Will The Liberty Movement Fracture?

The Liberty Movement is at a crossroads.  On one hand, we have those looking for a new leader to march the movement forward.  These people know that Ron Paul will not always be there to carry the enormous weight of leading the movement, and they will eventually need a new voice to coalesce behind.  The problem they're having is that no one seems to fit the bill.  Some have suggested Rand Paul, but after his recent endorsement of Mitt Romney, they feel that they've been betrayed.  Others have suggested that Judge Andrew Napolitano could take up the reigns.  It's a possibility, to be sure, but is he even interested?

On the other hand, some believe that the movement is ready to move beyond having leaders and become an organization all to itself, much like the Tea Party (which is nothing like it used to be).  The problem is that organizations can be taken over by people who don't have the same ideals in mind.  The Tea Party, which many would argue wouldn't even be a thing without Ron Paul, has been co-opted to the point that most of the Republican establishment say that they're now a part of the Tea Party.

"You betcha, mundanes."

Then there are those that believe that it's time to play the game of politics.  Concede some things to progress the ultimate goals of liberty.  Many believe Rand is of this group.  Rand Paul is a great politician (which is in no way a compliment) as he is not at all ideological.  He doesn't educate, nor does he attempt to win in the battle of ideas like his father.  He plays the game.  

I think those who want to see the Liberty Movement go on need to mend these fractures.  I also believe that a competent speaker and believer in liberty is needed to move us forward.  Rand is not this person.  As I said before, he doesn't educate.  Most of America still hasn't come to grasp of what this nation could really be.  We need someone (or perhaps multiple people) out there, speaking in front of large crowds, rallying the troops from one city to another.  We need someone to educate people of personal liberty, limited government, and just wars.

But we also need organization.  We need to form a more solidified list of goals.  Do we want to change or end the Federal Reserve?  What plan should be in place after either of those happen?  Which federal laws need to be repealed?  What needs to be done about education and healthcare?  What needs to be done about foreign aid?  The list goes on and on.

And we will have to play politics.  It's a dirty game, folks.  We'll have to elect leaders that believe what we believe, but we also have to elect people that can get things done, even if it is inch by inch.  You're not going to agree with anyone on everything, but it's important to at least move in the right direction.  People went psycho when Congressman Amash voted for increased foreign aid to Israel.  However, if you look at his other votes, he votes to move the cause of liberty forward.

Inch by inch.

So please, don't continue to fracture this movement.  Let us come together in common purpose.  This country needs this movement.  We can't give up on it yet.  I urge all of you to sit down and really examine what you want, and then we can come together to figure out the best way to make it happen.

Don't give up.  Don't give in.  Our time is now.  Let's do it.

Rand Paul Endorsed Mitt Romney

Yesterday, Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul, endorsed Mitt Romney.

"So, uh, Dad.  Here's the thing..."

At first, I felt betrayed.  I even tweeted an angry 140 character nastygram to the Senator expressing my dislike.  I may have also hit up his Facebook page.  And ranted on some forums.

But now I'm over it.  Rand is not his father, and I realize that he has political aspirations of his own.  He has undoubtedly noticed that Ron Paul's bid for the presidency the last three times hasn't worked according to plan mainly due to Ron not playing ball with the establishment.  Now, I must admit, that's the very reason I like him. He almost always sticks to principle.  However, it's very difficult to get anything done when you have the mighty establishment against you.

The real question is WHY Rand endorsed Romney.  It's, of course, one of two reasons.  Either Mitt Romney / the establishment has offered Rand something for his endorsement, or could it possibly be that Rand is simply doing what he has said he would do a thousand times: endorse the eventual nominee.

Of course the primary isn't over yet, but Ron has all but given up.  It doesn't matter to his supporters, though.  The revolution plows on, gathering as many delegates as possible to try to attempt an upset at Tampa in August.  Most supporters don't particularly care if Ron wants to be President or not, and are ready to draft him into the big seat if at all possible.

Pictured above: a war cry for freedom.

Looking forward past this election, though, one thing remains clear: the Liberty Movement is much more than about one man.  It's changing the national conversation.  No longer is the question "how big should government be?"  The new question is "what, exactly, is the role of government?"  Should the fascist police state continue in until we feel completely safe from every outside danger, or should we scale back the oppression and take responsibility for ourselves and our own protection?  

It's a good and valid conversation to have.  At this juncture, it's unclear which side will win.  I would hope that everyone who is reading this will participate in the conversation though.  Speak to friends and family members about what you would like to see happen in this country.  Convert the ones that you can convert.  Maybe, just this once, we should try freedom and see what happens.  What do you think?

Two Reasons Why Democracy Is a Stupid Idea

I watched a clip of a Wisconsinite who tells the interviewer that "democracy died" because Scott Walker was, once again, voted Governor of the state.  I hope democracy is forever dead, since it is a terrible, terrible form of government.  Here's why:

1. People Are F*cking Retarded
I say retarded using the second definition of the word for all of you politically correct folks out there.  This video is the best representation of why the general population should not govern themselves.  A person can be swayed by simply switching a word for another word that means the same damn thing.  Example time!

Ex. 1: Do you like going to publicly-owned parks?
Ex. 2: Do you like going to government-owned parks?

See?  Both of those sentences mean the same thing, but I guarantee if you were trying to get someone to say yes, you'd be much better off saying "publicly", as people don't readily identify it with the evils of government.

"Please give me wisdom to not be such a dumbass"

Whenever we go to war, you hear the enemy called something so that you don't feel like they're a human being anymore.  You hear words like "terrorist," and "insurgent".  Tell me, which of these sounds worse:

-Today, US troops killed nine Iraqi insurgents.
-Today, US troops killed nine Iraqi civilians.

"Whoa," you may be saying, "insurgents and civilians are totally different!"  Well, that's why you're a fucking moron.  You think we were fighting an army over there?  We beat the army in the first week.  Who the hell do you think we've been killing all this time?  Which brings us to...

2. The News LIES To Us
It's difficult for the public to make a sane decision when the people who are feeding us information are corrupt.  Watch this video where Jon Stewart points out how blatantly the media omits Congressman Ron Paul from... well, pretty much everything.  In fact, if you've been watching the news lately, you've probably heard that Mitt Romney is running against Barack Obama.  Please refer to point number one, and turn off your television set.  The truth is, Romney is still running against Paul, as the primaries aren't even over yet.

Regardless of how you feel about Malcolm X, I think he said it best when he said, "The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

"And that proves that gnomes are, indeed, behind it all."

So where are you supposed to get clear, unbiased news?  I guarantee most of you just said "the Internet".  Refer to point one, please.

There is no such thing as unbiased news, just like there is no such thing as unbiased history.  News and history are made by those who write about it.  Think about the last couple of weeks.  What news story sticks in your head the most?  Is it the story about the naked man eating the other naked man's face off in Florida?  Now what word do you associate with this story?  Is it zombie?  Wanna know why?  Here.  Here. Here. And here.

Look, I don't have all the answers, but if you really want to stop being an idiot about politics and everything else in the world, the first step to recovery is turning the television set off.  The second step is to realize that our form of government is a republic, not a democracy.  There's probably a twelve step program, but I'm fairly certain these are the first two steps, though.

The War On Sugar

All hail Lord Bloomberg, savior of our waistline!  Kidding, of course, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind you saying it to him.  On a related note, I was reading an article on The Daily Beast about how Michael Tomasky loudly and proudly supports Mayor Bloomberg's war on sugar.  He says that we simply cannot control ourselves, and sugar is going to kill us all.

Screw you sugar

The author even goes on to say how he hopes that Bloomberg can scale back freedom to "balance" it with the public good.  Oh dear.

I'm sure the war on sugar will work out just as well as the war on alcohol did during Prohibition.  Oh, wait.  Well, how about the war on drugs?  Erm... war on terror?

Does anyone seriously believe that they can stop another individual from doing something they want to do?  Seriously, Bloomberg pisses me off to the point where if I ever had breakfast with him, I'd put a three cups of sugar in my Frosted Flakes.

Tastes grrrrrreat mother f*cker

Here's the real question though.  Do you, reader, personally care what I consume or how much I consume?  No, of course not (unless there's some kind of betting pool of how many peanut butter covered waffles I can eat, in which case I'd advise that you pick a high number).  So why does Bloomberg?  He's obviously not concerned about people's health, so what is he getting in return for campaigning against it?  Could it be possible that he owns stock in sugar alternatives?  Hmm...