(Reuters) - Anti-government extremists opposed to taxes and regulations pose a growing threat to local law enforcement officers in the United States, the FBI warned on Monday.

These extremists, sometimes known as "sovereign citizens," believe they can live outside any type of government authority, FBI agents said at a news conference.

The extremists may refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations and believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard.

Routine encounters with police can turn violent "at the drop of a hat," said Stuart McArthur, deputy assistant director in the FBI's counterterrorism division...

January 26, 2012
Alexander T. Tabarrok
The Atlantic

This is our national identity crisis in a nutshell: Do we want government spending half its money on redistribution and military, or re-dedicating itself to science, infrastructure, and health research?

We like to think of ourselves as an innovation nation, but our government is a warfare/welfare state. To build an economy for the 21st century we need to increase the rate of innovation and to do that we need to put innovation at the center of our national vision.

Innovation, however, is not a priority of our massive federal government. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. federal budget, $2.2 trillion annually, is spent on the four biggest warfare and welfare programs, Medicaid, Medicare, Defense and Social Security. In contrast, the National Institutes of Health, which funds medical research, spends $31 billion annually, and the National Science Foundation spends just $7 billion.

The federal government does spend some money on innovation, but mostly for innovation in warfare. The Department of Defense, for example, spends $78 billion on R&D. Good for the DoD, at least they are thinking about the future. But most defense R&D is for weapons research that is unlikely to generate significant spillovers to other areas of the economy. The basic and applied non-weapons research that has the best chance of creating beneficial spillovers is a small minority of defense R&D. DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, for example, helped to develop the Internet but DARPA’s budget is only $3 billion. Even when we lump all federal R&D spending together regardless of quality it amounts to just $150 billion, a mere 4 percent of the budget.

Putting innovation at the center of our national vision is not simply about spending more money. An innovation nation would think about all problems differently. The long debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka: Obamacare) for example, was almost entirely about welfare and redistribution, about dividing the pie. During this debate how much did we hear about health innovation?

From an innovation perspective, two facts about health care are of importance. First, a huge amount of health care spending is wasted. A strong consensus exists on this point from health care researchers along the political spectrum. Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on health care today with little or nothing to show for it in terms of improved health. Second, although spending more on health care today doesn’t get you much, spending more on health care research gets you a lot. The increases in life expectancy from fewer deaths brought on by cardiovascular disease over the 1970-1990 period, for example, were worth over $30 trillion. Yes, $30 trillion. In other words, the gains from better health over the period 1970-1990 were comparable to all the gains in material wealth over the same period.

Looking at the future, if medical research could reduce cancer mortality by just 10 percent, that would be worth $5 trillion to U.S. citizens (and even more taking into account the rest of the world). The net gain would be especially large if we could reduce cancer mortality with new drugs, which are typically cheap to make once discovered. A reduction in cancer mortality of this size does not seem beyond reach. Medical research spending is far more valuable on the margin than medical care spending yet because we lack an innovation vision, we endlessly debate how to divide the pie while we overlook potentially huge improvements in human welfare.

THE RED-TAPE MENACE

Regulation is another area in which we lack an innovation vision. There are good regulations and bad regulations and lots of debate over which is which. From an innovation perspective, however, this debate misses a key point. Let’s assume that all regulations are good. The problem is that even if each regulation is good, the net effect of all the regulations combined may be bad. A single pebble in a big stream doesn’t do much, but throw enough pebbles and the stream of innovation is dammed.

Building in the United States today, for example, requires navigating a thicket of environmental, zoning and aesthetic regulations that vary not only state by state but county by county. If building a house is difficult, try building an airport. Passenger travel has more than tripled since deregulation in 1978, but in that time only one major new airport has been built: Denver’s. That airport is now the fourth busiest in the world. Indeed the top seven busiest airports are all in the United States, not so much because we are big but because without new construction we are forced to overcrowd our existing infrastructure. The result is delays and inefficiency. Meanwhile, China is building 50 to 100 new airports over the next 10 years.

Regulatory thickets are also strangling energy innovation. The U.S. Department of Energy, for example, estimates that small and environmentally friendly hydro-electric projects could generate at least 30,000 MWs of power annually. That’s equivalent to the generating capacity of about 30 nuclear power plants. Moreover, since 97% of U.S. dams are generating zero power today, these projects would not require building any new dams. So what’s the problem? The problem is that building even a small hydro-electric project requires the approval of numerous agencies, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, State Environmental Departments and State Historic Preservation Departments. It’s simply too expensive, time-consuming and risky to build these projects when any of these agencies could veto it at any time. The net result is that we generate more electricity than necessary by leveling mountains, burning coal, and filling our air with dangerous particulates and climate-changing CO2.

BUILDING THE NEXT HOOVER DAM

Our ancestors were bold and industrious. They built a significant portion of our energy and road infrastructure more than half a century ago. It would be almost impossible to build that system today. Could we build the Hoover Dam today? We have the technology. We seem to lack the will. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on the infrastructure of our past to travel to our future. Airports, an electricity smart grid that doesn’t throw millions into the dark every few years, and ubiquitous Wi-Fi are among the important infrastructures of the 21st century, and they are caught in the regulatory thicket.

Our economy is stagnant and for the first time in a long time, and the national mood is deeply pessimistic. To restore our economy and our spirits we need to become an innovation nation. An innovative nation would improve the prospects for economic growth but could do much more. The warfare-welfare state divides the pie and also divides Americans. Americans, however, are an innovative, forward-thinking people and the prospects are good for uniting them on a pro-growth, pro-innovation agenda.

This essay is drawn from Launching the Innovation Renaissance Alex Tabarrok’s new book, published by TED books.

---

Alexander Tabarrok Send email Alexander Tabarrok is Research Director for The Independent Institute, Assistant Editor of The Independent Review, and Associate Professor of Economics at George Mason University. He received his Ph.D. in economics from George Mason University, and he has taught at the University of Virginia and Ball State University. Dr. Tabarrok is the editor of The Independent Institute books, Entrepreneurial Economics (Oxford University Press), The Voluntary City (with David Beito and Peter Gordon, University of Michigan Press), and Changing the Guard: Private Prisons and the Control of Crime.

"If someone were to take you out - today - would anyone see the book?"

by Todd Brendan Fahey

It was an absurd question. But we live in absurd times, and so I paused in reflection and took a quick mental inventory of just how many copies of the manuscript were floating around the U.S. and England. In the final analysis - including published excerpts from the book - there are far too many copies of Wisdom's Maw circulating "out there" to do anything about. For better or worse, the CIA will have to lie with its mistakes.

There was a time, though, many years ago, late Spring of 1990, when I found myself worrying about the little things: the car that had been in my rearview mirror for several miles and many odd street changes, or the sonar blip somewhere in the bowels of my phone line to which I could set my watch, or whether this turn of the ignition key would be the last move I would ever make.

Democratic Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, in a closed door session of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1978, deemed Project MK-ULTRA, "the most diabolical experiment imaginable in a democratic society." And from what I know now, from the four-plus years it took to research and complete Wisdom's Maw, I would have to agree.

For over twenty years, several branches of the federal government of the United States of America - most notably the Army Chemical Corps, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation - sought as their ultimate objective nothing less than total control over human behavior. A little-known chemical compound procured from a Swiss pharmaceutical firm was to be The Key. Today, of course, we know the drug as LSD-25.

It was through my reading of the history of lysergic acid diethylamide in two works of nonfiction, Acid Dreams and Storming Heaven, that I decided this epoch in American history to be worthy of a novel - a work of fiction with space and time altered, as if in the powerful throes of an acid trip, and with the dimensions redrawn to benefit certain human agents who may have been neglected proportionally by state-approved historians. Such an art form was the only way to make sense of LSD.

Precisely, it was the coming across the figure of one Alfred M. Hubbard in Acid Dreams, in the chapter titled "The Original Captain Trips," that would throw me headlong into an obsession that would culminate in the completion of a 222pp. novel surrounding Project MK-ULTRA.

After the buzz settled from my readings, I immediately set for myself the goal of knowing more about the man whom Timothy Leary called, "the great, enigmatic triple-agent," than anyone alive. It was during this period of research, between March of 1990 and the summer of 1991, that the word "paranoia" became a meaningless abstraction.

I was, am, and will forever be convinced that Captain Al Hubbard was a conscious, dedicated agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, and that his astonishing career as "the Johnny Appleseed of LSD" was but a pebble on the surface of MK-ULTRA.

After dozens of hours of taped conversations with the likes of Myron Stolaroff, Drs. Humphrey Osmond and Abram Hoffer, Timothy Leary, and Laura Huxley, wife of the great psychedelic visionary Aldous Huxley, I was able to deliver to Steve Hager and John Holmstrom at High Times a long, investigative piece on Al Hubbard for its November 1991 issue. I was also so convinced of my being under surveillance, and that the phones at my home and place of employment (then a Big-Eight law firm) were tapped, that my wife and I moved abruptly one afternoon from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City, Utah. ("They" would need to really want to go after me, I reasoned, to follow me to Utah.)

It was in the idyll of a huge, old flat with hardwood floors, just off Temple Square, in the heart of Salt Lake City, that Wisdom's Maw was completed. While in the throes of too many acid trips, drawing from Freedom of Information Act-sensitive documents, and supported by long breaks between quarters at Weber State University, where I had been hired to teach freshman English, I was able to finish off three-quarters of the novel in about eight weeks (the other one-quarter had taken four years...it must germinate, I kept telling myself...). The excerpting of the book in 1993 by Utah Holiday, a now-defunct glossy regional, allowed me to forget about the sound of footsteps (the phone-blips stopped after leaving L.A.), and since then, the only concern I have had is the nature of the baffling silence of virtually every major publisher in New York.

Author Ernest J. Gaines (The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman), who spent time at Stanford in '59-60 with some of the principals in Wisdom's Maw, uttered this bottom-line conclusion after reading the manuscript, perhaps the raison d'etre of its unacknowledged status:

"You have written a very controversial book here, and if it is published and read, you might have to answer some questions to some pretty big boys. I hope you have the backbone for it."  - Ernest J. Gaines

Indeed, appearing front and center in Wisdom's Maw - toward the novel's premise that the CIA, using LSD, created "The Sixties" for the purpose of containing, then destroying, a burgeoning youth rebellion - are no less than Hunter S. Thompson, the Hells Angels, Jack Kerouac, Neal Cassady, Al Hubbard and other known and suspected MK-ULTRA spooks, as well as one former Oregon wrestler who shall here go nameless.

For a decade, readers, you have had access to as much of Wisdom's Maw as exists in a state of publication. The New York literary mafia, as Timothy Leary liked to call it, has sat on this Pandora's box long enough. Are you ready to open the lid?

Todd Brendan Fahey

Lawrence Patton McDonald Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Georgia's 7th district Preceded by Succeeded by Personal details Born Died Political party Spouse(s) Profession Religion

In office January 3, 1975 – September 1, 1983 (died in office)

John W. Davis

George Darden

April 1, 1935 Atlanta, Georgia

September 1, 1983 (aged 48) near Sakhalin, Soviet Union

Democratic

Anna McDonald (née Tryggvadottir) Kathryn McDonald (née Jackson)

Physician

Independent MethodistLawrence Patton McDonald, M.D. (April 1, 1935 – September 1, 1983) was an Americanpolitician and a member of the United States House of Representatives, representing the seventh congressional district of Georgia as a Democrat. He was a passenger on board Korean Air Lines Flight 007 shot down by Soviet interceptors and presumed dead.

A conservative Democrat, he was active in numerous civic organizations and maintained a veryconservative voting record in Congress. He was known for his staunch opposition to communismand believed in long standing covert efforts by powerful U.S. groups to bring about a socialist world government. He was the second president of the John Birch Society. and also a cousin of General George S. Patton.[1]

Larry McDonald was born and raised in Atlanta, Georgia, more specifically in the eastern part of the city that is in DeKalb County. As a child, he attended private and parochial schools before attending a non-denominational high school.[1] He spent two years at high school before graduating[1] in 1951.[2] He studied at Davidson College from 1951 until 1953,[2] spending time studying history.[1] He enrolled in the Emory University School of Medicine at the age of 17,[1]graduating in 1957.[2] He trained at Grady Memorial Hospital as a urologist.

From 1959 to 1961 he served as a Flight Surgeon in the United States Navy stationed at theKeflavík naval base in Iceland. McDonald married an Icelandic national, Anna Tryggvadottir, with whom he would eventually have three children: Tryggvi Paul, Callie Grace, and Mary Elizabeth.[1]It was in Iceland that McDonald first began to take note of communism. He felt the U.S. Embassy was doing things advantageous to the Communists. He went to the commanding officer, but was told he did not understand the big picture.[1]

After his tour of service he practiced medicine at the McDonald Urology Clinic in Atlanta. He took an increasing interest in politics, reading books on political history and foreign policy.[1] He joined the John Birch Society—a conservative, anti-communist organization—in 1966 or 1967.[3][4] McDonald's passionate preoccupation with politics led to a divorce from his first wife.[1] McDonald made one unsuccessful run for Congress in 1972 before being elected in 1974. In 1975, he married Kathryn Jackson, whom he met while giving a speech in California.[1]

McDonald served as a member on the Georgia State Medical Education Board (as chairman 1969–1974[2]), the National Historical Societyand the Cobb County Chamber of Commerce and received numerous civil honors.

In 1974, McDonald ran for Congress against incumbent John W. Davis in the Democratic primary as a conservative who was opposed to mandatory federal school integration programs. McDonald successfully criticized Davis for being one of only two Georgia congressmen to vote in favor of busing. He was also effective in attacking Davis for receiving thousands of dollars in political donations from out-of-state groups, principally from New York City and Los Angeles. These groups favored mandatory federal programs that used busing to achieve school integration.[5] McDonald won the primary in a surprise upset and was elected in November 1974 to the 94th United States Congress, serving for Georgia's 7th congressional district, which included most of Atlanta's northwestern suburbs (including Marietta), where opposition to school busing was especially high. However, in the general election, J. Quincy Collins, Jr., an Air Force prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, running as a Republican, nearly defeated him, despite the poor performance of Republicans nationally that year due to the aftereffects of the Watergate scandal. McDonald, though, was re-elected four times with wide margins (including a 1976 rematch with Collins) and served from January 3, 1975, until his death, on September 1, 1983. His seat represented a contrast in political geography, as Republicans were successfully competing against moderate Democrats using the Southern strategy. Unlike many national Democrats, McDonald hewed to a consistently conservative line on issues such as foreign policy, defense spending, fiscal restraint, States rights, Gun rights, and Pro-life, while mounting a campaigns that successfully combined modern elements with a more traditional grassroots strategy. It paid off in the fall; while many of his fellow Democrats succumbed to Republican opponents or switched parties, McDonald managed to retain his seat.

McDonald—who considered himself a traditional Democrat "cut from the cloth of Jefferson and Jackson"[6]—was known for his conservative views, even by Southern standards. Given his Old Right and Southern views he was more conservative than the Republican party. In fact, one scoring method published in the American Journal of Political Science[7] named him the second most conservative member of either chamber of Congress between 1937 and 2002 (behind only Ron Paul).[8] The American Conservative Union gave him a perfect score of 100 every year he was in the House of Representatives, except in 1978, when he scored a 95.[9] He also scored "perfect or near perfect ratings" on the congressional scorecards of the National Right to Life Committee, Gun Owners of America, and the American Security Council.[10]Referred to by The New American as "the leading anti-Communist in Congress",[10] McDonald admired Senator Joseph McCarthy[11] and was a member of the Joseph McCarthy Foundation.[3] He took the communist threat seriously and considered it an international conspiracy. An admirer of Austrian economics and a member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute,[3] he was an advocate of tight monetary policy in the late 1970s to get the economy out of stagflation, and advocated returning to the gold standard.[12] McDonald called the welfare state a "disaster"[13] and favored phasing control of the Great Society programs over to the states to operate and run.[14] He also favored cuts toforeign aid, saying "To me, foreign aid is an area that you not only can cut but you could take a chainsaw to in terms of reductions."[14]...

LD Jackson
Political Realities

It was inevitable, I suppose – Once Ron Paul rose to the top-tier of candidates, it didn’t take long before the accusations began to fly.

Old theories about his supposed racism, fueled by the continued discussion of the newsletters published some two decades ago, have gained new traction in the media. The new and old media have both been regurgitating the accusations, in spite of Ron Paul having disavowed them and his attempts to prove them false. We now have a former staffer who has came forward, claiming to have extensive knowledge of the real Ron Paul. Eric Dondero has written a fairly long article about his associations with Paul, including his “insider” knowledge of how the Congressman “really feels” about a range of issues. What I find odd about this is how Dondero’s word has been accepted as gospel by most in the media, yet when the Paul campaign points out that he was fired for performance issues, the media asks that they provide proof of that.

When I endorsed Ron Paul for the GOP nomination for President, I did not intend to turn Political Realities into a cheerleader for his campaign. I have written about him when I felt the need to do so, as was the case when I defended him against Michelle Bachmann’s charge that he would be a dangerous President. Such would be the case now, as I see the charges of racism, anti-Semitism, of generally being out of touch with his foreign policy, mount against him. To raise that defense, I want to use an email interview of Ron Paul by Haaretz.com, which addresses the issues of how he feels about Israel and about racism and anti-Semitism. Out of the horse’s mouth, so to speak. Haaretz has a unique perspective, in that they are a Jewish website.

Q. What was your reaction to your exclusion from the function held by the Republican Jewish Coalition, to which all the rest of the candidates were invited?

Paul: Well, it was a bit surprising and disappointing. I believe that Israel is one of our most important friends in the world. And the views that I hold have many adherents in Israel today. Two of the tenets of a true Zionist are “self-determination” and “self-reliance.” I do not believe we should be Israel’s master but, rather, her friend. We should not be dictating her policies and announcing her negotiating positions before talks with her neighbors have even begun.

Q. The RJC characterized your views on Israel as “misguided and extreme”. Why do you think they view your views in that way?

Paul: I do not know, as I am the one candidate who would respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate to her about how she should deal with her neighbors. I supported Israel’s right to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s, and I opposed President Obama’s attempt to dictate Israel’s borders this year.

Q. Do you think that the American debate on Israel is stifled?

Paul: There is no question that the problems of the Middle East have been intractable and may take new solutions and ideas. These ideas should all be openly discussed. I believe that my opinions have been distorted by those who want to continue America’s current role as world policeman, which we don’t have the money or manpower to sustain.

My philosophy, like that of the Founding Fathers, is that we should use our resources to protect our nation. Our policies of intervention and manipulation in Iran and Iraq and other places have led to unintended consequences and have not made Israel safer. Many in the Jewish community share my opinion, and it’s vital for both nations that we continue to have an open dialogue.

Q. In a 2007 clip that is on YouTube, you say, “Israel should be treated like everybody else”. Is that still your position, or do you believe that Israel and the United States have a “special relationship”?

Paul: Well, we do have some unique arrangements. We trade intelligence in areas when it serves our mutual interest, for instance. But I believe we have gone too far, to Israel’s detriment. Instead of being her friend, we have dominated her foreign policy.

Q. In that same clip, you also say that the motivation of al-Qaida for the 9/11 attacks was American support for Israel. Do you still believe that?

Paul: I think most people in the Middle East and probably in Israel would agree that this was a major factor. That in itself does not make our policies right or wrong. Our policies need to be discussed on their own merits, but as a matter of course, yes, our support of Israel has made us enemies.

Other U.S. policies, such as our stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia and our support for repressive regimes in the region, also play a role in hostilities to the U.S. Those in the Arab world who object to the U.S.’ support for dictatorships and to our military presence there often see Israel as the agent of the U.S. Thus, not only do Israel’s relations with the U.S. cause some negative feelings toward America, but they further Arab hostility toward Israel, which is one reason why Israel would be better off without U.S. aid.

Q. In the Fox News presidential debate you expressed understanding and even sympathy for the Iran having nuclear weapons. But Israelis view an Iranian nuclear capability as an existential threat to their country. Do you disagree? Do you not believe Iranian leaders who say that Israel should be “wiped off the map”?

Paul: I am against the spread of nuclear weapons. But I do understand why other nations want them and why they don’t accept the nuclear monopoly as it now stands. You cannot change an opinion you don’t understand. I understand it and would try to change it.
However, there’s a key fact that it seems is being overlooked when my positions are discussed. I believe I’m the only candidate who would allow Israel to take immediate action to defend herself without having to get our approval. Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty.

Q. Do you support completely cutting all foreign aid, including the aid to Israel?

Paul: Yes, I am personally against all foreign aid. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her avowed enemies. How does that help Israel? And in return, we act like her master and demand veto power over her foreign policy.
If I were President, such aid would not end until the Congress agreed and voted for it to end, because I would be President as the U.S. Constitution defines it. I am not running for dictator.

But I believe that federal foreign aid is absurd. We’re broke! We are like a man who used to be rich and is in the habit of paying for everybody’s meals and announces at a lavish dinner that he will pay the bill, only to then turn to the fellow sitting nearby and say, “Can I use your credit card? I will pay you back.” It is ridiculous for us to be borrowing money from China and giving it to Pakistan.
I have described foreign aid as taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries. I know that many in other nations are hurting, but I also know that the American people are a generous people. While we should end the unconstitutional federal foreign aid program, I would encourage Americans to continue to voluntarily contribute to the needs of other nations.

Q. In the past, you have been accused by various groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, of accepting the support of racist and anti-Semitic elements and of not doing anything to distance yourself from them. What is your reaction to this accusation?

Paul: I have always made it clear, and will continue to do so, that my message is based on the rights of all people to be treated equally. Any type of racism or anti-Semitism is incompatible with my philosophy. Ludwig von Mises, the great economist whose writing helped inspire my political career, was a Jew who was forced to leave his native Austria to escape the Nazis. Mises wrote about the folly of seeing people as part of groups rather than as individuals. Therefore, for me to advance anti-Semitism in any way would be a betrayal of my own intellectual heritage.

I know a series of questions and answers via email is not a definitive answer to the charges that are being thrown at Ron Paul. However, I think his answers give us a little insight as to how the man thinks and how he approaches the issues facing our country. He clearly has nothing against Israel, but he does want them to be treated fairly and equally. He has a point, in that our financial aid to them is dwarfed by the financial aid we give to some of her enemies. We should think about that, long and hard, before we classify Paul’s desire to cut off foreign aid to Israel and every other country who is holding out their hand. In my humble opinion, Paul’s position on Israel makes perfect sense.

I am not the only person who holds this opinion. According to Dr. Leon Hadar, who advised was an adviser to Ron Paul during his 2008 campaign, Eric Dondero’s classification of Paul being anti-Israel is simply not true. From Haaretz.com:

Speaking with Haaretz on Tuesday, Hadar discounted Paul’s characterization as anti-Israel, saying: “He is against Israel as I am against January. He is just against foreign aid, and does not see any reason to grant an aid to the country that is a member of OECD.”

“We should remember it’s the primaries, and the Republican party establishment is not happy about his popularity, because on many issues his positions run contrary to the traditional party’s agenda,” Hadar added.

The former aide also indicated that Rep. Paul was in favor of “economic cooperation with Israel, he was interested in the economic reforms in Israel.”

“He will be glad to see the conflict resolved and he said it’s the right of Israel to attack Iran if it thinks that is necessary – but it shouldn’t expect the U.S. to clean the mess,” he said, adding that Paul is “very familiar with Israel’s history. I didn’t hear his conversations with his former aide, but I personally have never heard him say anything against Israel or the Jews.”

Referring to claims according to which Paul was in favor of “handing Israel back” to the Arabs, Hadar said it was “absurd to say he is more supportive of Arabs or Iran than Israel – he just thinks the U.S. shouldn’t meddle in other countries issues.”

“I think it’s quite pro-Israeli, because the U.S. won’t stay in the Middle East forever, and Israel should figure out how to deal with its challenges,” Hadar said, adding that there “is little doubt the current campaign against him and the attempts to paint him as anti-Israeli might cause him harm among the Evangelicals, whose support is more significant during the primaries than the Republican Jewish support.”

As you can see, there are two sides to this story. Before we automatically accept a former staffer’s word of how Ron Paul “really feels” on certain issues, we need to take it all into context. All may not be as it seems.

By Stephanie Pappas
Published January 23, 2012
LiveScience

Jan 23, 2012 10:33am
By Sunlen Miller
Matt Hosford

Sen. Rand Paul told his communications director this morning he was being detained by TSA at the Nashville airport.

The Twitter account associated with Paul staffer Moira Bagley, @moirabagley, tweeted around 10 a.m., ET, “Just got a call from @senrandpaul. He’s currently being detained by TSA in Nashville.”

A TSA spokesman disputed that Paul was ever “detained.” But he was not granted access to the secure area of the airport when he tried to board a flight Monday morning.

The standoff was short-lived. By late morning, according to TSA, Paul had been booked on another flight and made it through the screening process.

The TSA version of events is that Paul triggered an alarm during routine airport screening and refused to complete the screening process (pat-down) in order to resolve the issue.  Paul was escorted out of the screening area by local law enforcement.

“When an irregularity is found during the TSA screening process, it must be resolved prior to allowing a passenger to proceed to the secure area of the airport,” according to an official statement released by TSA. “Passengers who refuse to complete the screening process cannot be granted access to the secure area in order to ensure the safety of others traveling.”

Paul’s office confirmed he set off  an airport security full-body scanner “on a glitch,” according to a spokesman.

The Paul staffer said TSA agents would not let Paul walk back through the body scanner and were demanding a full body pat-down.

The Paul spokesman said his office called TSA administrator John Pistole about the incident this morning.

The U.S. Constitution actually protects federal lawmakers from detention while they’re on the way to the capital.

“The Senators and Representatives…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same….” according to Article I, Section 6.

The Senate is back in session today at 2 p.m., with votes scheduled at 4:30 p.m. It is not clear if Paul will make it to Washington by 4:30 p.m. on his new flight.

The issue of pat-downs has been an important one to Paul, the son of libertarian-leaning Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Sen.  Paul brought this issue up at a hearing earlier this year.

Watch it here. 

Congressman renews his call to abolish agency that “gropes and grabs” Americans

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
January 23, 2012

GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul issued the following statement on his campaign website this afternoon, following his son Rand’s treatment at the hands of the TSA in Nashville.

“The police state in this country is growing out of control.  One of the ultimate embodiments of this is the TSA that gropes and grabs our children, our seniors, and our loved ones and neighbors with disabilities.  The TSA does all of this while doing nothing to keep us safe.

“That is why my ‘Plan to Restore America,’ in additional to cutting $1 trillion dollars in federal spending in one year, eliminates the TSA.

“We must restore the freedom and respect for liberty that once made American the greatest nation in human history.  I am deeply committed to doing that as President of the United States.”

The website also posted a picture of Senator Rand Paul talking to reporters following the incident with the TSA:

Congressman Paul has been a long time critic of the TSA. In 2010 he introduced into the House the “American Traveler Dignity Act,” which would remove TSA agents’ immunity from prosecution for implementing invasive pat-down procedures. Paul re-introduced the legislation in the summer.

Related: TSA Directly Violated US Constitution By Detaining Senator Rand Paul

(Reuters) - When Patty Tegeler looks out the window of her home overlooking the Appalachian Mountains in southwestern Virginia, she sees trouble on the horizon.

"In an instant, anything can happen," she told Reuters. "And I firmly believe that you have to be prepared."

Tegeler is among a growing subculture of Americans who refer to themselves informally as "preppers." Some are driven by a fear of imminent societal collapse, others are worried about terrorism, and many have a vague concern that an escalating series of natural disasters is leading to some type of environmental cataclysm.

They are following in the footsteps of hippies in the 1960s who set up communes to separate themselves from what they saw as a materialistic society, and the survivalists in the 1990s who were hoping to escape the dictates of what they perceived as an increasingly secular and oppressive government.

Preppers, though are, worried about no government.

Tegeler, 57, has turned her home in rural Virginia into a "survival center," complete with a large generator, portable heaters, water tanks, and a two-year supply of freeze-dried food that her sister recently gave her as a birthday present. She says that in case of emergency, she could survive indefinitely in her home. And she thinks that emergency could come soon.

"I think this economy is about to fall apart," she said.

A wide range of vendors market products to preppers, mainly online. They sell everything from water tanks to guns to survival skills.

Conservative talk radio host Glenn Beck seems to preach preppers' message when he tells listeners: "It's never too late to prepare for the end of the world as we know it."

"Unfortunately, given the increasing complexity and fragility of our modern technological society, the chances of a societal collapse are increasing year after year," said author James Wesley Rawles, whose Survival Blog is considered the guiding light of the prepper movement.

A former Army intelligence officer, Rawles has written fiction and non-fiction books on end-of-civilization topics, including "How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It," which is also known as the preppers' Bible.

"We could see a cascade of higher interest rates, margin calls, stock market collapses, bank runs, currency revaluations, mass street protests, and riots," he told Reuters. "The worst-case end result would be a Third World War, mass inflation, currency collapses, and long term power grid failures."...

by Gary North

Issue 1135                                      January 17, 2012

                    AUDITING THE FED'S GOLD
 
        I have posted a video of something I thought I would
  never see: all five of the Republican candidates for the
  U.S. Senate verbally demanding an audit of the Federal
  Reserve System. You can see it here:
 
              http://teapartyeconomist.com/?p=2367 
 
        Bernanke is facing what no Federal Reserve chairman
  has ever faced: public awareness of the Federal Reserve
  System. From late December 1913, when an almost deserted
  Senate voted for the Federal Reserve Act, until 2008, when
  the recession confirmed Ron Paul's warning in late 2007,
  there was almost no public awareness or even a vague
  understanding of the Federal Reserve System. The genie is
  now out of the bottle, where it had been corked since 1913.
  Ron Paul has uncorked it.
 
        From the November 1910 secret meeting at Georgia's
  Jekyll Island until Ron Paul's 2007 candidacy for the
  Republican nomination for President, The Federal Reserve
  had received a free ride from Congress. There had never
  been much oversight. That's because FED regulation was an
  oversight. (The same word is used to convey opposite
  meanings.)
 
        The Texas Leftist-populist Democrat Wright Patman had
  been a critic. He had been the chairman of the House
  Banking Committee until 1975, a year before Paul arrived in
  Congress. He was a Greenbacker: a believer in a zero-
  interest economy that achieves this Utopian goal through
  the use of fiat paper money. Patman was not able to
  generate much interest in the FED.
 
        Patman did inflict one major wound on the FED. He and
  California Congressman Jerry Voorhis, another Greenbacker,
  in the early 1940s persuaded Congress to pass a bill, which
  Roosevelt signed, that forbids the Federal Reserve from
  keeping the interest payments from the government bonds it
  has counterfeited fiat money to purchase. Today, the FED
  must return to the Treasury all of this money beyond its
  operating expenses. For 2011, the FED will pay back $77
  billion. (http://teapartyeconomist.com/?p=2185)
                                                   
        A full-scale audit of the FED, if it ever comes, must
  include an audit of the gold every year. The auditors must
  see if the gold is in the two vaults. The first vault, at
  Ft. Knox, is more famous. The more important vault is
  located at 33 Liberty Street, New York City: the privately
  owned Federal Reserve Bank of New York. This is the "Die
  Hard III" vault.
 
        The auditors must do two things. First, they must
  determine whether there is the same amount of gold as is
  listed on the FED's books at the fake price of $42.22 per
  ounce. Second, the auditors must follow the paper trail of
  ownership. They must make sure that the gold in the vaults
  is still legally in the possession of the FED.
       
        There is a possibility that the FED has transferred
  ownership of this gold, through swaps, to European central
  banks, which have in turn leased -- sold -- their gold to
  private buyers. It is not enough to determine that the
  physical gold is in the two vaults. It is also mandatory to
  determine whether the FED has indirectly sold the
  government's gold, which it has held in trust for the
  government since 1933.       
 
        [Note to auditors: pursue this phrase in the
        FED's statements: "deep storage gold." As to why,
        read this: http://www.gata.org/node/4213]
 
 
  BERNANKE VS. A FULL-SCALE GOVERNMENT AUDIT
 
        Every FED chairman has resisted any attempt by the
  Congress to mandate an independent audit of the FED by the
  General Accountability Office of the U.S. government.
  Bernanke was adamantly opposed in 2009. He of course did
  not mention what I regard as the main reason for his
  opposition to an audit: the missing gold. For all FED
  chairman, gold is a four-letter word. He mentioned only
  monetary policy, as if Congress has no authority over
  monetary policy, despite that ancient "barbarous relic,"
  the U.S. Constitution.
 
        The Congress has recently discussed proposals to
        expand the audit authority of the Government
        Accountability Office (GAO) over the Federal
        Reserve. As you know, the Federal Reserve is
        already subject to frequent reviews by the GAO.
        The GAO has broad authority to audit our
        operations and functions.
 
        This of course was deceptive. First, the FED is
  audited by a rotating group of private auditing firms,
  which are appointed by the Office of Inspector General.
  This rotation system makes long-term accounting continuity
  far more difficult to achieve. The FED forbids the auditing
  firm to inspect all of the FED's operations. According to
  the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
 
        Operations at each Federal Reserve Bank also are
        subject to review by the Government
        Accountability Office (GAO), the audit arm of the
        U.S. Congress. However, GAO auditors are
        restricted by law from reviewing monetary policy
        operations and transactions carried out by the
        Federal Reserve on behalf of foreign central
        banks. This restriction was imposed by Congress
        to assure the independence of the Federal Reserve
        from political influence.
 
        "Political influence." There is another term for
  "political influence." That term is "the United States
  government."
 
        The FED defends this principle: "Monetary policy is
  far too important to be audited by the government." After
  all, what claim to such authority does the government have,
  other than the fact that it created the Federal Reserve
  System?...

Editor's note: Matt Welch is editor in chief of Reason and co-author of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America (PublicAffairs).

(CNN) -- To get a sense of how Ron Paul is tying the GOP establishment in knots, look no further than Sen. Jim DeMint, the powerful Republican from the site of the next major primary, South Carolina.

Until November 2010, DeMint had a clear claim on being the most influential, populist-flavored fiscal conservative in the Senate. Then a wave of Tea Party freshmen helped bring a Republican majority to the House of Representative and a new breed of politician to the Senate -- one best exemplified by Kentucky's Rand Paul, whose post-campaign memoir was titled The Tea Party Goes to Washington.

DeMint, a strong social conservative, greeted it with both a hearty welcome ("[P]ut on your boxing gloves. The fight begins today") and an attempt at line-drawing. "You can't be a fiscal conservative," he claimed just after the election, "and not be a social conservative."

DeMint was totally wrong about that -- polling data has indicated that a majority of Americans feel comfortable with the label of "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" -- but that's not what's interesting here. What's interesting is that after pooh-poohing the existence of a species that closely resembles the politically homeless tribe known as libertarians, DeMint, in the wake of Rep. Ron Paul's solid second-place showing so far in the GOP presidential primary season, is using the L-word as a compliment.

"One of the things that's hurt the so-called conservative alternative is saying negative things about Ron Paul," DeMint told radio host Laura Ingraham this week. "I'd like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas."

This is a departure. In both 2000 and 2008, the top two GOP delegate-winners ran on explicitly anti-libertarian platforms. As John McCain wrote in his campaign memoir "Worth the Fighting For," "I welcomed a greater, if still limited, role for government in national problems, anathema to the 'leave us alone' libertarian philosophy that dominated Republican debates in the 1990s. So did George W. Bush, I must add, who challenged libertarian orthodoxy with his appeal for a 'compassionate conservatism.'"

The mix of compassionate conservatism, with its emphasis on domestic spending initiatives such as No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Part D, and neo-conservatism, with its emphasis on interventionist foreign policy, produced results that were both predictable and predictably repellent to libertarians: A 60% increase in federal nondefense spending under Bush, and a federal government that recognized no corner of the globe or hospital room as off-limits to American police power.

It's no wonder, then, that libertarians, like the rest of America, have been fleeing the Republican Party in droves. From 1972 to1988, libertarians voted Republican for president 69 percent of the time; since then the percentage has dropped to 46. Meanwhile the country, and especially younger people, have been turning more culturally libertarian on issues like gay marriage and marijuana prohibition, at a time when the mainstream GOP keeps fighting those lost causes...

by Daniel Larison
The Week
posted on January 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM

Rick Santorum and Ron Paul finished in a close second and third in Tuesday night's Iowa caucuses. But they could scarcely be farther apart in their foreign policy visions, not to mention their views on the proper role of government — revealing a massive fracture in the Republican Party. If the trajectory of their careers in the last five years is any indication, Paul's ideas are gaining influence, while Santorum appears to be one of the last of the completely unrepentant Bush-era Republicans. Paul was never going to be the nominee this year, but the party continues to move gradually in his direction.  

Paul was overtaken Tuesday by Santorum's late surge, but the Texas libertarian's showing in Iowa represented more than a doubling of his 2008 result, and his numbers were boosted by strong backing from independents and young voters. Unlike Santorum, Paul has a significant campaign presence in other early states, and will still be reasonably competitive in the weeks to come. Considering the amount of time Santorum spent in Iowa over the last several months (by far more than any other candidate), and the presence of a natural constituency of social conservatives and evangelicals he should have been able to win over, the former Pennsylvania senator's result is not all that impressive compared to Mike Huckabee's four years ago.

Santorum's presidential campaign is an exercise in continuing to deny that the public has already repudiated the foreign policy he promotes.

Santorum was a two-term senator who chose the worst year of the Iraq war — 2006 — to make his re-election a referendum on the most unpopular and aggressive aspects of President Bush's foreign policy. Santorum was clobbered by Democrat Bob Casey, and his re-election bid reflected the political fortunes of the party as a whole in 2006. The GOP lost control of both houses of Congress, in no small part because of growing public opposition to the war in Iraq and the reckless administration that launched it. Like the rest of the party, Santorum has not yet learned the lesson from those midterms: He and the GOP had been wrong on these issues. Santorum's presidential campaign is, in some respects, an exercise in continuing to deny that the public has already repudiated the foreign policy he promotes.

Indeed, Santorum's politics are nearly the essence of Bushism. Paul represents the full-throated rejection of the same. If Paul is well-known for his strong anti-war views and sharp criticisms of U.S. interference abroad, Santorum has been no less outspoken in favor of ever more intrusive and interventionist policies. While Paul has been the lone voice warning against a rush to war against Iran, Santorum demands a more combative Iran policy. Santorum's campaign rhetoric reads as if it were a caricature of neoconservatism. He believes that the U.S. is at war with "Islamic fascism," which he sees a global threat on par with 20th century totalitarianism. He insists that we must promote democracy, but we must never allow democratic elections to empower Islamists. Oh, and terrorists hate us because we are free. U.S. policies have nothing to do with it.

Santorum and Paul have also clashed over the size and scope of the state at home, as Santorum has regularly defended the PATRIOT Act, indefinite detention and torture of terrorist suspects, and illegal surveillance by the government. Santorum is also a strong believer in an activist, centralized government promoting morality nationwide. Paul, on the other hand, is a fierce critic of any federal government activity not explicitly authorized by the Constitution. The largest expansion of the welfare state in a generation received Santorum's backing, while Paul has been an inflexible, stalwart opponent of the expansion of government.  

Paul and Santorum represent the two poles of Republican foreign policy today, and their visions are completely incompatible with one another. On one side, Paul advocates for a libertarian and non-interventionist position that traces its origins to the pre-WWI foreign policy tradition of the republic. On the other, Santorum aligns himself with a fusion of "hard Wilsonian" internationalism and nostalgic rhetoric that frames every issue in terms of a Churchillian struggle against massive foreign threats. Despite sharing the same nominal partisan affiliation, the gap between Paul and Santorum is far larger than the differences between the rest of the Republican field and President Obama. At the same time, the former senator's combination of interventionism and "big-government conservatism" actually serves to make one of Paul's central arguments for him, which is that support for government activism abroad tends to encourage the same at home.

He may not have much of a shot at the GOP nomination, but Ron Paul could still win enough delegates to be a kingmaker at August's Republican National Convention. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images SEE ALL 21 PHOTOS

Ron Paul is doing much better in the Republican presidential race than anyone not named Mitt Romney. But even after strong second- and third-place finishes in New Hampshire and Iowa, respectively, "Paul's insurgent campaign for the Republican presidential nomination may strike some as a lost cause," says Gerardo Orlando at The Orlando Report. Still, unlike four years ago, many Republicans are taking Paul and his devoted following seriously this time around — even though few think the libertarian congressman has any shot at winning the nomination. Here, a look at why Ron Paul might still be a force to be reckoned with:

If he can't win the nomination, why is Paul running?
A cause. Paul and his aides insist that the Ron Paul Revolution will keep on rolling through the GOP primary season, and perhaps all the way to the Republican National Convention in August. If he can win enough delegates, Paul will have leverage at the convention to... do something. "Given everything we know about him, he'll be seeking some sort of major policy statement from the party," Colby College political scientist Anthony Corrado tells Bloomberg. "I suspect that's more important to him than any particularly personal role at the convention or any rules change." Paul seems to be leaning that way, telling CNN he might get "something in the platform that says, maybe we ought to look at the Federal Reserve and maybe we ought to reconsider and not (go) to war unless we have a declaration of war."

How would Paul get the GOP to listen to him?
It's all about the delegates, which are awarded based on a candidate's performance in primaries and caucuses. A candidate needs 1,144 delegates to secure the nomination. For the next couple months, every primary and caucus awards its delegates proportionally, before giving way to a winner-take-all system in April. In the coming months, if Paul wins 10 percent of the vote in primaries and 20 percent in caucuses, plus a winner-take-all Western state or two, he could pocket roughly 200 delegates, says Dustin Krutsinger at Caffeinated Thoughts. If a third candidate gives Romney a run for his ample money, Paul's delegates could be a critical tiebreaker. Paul could potentially swing his supporters behind the candidate of his choosing, effectively making him a "kingmaker."

Can Paul really keep racking up delegates?
Quite possibly. Remember, only Paul and Romney managed to get on every state's primary ballot. And "Paul's unexpected momentum may be pushing the campaign to recalibrate its strategy," says Grace Wyler at Business Insider. If Paul "exceeds expectations in South Carolina" on Jan. 21, his campaign believes he can emerge as the sole conservative alternative to Romney, racking up enough votes to "deny Romney the delegates he needs to win on the first ballot at the convention." That would give him real power.

And Paul's fans are important in the general election too, right?
Absolutely, says Peter Grier in The Christian Science Monitor. "Consider this: In New Hampshire, Paul won 47 percent of voters aged 18 to 29." Keeping those voters in the GOP fold is key to "making inroads into Barack Obama's appeal to younger demographics." That's why some GOP stalwarts are making "conciliatory noises about the Paulites," and no longer dismissing them as "cranks, college students in favor of drug legalization, or disaffected liberals." And even if the GOP doesn't keep Paul's voters, they need to keep Paul — the "Republican nightmare" is "Romney as the nominee, and Paul as a third-party candidate."

Would Paul really launch a third-party bid?
He says he has no plans to, but if the Republicans don't "bow to Paul's demands" — whatever they turn out to be — he "may well adjust his thinking on a third-party bid," says Chris Cillizza at The Washington Post. He views his candidacy "as the leading edge of a much larger movement," and if that movement is served better by an independent bid... well, anything could happen. And until Paul makes up his mind, he's "the most dangerous man in (and to) the Republican party."

Sources: Bloomberg, Business Insider, Caffeinated Thoughts, Christian Science Monitor, CNN, No More Mister Nice Blog, Outside the Beltway, The State, Washington Post (2)

Now online at: www.fargonebooks.com/wisdomsmaw

By Professor Steven Yates
January 14, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

J. B. Williams’ article “Why Ron Paul Is Unelectable” contains misinformation but does raise a few questions; thus this effort to sort matters out. I should note before proceeding: I have defended Ron Paul or discussed his thinking in the past here, here, and more recently here. I have written this article because (1) if Mitt Romney’s nomination really were inevitable it is no guarantee, obviously, of a victory over Barack Obama (especially if those who supported Ron Paul decide out of conscience that they can’t support Romney and choose to vote third party or go fishing—like it or not, the GOP needs us); and (2) if Romney is the best the GOP can do, it only guarantees more of the same because—as with McCain vs. Obama back in 2008—the differences are more cosmetic than substantive.

In other words, the anybody-but-Obama rhetoric we are hearing from a lot of conservatives these days is as deceptive as the anybody-but-Bush rhetoric of Democrats was back in 2008. Obama has more in common with Bush than he has differences. He, like Bush, proved to be a creature of the power elite—on Wall Street, in the Trilateral Commission, and elsewhere. He continued Bush’s foreign wars and has even widened them to include Libya and Pakistan—and possibly Iran before near-future events can play out. The hope-and-change rhetoric changed nothing. Likewise, promises of a change in direction coming from the Romney camp will change nothing. We’ll see why before we are done here.

First, let us deal with some misinformation in Williams’ article. Neocon is not an insult. The word is short for neoconservative: a specific political position worked out in detail. One can find the “Cliff Notes” version on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Wikipedia says:

“Neoconservatism is a variant of the political ideology of conservatism which rejects the utopianism and egalitarianism of modern liberalism but sees a role for the welfare state. Their main emphasis since 1990 has been using American power to foster democracy abroad, especially in the Middle East. They were notably visible in Republican administrations of George H.W. Bush (1989-93) and George W. Bush (2001-2009).”

Wikipedia’s discussion continues by noting how the stance was developed by former Trotskyite left-liberals, perhaps explaining how one of its founding fathers, Irving Kristol, could famously describe a neoconservative as a “liberal who has been mugged by reality.” Back in the early 1980s, the term was not an insult. But as it developed, it was clear that neoconservatism retained a good bit of the leftism from which it originally sprung—having made peace with the welfare state, for example, or Keynesian economics, or a good deal of the trappings of political correctness when that became an issue in the 1990s. It was fundamentally a creature of Fabian socialism, created in academic centers of Fabian permeation such as New York University and think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute where Fabian ideas hijacked both capitalist economics and conservative politics. Neoconservatism combined these with a violently militaristic view of the world. Accordingly, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs senior fellow Richard Clarke could describe neoconservatism as having these “main characteristics”:

• a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
• low tolerance for diplomacy
• readiness to use military force
• emphasis on U.S. unilateral action
• disdain for multilateral organizations
• focus on the Middle East
• an us-versus-them mentality."

Is this really conservatism? Should we have problems with it? Neoconservatives believe in a brand of “American exceptionalism” holding that the U.S. both can and should police the rest of the world, that it should intervene in the affairs of other nations including initiating violent “regime change” against foreign leaders who have neither attacked nor threatened us, nor have the technological means of attacking us (Iraq is an example). To be fair, this idea hardly began with neoconservatism—Mohammed Mosadegh was forcibly unseated from his position as Iran’s elected president in a CIA-backed coup back in the early 1950s, after all—but today’s neoconservatives, especially since 9/11, have taken this kind of program further than ever before. All we need as is how many stable democracies neoconservatives have created in the Middle East in the past 20 years? The answer is: none!

Ron Paul is on track to end the GOP presidential race in second place. But his refusal to directly take on the man who's ahead of him — Mitt Romney — has Republicans wondering: What does Ron Paul want?

Paul has already ruled out a return to the House if he loses the race for the Republican nomination. And at 76, Paul can be ruled out for another presidential bid in the future. 

That has left some in the GOP fearful that with nothing to lose if and when he exits the race, he could lambast the party and Romney for choosing moderation over true conservative principles.

Even worse for Republicans, Paul could launch a third-party campaign for president, which would likely result in siphoning off votes from the GOP nominee and handing Obama a second term.

“I’m asked this all the time and every time my answer is the same. I have no plans on running as a third party,” Paul said on Saturday during a debate in Manchester, N.H.

But there’s another reason for Paul not to burn the house down: his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), whose political ambitions could be damaged by a father who went rogue.

“There has been a belief that he eventually wanted to take on the mantle of his dad’s brand” of libertarianism, said a Republican strategist with deep ties to Kentucky politics. “But Republicans are really focused on winning the White House. Anything that would jeopardize that would be viewed by folks in the party as unhelpful.”

When he ran for president in 2008, the elder Paul secured just 35 delegates and never won a state, unable to break into the top tier of candidates. But he stayed in the race until July, arguing he was continuing to accrue victories by influencing the ideas and discussions that drove the campaign.  Even after he dropped out, he never backed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and was given no platform for his views at the GOP convention.

This time around, Paul and his die-hard supporters are a much larger force to be reckoned with. Paul took third place in Iowa, then second place in New Hampshire, and polls show him on the rise in South Carolina, where voters will head to the polls on Jan. 21.

“If he keeps placing in the top three, he’s going to have between 100 and 200 delegates,” said Ron Bonjean, a veteran Republican strategist. “Therefore, he would have some type of recognition at the convention.”

Even GOP kingmaker Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.), who has said he will not endorse, has been praising Paul in the lead-up to South Carolina’s primary and urging other candidates to adopt his fiscal message.

While acknowledging that his goal is to promote his cause — not himself — the congressman has pushed back on speculation that he isn’t really in it to win the White House.

“The best way to promote a cause is to win elections,” Paul said in Iowa after coming in third in the caucuses. He made similar comments in New Hampshire in the lead-up to his second-place finish Tuesday in the first-in-the-nation primary.

Still, Paul has yet to launch the same full-throttle attacks against Romney, the man who stands between him and the nomination, that he has against the lower-tier candidates who pose less of a threat. When Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry went after Romney for saying he liked being able to fire people who provide poor service, Paul even came to Romney’s defense.

There’s no shortage of conjecture about why Paul has gone soft on Romney.

It could be that he feels he’s doing just fine without going negative — especially if his real goal is to call attention to pet issues like standing up to the Federal Reserve that have suddenly entered the national discussion as a result of Paul’s presence in the GOP race. And with Gingrich, Perry and Rick Santorum playing attack-dog roles against Romney, Paul is free to take the high road.

Some say Paul — like the others — is trying to consolidate the support currently splintered among the candidates vying to be the conservative Romney alternative, so it makes more sense to go after them directly. Others say Paul likes Romney personally but loathes many of his other Republican opponents. And some say Paul has gone after Romney just plenty.

“If you look ad the ads that were run in Iowa, Paul worked really hard to differentiate himself from all the candidates, and had no problem pointing out that Mitt Romney supported the bailouts,” said A.J. Spiker, who served as vice-chairman of Paul’s Iowa campaign. 

A spokesman for Paul did not respond to a message asking about Paul’s approach to taking on Romney — or about Paul will do if the former Massachusetts governor does win the nomination.

Romney, meanwhile, has largely left Paul alone when attacking his Republican rivals – he’s said multiple times that he likes Paul — giving the Texas congressman and his issues credibility and respect, even if nobody can quite gauge what he’s going to do next.

“Paul’s kind of like a dangerous animal that needs to be treated with respect,” said a GOP consultant working for one of the 2012 candidates. “People underestimate him at their own peril.”

Published December 31, 2011

| FoxNews.com

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/31/ex-gop-candidate-johnson-urges-iowa-supporters-to-back-paul/#ixzz1i8aIhGLf

Erik Kelly said:

Mr. McQuaid believes the propaganda of that Wall Street Journal columnist? That writer probably is right about the existence of a "long and familiar litany of charges" because those charges are very well documented. What exactly is wrong with a candidate admitting that the USA is not perfect?

It is only the Wall Street Journal columnist's opinion that those charges "point to the United States as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions who want only to live in peace". Did Ron Paul himself reach that conclusion? I doubt it. He's just admitting that America has done some very harmful things to various peoples.

If Ron Paul believes that "al-Qaida terrorists caught in the United States ought to be treated as common criminals, not enemy combatants", that probably is because he's convinced that the US Constitution requires it. We can't just decide that a particular class of criminal does not get due process. Like it or not, those suspects are not "enemy combatants" because they are not being directed by the military leadership of a foreign government.

If Ron Paul really opposes attacking terrorists overseas, I can understand why this editorial's author objects to that.

The terrorists responsible for 9-11 and other attacks on America have stated their reasons for attacking the US. They refer to certain actions by the US government as the provocation for their attacks. So Ron Paul is simply telling the truth if he says that US actions (or aggressions as the terrorists view them) motivate the attackers. But Paul would be wrong to say that the US is responsible for 9-11, because the terrorists had alternative ways to respond to US actions.

I guess that Ron Paul believes Israel, like every other country, must defend itself. I'm aware of no strategic interest that the US has within Israel that must be protected. Ron Paul probably believes that the US cannot afford the cost of being the whole world's policeman.

I must admit, Ron Paul's stand about Iran's nukes is questionable. Maybe he figures that nobody can dictate whether any nation may develop nuclear weapons. After all, the US would not accept pressure to end its nuclear weapons programs, so why should any other country submit?

But are the Iranians crazy enough to back up their words with actions? I'm not sure.

About Ron Paul's appeal: Most voters only consider the candidates placed right in front of them by the mainstream corporate-owned media, even though those candidates made themselves visible by taking legal bribes (campaign contributions). And then they complain about how the politicians they elect answer to the people whose money made those candidates visible.

We should take the time to search for alternative candidates.

We don't have to wait for anyone to change the campaign finance system. We can simply refuse to vote for any candidate backed by big money. That denies power to the source of that money, bypassing the need for reform (and the lobbyists who would stop that reform because their jobs would be threatened).

Most voters would not vote for a candidate who had been convicted of bribery, no matter how "electable" he/she is or what his/her policy positions are. So why vote for any candidate who accepts legal bribes in the form of special interest money?

It's satisfying to deny consent to the existing system by voting that way, but that's not the main motive.

Voters in primary elections could insist on voting for such a candidate, if their party has one available. There are some politicians who take very little money from any sources except individuals; Texas Congressman Ron Paul allegedly is one of them, and he's the most famous current example that I know of. If you must vote within the two party system, then candidates like him are a good choice.

For the purpose of running for President, Ron Paul has exhibited lousy judgment by pandering to racists. This makes me wish we had a better visible candidate who doesn't take influence money. Until I see such a person, I'll continue to support Paul.

I don't worry about Ron Paul's weird ideas. Congress will limit Dr. Paul from doing anything dangerous as President. As President, he would not write laws; Congress does that. He does get to choose nominees for his Cabinet, but the Senate must approve them. He will use his threat of veto power to reduce the scale of legislation and government.
(Report Abuse)

December 29, 2011 3:44 am

James Goodgame said:

The only door New Hampshire voters need show anyone, is that door showing the Union leader editor McQuaid into federal prison as he should be easily found guilty of election tampering for this editorial. The power of the press is not without responsibilities, and this editorial shows McQuaid shouldn't be allowed to hold a crayola much less own a newspaper. McQuaid has exposed himself as a bigoted little rich man who inherited a printing press and, like a child with a toy that he doesn't understand, he plays at being a newspaperman. In his play he insults the voters of New Hampshire and slanders a great American, Ron Paul. New Hampshire voters who believe in Dr. Paul's message of peace and an end to foreign wars should express their concerns to those who support this paper with advertising.

Ron Paul has been an advocate for peace for years and that issue has been in the forefront of every debate. Then as now, Americans call for an end to the war in Afghanistan, a war we cannot afford in human lives, a war we cannot afford monetarily at home. The suggestion by McQuaid that the topic hasn't been sufficiently discussed is wrong. The idea that we abandon the concepts of the Geneva Convention is equally wrong, and shows that McQuaid could care less for the men and women in combat duty that expect humane treatment if captured. You can bet McQuaids kids will never see an inch of battlefield, yet he ridicules Ron Paul because he has the courage to stand-up for Americans who ask that their children not be fodder in an attack against Iran, a nation which has not attacked us, a nation which has not attacked Israel.

McQuaid calls Ron Paul supporters anti-Semites, Ron Paul supporters call themselves Americans. Since when is it anti-Semitic to protect American youth from another needless war? McQuaid cites that white supremacist support Ron Paul, unless he knows how to take their voter registration cards away I don't know how anyone can prevent that. Will McQuaid call Obama supporters anti-white because the Black Panthers vote for Obama?

McQuaid is an irresponsible American, a poor journalist, an enemy of conservative Americans who seek peace and prosperity for their country. New Hampshire voters should remember what has been said about them in this editorial, and should be motivated to vote against the war mongering media. A new era comes to our land, an era without yellow journalism. McQuaid and his kind are of a day in the past. He should learn to cry in his beer instead of insulting the voters of New Hampshire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mad9Q4TPaDk

McQuaid, if you were at the top of your game then you would know that the latest media propaganda against Iran is their supposed threat to block the Straight at Hormuz. No longer do we have to protect Israel from a bomb that doesn't exit, now we can attack for oil. Keep-up on your propaganda. Ron Paul has it right, we're going to war if we can't get the puppet president out of office. God bless our children should we elect another puppet to replace this one.
(Report Abuse)

December 29, 2011 3:57 am

December 29, 2011

In the US, the government now requires all citizens to have a passport in order to pass the border, even when driving into Mexico or Canada. Obtaining a passport, however, is neither free nor guaranteed.  You must apply, pay an ever-increasing fee, and wait for weeks to be approved and receive it.

Recently, the State Department quietly proposed a new 'biographical questionnaire' in lieu of the traditional passport application. The new form requires you to provide things like:

- names, birth places, and birth dates of your extended family members
- your mother's place of employment at the time of your birth
- whether or not your mother received pre-natal or post natal care
- the address of your mother's physician and dates of appointments
- the address of every place you have ever lived in your entire life
- the name and address of every school you have ever attended

Most people would find it impossible to provide such information, yet the form requires that the responses 'are true and correct' under penalty of imprisonment.

Naturally, the privacy statement on the application also acknowledges that the responses can be shared with other departments in the government, including Homeland Security.

If this proposal passes, then US citizens will have a nearly insurmountable hurdle to obtain a passport and be able to leave the country at will. Even if it doesn't pass, it's a clear demonstration of what the people who run the country are thinking.

Have you reached your breaking point yet, comrades? Let me know what you think.

Simon Black
Senior Editor, SovereignMan.com

ISRAEL COHEN (1912)

"We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negros. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause."

Israel Cohen, A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century, 1912. Also in the Congressional Record, Vol. 103, p. 8559, June 7, 1957