local level. Therefore, the assertion is meant to inject disinformation in pursuit of a particular end. Strangely, I heard this argument all throughout the primaries and up until the week after Obama declared victory; the argument that our movement does not matter and will never gain tangible momentum. And yet, all through the primaries up until the day before elections the Neo-Cons were either courting us with gifts, goodies, and offers of a “place at the table”, or attacking us viciously as “traitors to our own ideals” whose non-participation was akin to a “vote for the Antichrist (Obama)”.

Now, my question is; if the Liberty Movement doesn’t matter, then why were GOP cronies so desperate to convince us to vote party line?

Why did they feel the need to regurgitate the “lesser of to evils” argument over and over again? Why did it matter to them if we voted for Romney, or voted third party, or didn’t vote at all? If our influence is so miniscule, then why invite Liberty Movement representatives like Rand Paul or Sherriff Mack to cheerlead for the “guy who will drive the bus off the cliff slower”? Why try in a grade school manner to shame us into setting aside our principles? Why not simply ignore us and let us wallow in our own “obscurity”?

I see two possibilities…

First, that the Liberty Movement has grown strong enough to encompass a sizable mass of voting power, at least large enough to ensure that many GOP candidates will win or lose by a particular margin. That margin may be thin and we may not yet be in a position to launch our own party, but without us, they know they are likely to fall short, and this problem is only going to grow as time passes. They court us, or attack us, because they realize they cannot win despite us.

Second, if you subscribe to the well documented idea that elections, at least at the federal level, are entirely staged (which I do), then you might ask yourself again why the GOP elite were grasping for the Liberty Movement to relinquish for the sake of defeating Obama. If Obama and Romney are essentially the same monkey, the same exact errand boy for the same exact globalist puppeteers, then what the hell do they need our vote for? Romney wins, and they get what they want. Obama wins and they get what they want. Unless…what they really wanted was our participation in the farce.

That’s right, perhaps the greater purpose of the endless lesser-of-two-evils charade was to see if the establishment could convince us to compromise our conscience and be drawn back into the game. Maybe, just maybe, it was all a test, of you, of us, to discern how much of the Liberty Movement could be conned or swayed with moral relativism. Perhaps the death rattle of the Republican industrial complex was due to the one thing that the media will never spotlight in a 60 minute primetime special; the fact that the majority of the burgeoning Liberty Movement refused to sell out, proving that the GOP is no longer effective at keeping us reigned in or co-opted. The GOP is dying and we are thriving. Whether or not the two are related, I leave for you to decide…

By Brandon Smith
Wednesday, 05 December 2012 20:28

  • Share/Bookmark

Only 16 Members of Congress Are Needed To Unseat Speaker Boehner

 :: Posted by Limited Government on 12-09-2012

Only 16 Members Can Unseat Boehner, Group Says

The President and CEO of Conservative Group American Majority Action (AMA) is Demanding Republicans Band Together to Fire House Speaker John Boehner.

“Speaker Boehner has been an abysmal failure as speaker, and his latest purge is the nail in the coffin for conservatives,” AMA’s Ned Ryun said in a statement. “Boehner has never won a negation battle with the White House or Senate—and he’s been nothing short of an embarrassing spokesman for the Conservative Movement. It’s time for him to go.”

Ryun pointed out, too, that if conservatives want to unseat Boehner, they’d only need 16 members to abstain from supporting him in January. That’s because Boehner needs 218 votes to become Speaker again. Seeing as there are 233 House Republicans next Congress, and assuming no Democrats would vote for Boehner as Speaker, if 16 conservative Republicans abstain from voting, Boehner wouldn’t regain the Speakership.

“The Conservative Movement doesn’t realize we only need 16 House votes to block Boehner from becoming Speaker,” Ryun said. “House rules demand nominees for speaker to receive a majority—at least 218 votes—to win election. If 16 members abstain, Boehner only has 217 votes.”

The Republican caucus already locked the votes for leadership slots up in conference shortly after the election, but it has to be made official at the beginning of the next Congress in January. That means conservatives upset with Boehner’s leadership technically could band together to ouster him.

After this week’s Boehner purge of conservatives from influential committee roles, enough Republicans might be perturbed enough to do something about it – especially with Boehner threatening retaliation against more than just the four conservatives he’s already yanked from their committee spots if anyone else doesn’t toe the leadership line.

By Matthew Boyle – December 5th 2012

  • Share/Bookmark Meets Lew Rockwell

 :: Posted by Limited Government on 08-25-2012

Robert D. Valvo & Lew Rockwell (


  • Share/Bookmark

Corrected Axiom LIVE at Paul Festival #2

 :: Posted by Limited Government on 08-24-2012

Corrected Axiom LIVE at Paul Festival #2


  • Share/Bookmark

FAIR USE NOTICE: This web site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law.