Ron's Hurdle: Foreign Policy

Over and over again, I hear the same and number one reason why men won't vote for Ron Paul. It is his foreign policy. I must admit, I had the exact same reservations until I started challenging my own assumptions that have been driven into me for decades. This is certainly true for Conservative Talk Radio.

Mark Belling was at it again. On today's program he repeats the anti-Ron Paul argument that Ron's foreign policy will help Iran nuke up and wage war around the world. Of course, he sounds exactly like a Britain trying to maintain Britain's sovereignty around the world during the American Revolution. We have to be the world's police man or the whole world will just got to pot. So we should repeat the British Empire's error?

Of course he argued mainly that Iran has been a in a State of War against the U.S. since it took over the Embassy in 1979. Never mind the fact the unstable/tyrannical government was installed by the U.S. in the first place! So let's exacerbate the situation in Iran by invading it too. In fact, let's do it again, without a declaration of war by Congress (which is a worthless rubber stamping institution).

Ron Paul's policy is the same as the Framers, which in my opinion, is far more conservative than engaging in a perpetual war around the world designed to empower the Federal government with more reasons to tax us in order to save us.

I agree with this post from Lew Rockwell's website:

Writes Dom Armentano:
"Our positions on foreign policy cannot be explained and understood in soundbites! Let me repeat something I suggested months ago: Ron MUST make a national television presentation on foreign policy. We may never be this close again."

I agree whole-heartedly. Ron Paul is on the verge is doing something great but he must overcome this massive hurdle and do so quickly and persuasively.

Who Is Conservative?

Mark Belling filled in for Rush today. Now I can't quote him verbatim, but basically he shot down every Republican candidate in the field as being problematic. Newt Gingrich is simply hated. Romney is an insider with no back-bone. Perry has performed poorly. And Ron Paul, well, Ron Paul is conservative only economically. In everything else, he is not conservative (whatever that means).

So between Rush and Mark, both are not liking that Ron Paul describes himself as a Conservative. Now I guess that is true...in a sense. Ron Paul is a Libertarian, but as many become confused, so are Rush and Mark. Simply because one is Libertarian does not mean one is a Left-Wing, morally liberal, relativist.

For instance, this weekend I was accused of saying that homosexuality is legitimate because of my more libertarian viewpoint. Now those of you that may read my more theologically driven blog know I am anything but Liberal when it comes to homosexuality. Simply because I differentiate the authority of the state to be able to kill people we don't like from what is morally permissible by God hardly makes me a Lib.

Rush likes to argue that Ron Paul doesn't have the right to redefine conservatism. Well, in this article, Ron Paul argues quite successfully that he holds the high ground by arguing historically to defend his position. This is why you will not see real debates between candidates.

Is breaking into your homes with guns and killing people in violation of the Fourth Amendment a conservative constitutional principle? Is waging a perpetual War on Drugs a killing countless lives (think Prohibition) and spending Billions of dollars a conservative constitutional principle? Is rewriting the National Defense Authorization Act so that the President can kill anyone he wants including Americans on American soil simply by labeling them a Terrorist a conservative constitutional principle? Is the President's ability to wage war with any nation without a Declaration of War by Congress as required in the Constitution a conservative constitutional principle? Is printing Trillions of dollars as done by both Bush and Obama a conservative constitutional principle? Is the government's right to steal your private property a conservative constitutional principle as seen done by both Republicans and Democrats? What about bureaucracies established by both Republicans and Democrats such as the FDA, IRS, EPA, on and on and on? Are they conservative constitutional principles?

We need real debates. If there were, thinking people would have to rethink their positions, and that is something the Republican establishment can't have. On with the Show Ponies they must continue.

Ron Paul Christmas Song

What If China Occupied Texas?

I'm still waiting for the Political Right to produce a single argument against this "radical" position?

Consistency: More Reasons To Elect Ron Paul

Townhall.com has yet another article on why Ron Paul is unelectable by Debra Saunders. She concludes:

He has picked up support on niche issues -- on the far right, his pledge to shutter the Transportation Security Administration; on the left, his supportive rhetoric on accused Wiki-leaker Bradley Manning. Paul has won support ranging from Timothy Leary's backyard in 1988 to traditional-values Iowans in 2011. He has core values. Alas, he has no middle.

But this is why Ron Paul should be considered and is also why Ron Paul is gaining, even if ultimately she's right. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. Ron Paul is simply being consistent. The reason this country is split over issues such as the War on Drugs or the assassination of an American citizen is because Government creates the Culture War in order to grow itself, and more and more people are beginning to see that.

Take, for example, a close friend, who will remain nameless. A year ago she would have argued for government's right to go get drug dealers by illegally searching homes at the cost of the Fourth Amendment. Recently, we watched PBS's program on Prohibition. She now sees that government simply grows because of people's willingness to give up freedom and liberty so that the government may fix some social problem. Of course, as we saw during Prohibition, government doesn't solve the problem, but only makes it worse and growing government to solve the bigger mess it keeps making. A spiraling problem if ever there was one.

This is precisely why more and more Americans are seeing Ron Paul as a viable candidate. For instance, she says,

Those views seemed extreme in 1988. They seem extreme now -- and are almost certain to make Paul unelectable in November. This is why I have not considered Paul to be a serious candidate.

So what views is she talking about?

Paul's platform also called for abolishing the income tax, dismantling the Internal Revenue Service and demolishing the post office.

WOW! Abolishing the Income Tax and IRS is radical? If Americans had to write their own check instead of their companies confiscating it for them, there would be another Revolution today. Yet, somehow, something that even Rush Limbaugh has argued in this direction to one degree or another is now "radical". Yet the only reason the Federal Government is able to become the Leviathan it is is through the Income Tax! Simply because Debra refuses to re-examine her inconsistent beliefs and Traditions is hardly a reason to maintain them. She is part of the thinking of the Ruling Elite that desires the culture war to perpetuate. After 24 years, I can now see, with Ron Paul, these perpetual wars are designed to never end, but only to grow government. It also seems to me that more and more Conservatives see their own inconsistencies and desire to move in the "radical" direction.

I have to wonder. If Debra lived during the American Revolution, would the views of someone who said, "Give me liberty or give me death." been too radical for her?

In conclusion, Ron Paul supporters are just Constitution loving people, who are waking up to their own inconsistencies. They are waking up to the fact we have been duped by the culture war into thinking we have to take one side or the other as if there was no other alternative. We are waking up to the fact that those two alternatives have been enshrined in such a manner as to give us the same candidates every 2-4-6 years, whether they be for central planning on the Right or the Left.

As my brother says, "America's Third Way, not Left, not Right, but America's Third Way."

Update

UPDATE! Justin Raimondo has written an excellent piece at Taki's Magazine refuting many of the claims made or repeated by Hawkins. It clearly demonstrates that Hawkins and others are simply repeating and not investigating first hand the quotes he has offered out of context.

Twelves Arrows For Ron Paul, Merry Christmas

John Hawkins has written yet another post at TownHall.com explaining why if Ron Paul were to win the Republican Nomination, Republicans would lose to President Obama. In fact, this chant is being repeated so often among Republican elites that even Rush Limbaugh on his radio program has repeated it, even though he has stated many times prior to the rise of Ron Paul in the polls, that a complete idiot could beat Obama.

But we have to ask, "Why?" Why is Ron Paul so easily beatable? Every where I go, I see Liberals, who are angry with Obama and see him as the evil anti-civil liberties person that he is, leaning to Ron Paul. Fiscally, Ron Paul is the only candidate who would actually do what Republican candidates say they would do. Therefore, Ron Paul would actually get support from both sides! Talk about uniting the country for liberty!

So let's examine Hawkins arguments.

First he explains to us that,

I'd be content to ignore Paul, too, except for the fact that there's an outside chance he could win Iowa, which is of course, perfectly ridiculous. Why is that ridiculous?

So why is it "ridiculous"? Well, here it goes.

Ron Paul is absolutely, unconditionally unelectable. By that, I mean that Barack Obama would have a genuine shot to beat Ron Paul in all 50 states, including Texas and Utah. If Hillary Clinton ran as a third party candidate, Obama would still probably take more than 40 states against Paul. If Obama DIED with 3 months left in the election and his campaign was suspended, he'd PROBABLY STILL beat Paul by a margin larger than the one he had against McCain in 2008.

Now here it comes. The big reason we should all bow down to and say, "Gee, thanks for reminding me of how stupid I am."

"Let me tell you exactly what Barack Obama’s strategy with Ron Paul would be. He would run a devastating negative campaign against Paul that would paint him as a kooky dangerous crank. Incidentally, his look fits right into that meme. Squeaky voice, odd, rambling speech pattern, weird head and arm movements, ill fitting suit..."

Really? This is the first big reason. The President might actually run a negative campaign against him? Really!!!! Am I supposed to believe the opponent on Ron Paul, who is the sitting President, might actually run a negative campaign against his opponent for President? What the heck is Rush Limbaugh doing? We haven't seen negative until he wins Iowa, and that negative campaign will be coming from Republicans like...say...John Hawkins.

But Hawkins does something that he would never allow a Democrat do. He simply cites 12 quotes as reason enough for Ron Paul to be considered a "kook". Now notice that if a Democrat were to use this form of argumentation (which isn't really an argument), he would counter the Democrat by saying you must deal with the substance of the quotes. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. Hawkins is most certainly inconsistent. He simply hopes that you will be so offended by these quotes that you will shut down your brain and cease from thinking through what is the actual substance.

For the sake of argument, I will offer a rebuttal to one quote so that it may be seen that Hawkins is appealing to his base's inability to be rational. Here is reason #6:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

My rebuttal is simply this. Even Rush Limbaugh has said similar things on his Radio Show. But even more importantly, the first time I had heard this argument in the form of private property rights was from Walter Williams, A BLACK MAN, who filled in on Rush Limbaugh's program!

We did lose liberty by the War of Northern Aggression. It was DC that caused a huge amount of racial tensions in the South. It was DC, by forcing people to use their private property in ways they did not want to that has inflamed racism. By doing this, they have caused a perpetual culture war that has been prolonged to this very day. Of course, as Walter Williams pointed out, this is how government grows in its power, through perpetual wars.

So in conclusion, Hawkins can keep his mindless base fed with such nonsensical arguments, or rather "quotes". But he will never go after the substance of the arguments. So basically Ron Paul is un-electable because they say so because they would hate to lose their power to someone who actually loves liberty and will seek to restore the Federal Government back to its Constitutional framework.

The "long knives" are out, but they are out for the "kook", who loves liberty.

Rush Fears Ron Paul

Rush Limbaugh is obviously nervous about Ron Paul. He has been taking every opportunity to make certain he doesn't win the Republican nomination. On today's radio show he once again referred to Ron as the crazy uncle that is kept in the basement. Just two quick points I'd like to point out.

First, Rush considers it un-Patriotic to want to bring all of the troops from oversees home. Now think about this for a second. Rush constantly talks about the Federal government as a nuisance. An evil agent that constantly tries to take away our freedoms by meddling in our everyday affairs. Yet somehow, having bases with military personnel all throughout the world is not meddling in other nation's affairs? Somehow, as Rush always says, America is not the problem when it comes to invading the privacy of people oversees, but it is a problem within our nation's borders? Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

Second, Rush wants us to vote for one of the other Republican nominees. In fact, he doesn't seem to care which one, just as long as they are Republican. But as he confessed in today's program about Nikki Haley:

If she wants to be in somebody's cabinet someday -- a Republican -- she's going to have to do what the Republicans want her to do.  If you are a mid-level sales manager for the XYZ Widget Company and you want to someday be in the executive suite, you are damn well going to do what the XYZ executive suite people tell you to do. (interruption) But no, but no. (interruption)  Snerdley says I didn't, but I created my own executive suite, see? I did not try to take over anybody else's.  That's not realistic.  We're not gonna create a new party.  We don't even want to try to do that.  That's wilderness time.  The Republican Party is something that's gonna have to fought for and taken over by the Tea Party.  It's gonna be an active political objective and process.

So which is it? The definition of insanity is to keep repeating a particular thing expecting different results. I have been voting for Republicans for 20 years. Yet I am told EVERY time to expect different results.

Yet here Rush indirectly admits that the Republican nominees will have to do what the Republican establishment tells them to do. Does anyone doubt Mitt Romney (and the rest) is a show pony? So why should I vote for any of these establishment phonies? Rush has offered no reason other than they are "better" than Obama (whatever that means).

No more. Seeking to be consistent, either we agree that big meddling government is wrong for both us and the world, or we want big meddling government for us and the world. As far as I can see, Rush refuses to deal with Ron's actual arguments. Calling him a nut isn't enough to change my mind.

Newt: Selling Access

I don't know who is making these ads, but I hope they keep pumping them out. I hope also that we get some ads against Romney as well.

Romney Is the Spin Doctor

One of the top Drudge Report News stories is a comment from Mitt Romney about our "entitlement society".

Some people believe that "instead of a merit-based society we should be an entitlement based society," Romney told the crowd of about 100 people on hand, adding that people in that mindset want everyone to essentially receive the same things, and said if that happens, "We'll have the certainty that we're all pretty close to equal. But we'll also have the certainty that we're all poor. Because what drives an economy is people pursuing their dreams."

Now isn't that rich. A man, who orchestrated the Massachusetts health care system, which is exactly what Obama's plan is based upon, is telling us we all have a poor "mindset". I think his mind is lost in his politics. Of course, when you're a puppet of Big Corporations in a kind of "soft fascist" relationship, it is easy to understand that he lives in an alternative universe. The problem is that I don't want to live in it.

Ron Paul Is the Big Dog

Jon Stewart Exposes American Terrorists

For those of you who don't know, our Congress has decided the 4th Amendment is no longer valid.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Jon Stewart on the Coming Imprisonment of American strikeDissidents/strike Terrorists

Jon Stewart on the Coming Imprisonment of American strikeDissidents/strike Terrorists

Why Am I Voting?

A caller on Rush's program lamented that he was going to vote for a Republican candidate even though there wasn't one that he cared for. Right now, the caller was favoring Newt Gingrich, but Rush responded to what his true motivation was.

RUSH:  See, here's what you're telling me -- and what you're telling me not all bad.  You're gonna vote whoever wins the nomination.  You are not going to sit out because really this is about Obama.  I wouldn't worry about your disappointment.  You're obviously unable to really get ignited about any of these people, but that's okay because what does ignite you is Obama, and that's what this election's going to be. It's gonna be a referendum on Obama, and any one of these people on our side would be a 100% to 200% improvement -- and of that you can be confident, and they can also win.  Don't listen to these know-nothings who tell you that X doesn't have a shot.  They don't know what they're talking about.  It's asinine.

I have to wonder. How can anyone be really motivated by someone such as Newt, who will say anything to become President and do the very things that have created this mess, even if the pace he sets is slower towards destruction? In my opinion, people intuitively know everyone is bad. Do Republicans really want to legitimize their power by a vote against someone else?

Basically we are not voting for anyone if we vote for typical Republicans. So why vote at all. Perhaps letting them know we don't believe them at all is even better since they need to think we are all a bunch of dopes and fools that believe them. Why not de-legitimize both parties and vote for none of the above.

Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

A video that expresses what I have thought of Newt for a log time. It never ceases to amaze me that the Political Right Pundits call Ron Paul a "kook" while they support this Republican establishment that lies, cheats and steals from us blind.

Vote for a real man of integrity. Vote for Ron Paul.

Isolationism Verses Non-Interventionism

Mark Steyn filled in for Rush Limbaugh yesterday. He was able to to diss just about every Republican candidate while interacting with callers who favor any particular one. One caller calling from I-70 in Kansas asked about Ron Paul. Steyn actually responded by saying Ron has been able to get Americans thinking about the Federal Reserve as the main problem. But then Steyn went on basically call Ron Paul a "nut".

Now what was interesting about Steyn's referencing Ron as a nut was that he didn't offer one argument as to why. With every other candidate, he offered a laundry list of silly things and ideas that the candidate had done. But with Ron Paul, he offered none, nada, zilcho.

Now that kind of puzzled me just a bit. Well, after doing some research on the internet, I was able to find an interview in which Steyn says almost exactly what he said on Rush's show. Here is a portion of his interview with Hugh Hewitt:

Yes, I'm not (laughing), I'm not ready to say that, you know, Ron Paul has basically signed on to jihadist foreign policy. I don't think foreign policy engages him. And I think this is the black hole in the Paul campaign. When Ron Paul, you know, there's a lot of stuff. When Ron Paul starts going on about the gold standard and the Federal Reserve, and we dismissed him as some kind of kook for that three or four years ago, in fact, a lot of people have kind of come around to thinking he may be onto something there in recent times. But I don't think he's engaged by foreign policy at all, and I think this is, the idea that America can be a 19^th Century isolationist republic is absurd. America has two relatively benign neighbors, and yet 70% of the population of Mexico has moved north across the southern border, and 100% of every single bad Canadian idea has moved south across the northern border. Things that would be uniquely Canadian absurdities forty years ago, like multiculturalism and government health care, are now embedded in American politics. So the idea that Ron Paul's view of the Constitution can hold the planet at bay, I think, is the biggest defect in his whole pitch.

So there you have it. To be an isolationist is to be a "nut". But is Ron Paul an isolationist? Before we get to that, I want to look at the statement that 70% of Mexico is coming across the border. Now obviously Steyn is being facetious, but his point is obvious. Yet isn't it our foreign policy that has helped Mexico boil to the point it is at? Isn't the War on Drugs a major problem that has caused Mexicans to be killed left and right? How about instead of building a wall around the United States (and locking us in), how about getting rid of welfare, which is probably the number one reason they come in the first place?

But if you haven't noticed already, this whole argument is a red herring. What in tarnations do bad ideas coming from Canada and Mexicans crossing the border have anything to do with isolationism and Ron Paul's position?

But the biggest flaw in Steyn's non-argument is his last statement in the quote,

So the idea that Ron Paul's view of the Constitution can hold the planet at bay, I think, is the biggest defect in his whole pitch.

Ron Paul isn't trying to save the planet. In fact, Ron Paul has been quite clear. It is U.S. policy that is causing more problems than it solves. It is also equally clear that the Constitution does not empower the Federal government to go dropping bombs on anyone they wish in order to be the world's police man. So as far as the above quote is concerned, Mark Steyn offers no reason what-so-ever as to why Ron Paul is a "nut" or "kook".

None of this means that Ron Paul wants to be an isolationist. Ron Paul wants to be a non-Interventionist. The two should not be equivocated. Fortunately, Ron Paul answers a question that deals with this on Youtube.

What If?

I watched this the other night. It was the conclusion to his program.

The Widening Gap?

Are you worried about the widening gap between the rich and the poor? I'm curious about people who make this statement, "That the rich keep getting richer." People that hold this view may have a natural socialist view without realizing it. To make this statement in the first place, it implies that we should strive for equality. Some people have more talent than others. Just as we would think it outrageous to add weights to NBA stars until they can play no better than the other players, nor should equality be a goal in economics. If an entrepreneur figures out how to serve people so well that he gets rich should we inject him with a stupefying serum?

What we should strive for is equality under the law! The rules the same for all, Not the results. This is done by absence and limitation of government. When Nancy Pelosi buys a stock and votes on a bill to make herself rich, this is not equality under law. When the FDA gets to tell Diamond walnuts it cannot claim health benefits but Lays "heart healthy" potato chips is fine, this is not equality under law. All inequality under law comes from government not business and private sector. Everything wall street does to gain an advantage over others comes from regulation and lobbying. Remove the state from the picture, and you have equality under law and pure free market. There is no such thing as a just government. There is no "improving government" or making it more efficient, or as Newt Gingrich says "using six sigma and lean" for government (this is pretty much the most absurd thing I have ever heard from a politician, but they never cease to surprise me).

We should never worry about the rich getting richer. Since for them to do so in a free market, they must figure out how to make others richer. We should worry about making a real free market. Capitalism is a system where one must make people more wealthy in order to become wealthy himself. We must work to destroy croni-capitalism, or old English style mercantilism. This is a system of government supported private business. This is what we have become. To fix this, we don't go and protest wall street. We remove government power. Even the power we think is legitimate. The power to regulate medicine, food, banking, travel and all else.

Once you recognize that without the FDA we will not all die of poisonous medicine, you will see that killing customers and getting sued is not a great business model, Once you recognize that without government building roads and trains we will still have roads and trains, that private ownership of roads and trains is better than government ownership, and you will see it will be far cheaper and no traffic when people must compete for your business of traffic. Once you realize that without government police, people will start hiring private police. The tyranny will be gone, and they will actually serve and protect you or get fired while the next company takes their business. Then, we will be truly safe.

Just as we see how absurd it would be for government to run all shoe companies, we need to realize that services like protection and travel can be handled by the market far better than the monopoly of government. Imagine what your shoes would cost were they considered too important for the private sector and so somehow handing it over to a monopoly would make it better. Everything the market handles gets better and cheaper with time. There is no reason to believe that all services and products can not be handled this way!

-Written by Jim Fisher

Ron Paul Takes On Bob Schieffer

I didn't have time to get my busy brother, so I decided to plow ahead on my own. This past Sunday, Ron Paul was on Deface the Nation with the hostile Bob Schieffer. Every shot Schieffer took at Ron, Ron was able to answer. Schieffer looked like the true insider that he is.

Here's the program.



Show Notes,

The actual Schieffer interview on Deface the Nation


Please watch/listen to The Origin & Nature of International Conflict by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Article by Hoppe, The Impracticability of One World Government

Republican Primary Polls

Article on Ron Paul

Rush Limbaugh and the Federal Reserve

Today I was listening to famous radio show Host, Rush Limbaugh, when I herd an excellent question. On this episode of Tea Party Hobos podcast, Jim and I review Rush's answer. Listen here.

Show notes, an excerpt from Rush's program:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Carl in Ireton, Ohio.  It's great to have you with us.  Hello, sir.

CALLER:  It's a real treat and honor to talk to you, Rush.

RUSH:  Thank you, sir.

CALLER:  Second-time caller here.  Hey, I want to get your take on something.  In the late 1970s under Jimmy Carter, we had a horrible economy with sky-high interest rates.

RUSH:  Yep.

CALLER:  Today under Obama we've got an economy that's far, far worse, but the interest rates are extremely low.  Can you explain, Rush, how this administration is holding down the interest rates and if you can, when do you think the interest rates are gonna skyrocket?

RUSH:  I don't know that they will.  The Federal Reserve is holding down interest rates.  I know you're talking about interest rates, but concurrent with this is interest and inflation.  And inflation is starting now.  It has been for a while.  They're telling us the cost of living is flat, but if you buy gasoline or food you know that they're lying to you about that.  Inflation is going up.  The Fed is keeping interest rates low as one of their so-called weapons in trying to force an economic recovery.  The belief is, and this defies logic to me, but the professed belief is that businesses are not borrowing money because of interest rates and that banks are not lending money because of interest rates.  So the Fed says if we keep interest rates low it will inspire small business to go out and borrow.

What small businesses have been saying for two years is it has nothing to do with it, we don't have any customers, we have no reason to expand, we've got no reason to borrow no matter what your interest rate is.  The banks are saying we love this interest rate being low.  We don't have to loan the money to make any money on it; we can put it somewhere with no interest rate, we can get it for nothing from the Fed, invest it in something else and grow it that way.  We don't have to lend money to make money on it.  Normally banks earn an income by loaning money to people.  They pay it back with interest, and that's the bank's income.  Well, with no interest, the banks can get that money from the Fed that they would otherwise loan and invest it in other places rather than individuals who want to borrow money.  (interruption) No, it wouldn't stimulate the economy to raise interest rates right now.

But there's a dual-edged sword.  They're not trying to stimulate; they're trying to make sure that the economy doesn't go off the cliff.  But it's misguided, it's all based on a false belief that if interest rates were just lower that people would borrow money, particularly small business.  You can hear Obama still talking, why do you think Obama's still out there promising tax credits, "If you go hire somebody, we'll give you a $3,000 tax credit for every new hire."  Because businesses aren't growing, and they're not growing because there aren't any customers, and there are not any customers because unemployment is sky-high.  So there's no reason to expand.  They figured that they could get people to borrow money with low interest rates.  And it hasn't worked out.

I don't want to gloss over this.  All banks get their money from the Fed.  And they're charged interest for that money.  When that interest rate is hardly anything, the banks can get money for practically nothing.  And instead of having to make money by lending it they simply go out and buy stock in Apple or whatever they do with it, and that's how they grow, they don't have to lend it.  So nobody is lending money.  The people that want to borrow are not considered good credit risks because of the state of the economy.  So it's just mismanagement of the money supply and so forth by the Fed, as far as I'm concerned.  And interest rates are totally at the purview now of the Fed.  If the Fed wants to raise them they will.

It's good for people who can borrow.  The mortgage interest rate's pretty low.  But, on the other hand, people who live on fixed incomes off of their interest rates going high, they're sitting flatline, zero.  Inflation doesn't have anything to do with the interest rate right now because they're two separate things.  The interest rates is artificial.  The interest rates being kept artificially low by the Fed as a weapon, as a piece of ammunition, really.  Interest rates right now have really no relationship to inflation.  If the Fed would delink interest rates to their control and let lending institutions set the rate based on what they thought they could get for it, if the market were allowed to rule, you might have some stabilizing in this, but none of that's gonna change really until there is some legitimate economic growth.  And the policies that are in place here are stymieing economic growth.

This is the point that anybody who's paying any attention to understands.  This administration is just a giant roadblock to growth, everything they've done.  They're taking money out of the private sector and giving it to the public sector, unions, more bureaucracy, EPA, I don't care what agency you want to talk about, they're getting more money, and then the money that does end up back in the private sector ends up there in the form of food stamps or school dinners or more government services or what have you, health care benefits.  But none of it the result of any economic activity that's creating growth and new revenue.  The pie is not expanding right now.  GDP they say is at 2.5%.  We can look out and see that we don't have two and a half percent growth in the economy in the last quarter, there's no sign of it, other than in very small, unique sectors.  But overall it just isn't happening.


The misery index with Carter did calculate, interest rates in some places got up as high as 15% back in the Jimmy Carter days.  And it was just Fed policy back then not to monkey with it.  These people, as far back as I can remember, the past ten years, the Fed has been paranoid about inflation.  So they've kept interest rates low.  What really has set in is deflation in some sectors, which is not good.  You might think it's good for the consumer, but deflation for manufacturing is not good.  If you can't recoup the cost of producing a product, then you can't stay in business, much less make a profit on it.  And deflation makes it almost impossible to make back your costs on a product so there's deflation in certain parts of the economy, inflation in others.  All the while they're trying to tell us that the cost of living index, CPI, is pretty much level.  But it's not.

As I say if you buy gasoline or food, you know, the cost of living is getting more expensive.  And now oil spiked up over a hundred bucks a barrel, what is it, 102 at the end of the day yesterday.  So it's only gonna get worse.  That's why this bunch, Obama and the Democrats have to go because all of this is by design, all of this is based on a mistaken economic belief that central planning and a giant central authority can create new products, dictate economic growth, target economic growth, and it cannot.  This bunch has proven it time and time again with every stimulus, every policy.  Just the other day the CBO guy admitted to Jeff Sessions, "Yeah, over ten years, the stimulus plan of 2009 will be a drag on economic growth.  It will shrink the economy."  Why is that?  Why would a 700 or almost $850 billion stimulus shrink the economy over ten years?  Because it can do nothing else.  It takes that money out of the private sector.

Before you can spend $850 billion of the government you gotta take it out.  It's a net wash.  You take the money out of a collective number of pockets to equal $850 billion, and then you spend it again, you put it somewhere else in the economy?  So we took it away from producers, and who ended up getting it?  Unions, teachers, states, private sector.  There was no infrastructure activity.  There were no new schools built.  There weren't any shovel-ready jobs.  All of that was a lie, all of it was smoke and mirrors.  The stimulus was a slush fund designed to keep union workers employed during the recession so that their dues were collected, so that Democrat campaign coffers were continually replenished.  That's all it was.  And the state of Wisconsin is proof of it.  We cataloged it as it was happening in the state of the Wisconsin.

END TRANSCRIPT

Newt, the Political Opportunist

Since the political wind has blown in Newt Gingrich's direction (see here), I thought I'd interact with Newt's article dated on the 8th of November (read here). Now I must confess Newt Gingrich is a very intelligent man, but he is sadly a political opportunist. He simply doesn't have a consistent bone in his body except for one. That bone is to ensure government power goes toward Republicans.

In his article he says he wants to repeat what Ronald Reagan did in the 80s. Being the historian, he states an observation in the first paragraph.

Since the Great Depression, recessions in America before this last one have lasted an average of 10 months. The longest previously has been 16 months. But here we are 46 months after the last recession started, and there is still no real recovery.

Now why is that? Is it really merely because President Obama has done a great job at making certain no recovery takes place. Well, I have to agree. Anything President Obama could do to slow down the train that is heading off of the cliff is being ignored. Yet why do we assume that slowing down the train will somehow prevent the train from wrecking?


He appeals to the era of Reagan,

Ronald Reagan did it, with arguably worse circumstances than today: double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and double digit interest rates. We did it when I was Speaker of the House, when the American people created 11 million new jobs in four years. Returning to these principles would restore another economic boom within a year.

Assumption: High interest rates were bad. But why were they bad? They were bad because the Federal Reserve, with Paul Volcker, didn't print money for the Big Boys. Instead, they reduced the money supply and increased the value of the dollar. Now depending on your point of view, you might think this was bad. You may even think Reagan saved our economy and perhaps in the way of taxation, he helped. But as these websites explain, Volcker's policy reversed our money from being inflated in the manner that the current Federal Reserve is doing.

Read here:

Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms

and here

Although inflation came down slightly in the mid 1970s, prices soon began to accelerate to the point that, by the end of the decade, curbing inflation replaced reducing unemployment as the Carter administration's primary economic priority.


To this effect, in July 1979 Jimmy Carter appointed Paul Volcker to succeed G. William Miller as Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve. Although there remains some debate about why Carter decided on Volcker, who was then serving as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the move signaled Carter's sanctioning of a disinflationary monetary policy.

But the underlying and fundamental problem to our economy's "boom and bust cycle" [think the dot.com bubble, housing bubble so on and so forth] is the Federal Reserve's power to print money and the government's power to regulate by a command and control economy.

Newt states something that all Republicans are saying.

My economic recovery plan also narrows the Federal Reserve’s statutory mandate to focus on price stability so as to maintain a stable dollar without inflation. That ensures job creating investors from the world over that their investments in America will not be depreciated by a declining dollar or inflation.

Now what does Newt mean by this? Does he plan on more money printers? Or does he plan to do what Paul Volcker did and reduce the money supply, thereby increasing interest rates?

It is simply difficult to know for certain since no one knows which Newt will show up to a political discussion. As Robert Higgs notes in his article,

Franklin Roosevelt "did bring us out of the Depression," Newt Gingrich told a group of Republicans after the recent election, and that makes FDR "the greatest figure of the 20th century."

We must remember that Newt may be a great historian and knows full well the error of price controls, but he is in government. What is good for Americans & liberty is bad for government, and what is bad for Americans and liberty is good for government. As he states later in the article:

Finally, my plan slashes the runaway regulatory burdens that are killing jobs. This includes repealing and replacing Obamacare...

Please don't miss the barely stated assumption. He doesn't want to eliminate government's role in solving our problems [please think of him working with Hilary on green issues]. He simply wants to have Republicans doing the solving by replacing Obamacare with something else.

So if you think that Roosevelt's policies of extending the Great Depression was a good idea, then I am not certain how Newt is your man.

Podcast: Hobos Discuss Herman Cain

This evening, Jim and I did another Tea Party Hobos Podcast. We discussed Herman Cain and his economic positions. We mostly discussed Cain's views of the Federal Reserve. Once again, Jim shines in his understanding of economics, and hopefully, if you are trying to understand the substance of our economic problems, Jim will have much to offer in this podcast. Enjoy!

Do You Really Want To Believe Another Liar?

Here is more proof Perry is just another "Insider".

Perry stood next to a pallet piled high with paper, representing the current tax code, then held up a postcard, representing his own plan. Perry says anyone who's afraid of paying more under his plan can opt for the old tax system instead.

But as the story says, he says this in a particular context.

Rick Perry doesn't have a catchy marketing slogan for his tax plan. But he's hoping the idea of a flat, 20 percent income tax rate will do for his campaign what "9-9-9" did for Herman Cain's.

In other words, he couldn't care less in principle about a Fair Tax or a Flat Tax or even abolishing the Income Tax. He simply wants to do whatever gets him elected. Do you really believe for a moment that he will actually get this card through Congress? I don't even care if it is a Republican Congress. So Rush Limbaugh can talk all he wants in support of Perry, it will take a Libertarian Tea Party Revolution to get rid of the current tax code.

If you doubt me, please read the above paragraph again. Perry states,

Perry says anyone who's afraid of paying more under his plan can opt for the old tax system instead.

Afraid? Let's see. Over half of Americans don't pay income taxes. So why would anyone opt in in the first place?

And 20 %! Yikes! This is the kind of stuff that led to the Civil War.

It is time for a fundamental change folks. It is time to vote for Ron Paul.

They Want Your mind Too

Even though there is no such thing as Intellectual Property, the United States Government is now going to empower itself to unilaterally be able to shut down websites it accuses of pirating movies and etc.. as this Breitbart article states,

The Stop Online Piracy Act has received bipartisan support in the House of Representatives and is the House version of a bill introduced in the Senate in May known as the Theft of Intellectual Property Act or Protect IP Act.

Remember, if it is good for Big Government and Big Business, it is bad for you.

Just in case you are wondering why I would say there is no such thing as Intellectual Property Rights, I suggest you listen to this Youtube video with Jeffrey Tucker.

So please, no more complaining to me about monopolies when it is the Mob...eh hum...the government that will secure them for a mere fee. Then when they decide they need your money because you have had too much success, for another mere fee in the form of campaign donations or what have you, they might leave you alone...maybe.

Podcast: The Patriot Act & Homeland Security

Tea Party Hobos once again does another Podcast. This time we talk about the Patriot Act and Homeland Security as they relate to Private Property Rights and the Fourth Amendment.



Here are the show links and notes.

The Myth of Posse Comitatus by Home land Security

Huffington Post copy of the Report

Judge Napolitano

Rand Paul's video

Larisa Alexandrova, Huffington Post

Sneak & Peek on KnoxNews

Cato At Liberty on Patriot Act being used for the Drug War

Highlights of Ron Paul in Bloomberg Debate

If you watched the Bloomberg debate, hopefully you noticed that only one candidate wants to deal with the real and fundamental issue...the Federal Reserve and sound money.

Useful Idiots March On

I'm constantly told through friends and the Media that my friends watch that the Tea Party is a bunch of radicals and bigots and racists and so on. Yet we have all heard by now the anti-Semitic racist remarks and seen the violence of these Left Wing useful idiots. It's ironic that the very things we are accused of are the very things they do in front of our very eyes. Yet I'm certain this won't change their minds.

Who Would Jefferson Vote For?

According to this article in the Baptist Press, Mormons don't qualify to be President when there are Christians in the race. However, the article states not one qualification but two [I realize there are three].

He added, "I believe that in Rick Perry we have a candidate who is a proven leader, a true conservative and a committed follower of Christ."

So to be elected to the High Office of the USA, one must be a true conservative and Christian. So I have to ask, which one of these qualifications is more important, "Being a true conservative" or a "committed follower of Jesus"? Somehow I doubt believing in Jesus has anything to do with this test. Otherwise, perhaps Obama is more qualified than Romney? Remember, President Obama claims to be a born-again Christian.

Right now, I'd vote for a true blue Jeffersonian Libertarian, even if he was an atheist before I'd waste another vote on a Republican like Romney or Perry. The pastor goes on to say,

"... Part of a pastor's job is to warn his people and others about false religions. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Mormonism are all false religions. And I stand by those statements," he said to applause

Now I agree a person's religious views may greatly impact how one governs. If one is an atheist, that person may have great difficulty in standing for the Prolife position, but perhaps not and should be judged on an individual basis. So an atheist or a Hindu may be far more Prolife than say a professed Christian such as President Obama.


But this all seems to me to lead back to the culture wars. And after fighting in a never-ending war for nearly 24 years, it seems to me that attempting to solve our cultural issues through the power of government is wrong-headed. I think Conservatives need to start re-thinking what Liberty is and the proper role of govenrment.

In other words, what do we want government to do? Do we really want to go back to the days of Prohibition on every issue? For instance, do we really want government to be involved in the homosexual debate? Would not a restoration of Private Property Rights go a long way in solving some of these things?

As my brother asked a conservative friend, if we make homosexuality illegal by the power of government, how far should government go? Do we enter gay homes with guns firing? You may say that is extreme and would never happen, but it happens now. Read this story about how our government fights the drug war. If the government can storm into house and kill you now for smoking pot, why not come into your house and kill you for anything else we give it power to do?

I have to ask a simple question, "Who is the candidate that Thomas Jefferson would vote for?"

Wall Street Protests, Another Reason to Vote for Ron PAul

Here is another great example of where the Left meets the Right. You have the evils of Wall Street bail outs and centralized banking [Federal government in cooperation with printing money with the Federal reserve] colliding with unions and people who think other Americans should pay for their mortgages and health care. America, there is a third way, but you must be willing to accept and be consistent with the principles of liberty. Vote Ron Paul.

Who Is Ron Paul?

Well, we did it. My brother and I attempted to do our first Tea Party Hobos podcast. In this podcast we discuss Republican Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul, and his libertarian views. We discussed a wide variety of issues and only scratched the surface. Below are some links and resources for the show notes. Just click on the above title to listen or download.






Conservative News and Views

Issues 2000 on Ron Paul

Washington Post on Straw Polls

Boston.com on Ron Paul gaining momentum

Daily Caller Ron Paul is on the rise

Ron Paul's website

Freedom in Phoenix polls Ron Paul could beat Obama

Watch the opening song Restore the Republic video.

Closing song by The Tea Party. Watch here.

The Fraud Is Coming From the Feds

This is just rich. According to Bloomberg, the FBI is investigating Solyndra for fraud. as the article states,

The FBI is investigating Solyndra LLC for possible accounting fraud and the accuracy of financial representations made to the government, according to an agency official.

But even the author, Seth Stern, misses the obvious when he wrote,

Solyndra, which made cylindrical-shaped solar panels, filed for bankruptcy protection on Sept. 6 and fired about 1,100 workers with little notice, about two years after winning a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee from the Energy Department.[Emphasis obviously mine]

The fraud isn't their bankruptcy. The fraud is that the Federal government secures big loans for big corporations because of Centralized Banking that is able to print/launder money. This is the Federal government's fault! Obama and Congress should be investigating themselves!

Of course, Federal employees such as the President are just innocent bystanders. They had no idea that millions and billions of dollars were being laundered back into their campaign coffers even though they made the laws that secured these loans. And of course, he'll be at the helm ready to investigate these corporate weasels. NONSENSE! Americans need to wake up!

The Christian Science Monitor has reported that Ron Paul will be on the Jon Stewart fake news show thi coming Monday. As the article reports,

Jon Stewart has accused the media of unfairly ignoring GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul – and now the host of "The Daily Show” is putting his airtime where his mouth is. The inevitable meet-up is occurring: Stewart will host Rep. Paul on his Monday show.
As can be seen on this funny clip, Stewart is putting his program where his mouth is.

Solyndra, Rush's Crony Republicans vs Ron Paul

A caller called Rush's show today and asked,

CALLER:  On this Solyndra deal, when General Motors went through bankruptcy, the Obama administration totally disregarded the concerns of the bondholders of the investors, and at one point I believe Obama even warned them against being greedy.  Yet when Solyndra was in financial trouble the Obama administration restructured their loan with special consideration given to the investors.  Why the difference?

RUSH:  Well, what do you think?

CALLER:  I guess they bundled money for him and GM didn't.

So Rush responds with what we all should agree. This is crony capitalism.

RUSH:  Exactly right.  But it's even worse than that.  You know, I think it's worse than crony capitalism what's going on here because I will never be able to prove this.  Five hundred and twenty three million, half a billion dollars goes to a company that has no business.  There is no solar panel business.  Now, I would think $523 billion, I could find a way to at least break even here.  Five hundred twenty-three million.  Million, billion, what the hell difference does it make?  But we'll stick with million.  I could find a way to break even with this, to at least break even.  This bunch goes bankrupt in a few short years.  

Now, nothing can be proven but I will never be shocked if it were ever established that some of that money ended back up in Obama's campaign war chest or the Democrat Party's war chest or what have you.

Ok, fair enough. Obama and the Democrats are picking winners and losers and trying to control the market all the while lining their campaign pockets. Yet Rush then goes on to campaign for the crony capitalist Gov. Perry (which you may temporarily read here) in which he basically argues that we must "stay focused" on what matters. We must defeat the Democrats.

But as Michelle Malkin reported on TownHall.com,

In February 2007, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a shocking executive order forcing every sixth-grade girl to submit to a three-jab regimen of the Gardasil vaccine. He also forced state health officials to make the vaccine available "free" to girls ages 9 to 18. The drug, promoted by manufacturer Merck as an effective shield against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) and genital warts, as well as cervical cancer, had only been approved by the Food and Drug Administration eight months prior to Perry's edict

Now we have to ask, "why?" Keep in mind, these vaccinations were to be made free to girls ages 9 to 18. According to Real Clear politics,

Merck immediately mounted a massive lobbying effort of state legislatures around the country to get Gardasil added to their respective lists of state-mandated vaccines.

Hmmm, so let's get this straight. Merck lobbys state legislatures. Texas, at this point anyway, didn't pass any legislation mandating the vaccinations. So the Almighty Texas Governor Perry circumvents the legislative process and by kingly fiat does it anyway. So what would cause a politician to do that? Chicagonow reported,

Apparently, Perry’s attempt to minimize Bachmann’s “crony capitalism” innuendo also led to a less than accurate representation according to Texas Ethics Commission filings which indicates he had received $28,500 in campaign contributions from Merck’s political action committee since 2001, not the mere $5,000 he acknowledged.

The article, for all of its emotional defense of Perry, admits the high cost to tax payers that Merck gets to pocket.

The Merck vaccine "Gardasil", is also controversial because of its price--$360 for the three doses required over a six month stretch.

And also states a very revealing conflict of interest if ever there was one.

Recently, Toomey [Perry's former chief of staff] co-founded a “super” political action committee that is expected to wage an expensive independent expenditure effort on Perry’s behalf in the 2012 presidential campaign.

So in conclusion, what difference does it make if the crony capitalism comes from the Left or the Right? So I agree with Rush. Let's concentrate on what really matters. We no longer need to vote for crony capitalists whether they be Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative. This is one more reason we must take the opportunity to vote for Ron Paul, the only true to the core candidate for Liberty of this Presidential race.

Private Property Rights and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky

Here is another great example of government enthusiasts assuming their false premises. The Drudge Report linked to this article on WLSAM written by John Dempsy. He transcribes the interview between Don Wade and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. Here is what she had to say:

“I’ll put it this way. You don’t deserve to keep all of it and it’s not a question of deserving because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together. And there are many things that we decide to do together like have our national security. Like have police and fire. What about the people that work at the National Institute of Health who are looking for a cure for cancer,” Schakowsky said.

Spoken like a person who loves government. Notice how she offers the proper roles of government in order to justify her illogical link to what government is not empowered to do.

Isn't it always the first thing government officials cry about when getting supposed budget cuts that we will lose Firemen and Policemen? Yet we never hear about government bureaucrats getting the axe, do we? Of course notice how she links police to health care. She just ASSUMES that health care is government's responsibility. Never once does she ever try to justify that position because she lives in a world where that just is and anything other than that is wrong. Why? Because it just is.

So why does the political Left think this way? The answer is obvious to those who know a little about American history and Western Civilization. American freedom and liberty is founded on one major principle...private property rights. The political Left does not believe in liberty. They certainly abhor private property rights that under-gird the American system as seen in the Constitution.

In case you think the political Right is much better, you better think twice. Front Runner Gov. Perry from Texas has no problem with being a dictator in the name of being a good government official. Remember, he had the audacity to force girls to receive vaccinations by governor fiat. Now whether you agree with him or not or whether you agree the vaccinations are good or not is not the issue. The fact Perry thinks he has this kind of power should scare us all. We have seen Obama exercise it to a degree. But is Obama doing anything Bush didn't do? No.

Again, this is another shameless plug for Ron Paul. He is the only person that actually desires to return to a Constitutional form of government.

Republican Debate A Waste of Time

CNN Peter Hamby reports on the Republican "debate" and notes,

And former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney chided Perry for referring to Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme" and vowed to protect the program. Romney called such language "over the top" and said that Perry wrote in his book "Fed Up!" that the entitlement program is unconstitutional.

So I have to ask the obvious. If it is not a Ponzi scheme where the funds have been stolen by Congress and dwarfing the Madoff scandal, then pray tell, what is it? Why does this Madoff go to jail while Congress continues on doing exactly the same thing?

It should also be noted that every judge knows Social Security is unConstitutional. That is why Roosevelt had to stack the Court in order to get it declared legal. So again, pray tell, where in the Constitution is this power enumerated. Oh that's right. You can't!

Romney responded to Perry at one point by saying:

"If we nominate someone who the Democrats can correctly characterize as being opposed to Social Security, we would be obliterated as a party," he said.

What I find interesting about all of this mumbo jumbo is neither are willing to deal with the real fundamental issues. Both are accepting the false premises that government is the solution to our problems. Neither one of them are offering the politically incorrect but necessary solution. CUT SPENDING!

So Perry is going to accept deficit spending and crony capitalism (as Palin noted here), and Romney...well, Romney Care should tell us all we need to know. How he was a front runner is beyond me. Note this article's statement on Romney's budget:

Taken together, Romney’s fiscal policies would be even worse than the House Budget. His spending levels are the same — though he provides few details as to what he would cut to accomplish this — but his revenue levels are even lower. The result would be continued unsustainable deficits and more debt. In fact, Romney’s plan would yield approximately $6.5 trillion in deficits from 2013 through 2021.

See the problem? No true budget cuts.

And of course the other head of this dragon. The Fed!

The Fed has one power that is unique to it alone: it enables the creation of money out of thin air. Sometimes it makes vast new amounts. Sometimes it makes lesser amounts. The money takes a variety of forms and enters the system in various ways. And the Fed does this through techniques such as open-market operations, changing reserve ratios, and manipulating interest rates, operations that all result in money creation.

We are talking about an awesome power. It is the power to weave illusions that appear real as long as they last. That is the very core of the Fed's power. 

Of course not everyone is instinctively against this illusion-weaving power, and many even welcome it. Tragically, the innocent who understand little about the complexity of the monetary system suffer the most, while those who are in the know reap great profit whether the market is going up or down.

The more we seek to follow the popular guy, the closer to a true default we come. Time to vote for substance. Time to vote for Ron Paul.

Who do you think won the Republican debate at the Reagan library?

Who do you think won the Republican debate at the Reagan library?

Here is a poll that I haven't heard anywhere. I doubt Rush will talk about this one.

Why the Stimulus Will Never Save Us

Who Is Using Inflaming Rhetoric?

We have interacted on this blog with those who claimed that Tea Partiers are violent. Yet here is a quote from Jimmy Hoffa on Real Clear Politics.

"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner.

And here is Biden using inflaming rhetoric.

UPDATE!

Yahoo News has reported actual violence as supposed to supposed Tea Party. Of course, we have been hearing about Union Thugs all along. It's just you have to listen to other sources that the Old Media.

Six guards were held hostage for a couple of hours after 500 or more Longshoremen broke down gates about 4:30 a.m. and smashed windows in the guard shack, he said.

How many hostages have Tea Partiers taken...hmmm? Perhaps you have had windows broken?

Health Care part 2

Health Care Part 1

The Federal Reserve part 2

The beginning is cut off, but the point is there.