Toward the Laissez-Faire Republic

---

Inveighing Against Injustice & Tyranny
& Coercive Busybodyism

Sam's Ideological Web Page on Human Freedom and the Laissez-Faire Republic

This webpage is dedicated to the principles of individual human rights, private property, free markets and limited constitutional government. Please allow several seconds for the web page to be fully displayed.

IntroductionArticles, Essays, & Short Stories

Favorite ColumnistsBooks & Tapes

Favorite QuotesThe Clinton-Gore Regime

Hero of the Mind:  Frederic BastiatOther Heroes of the Mind

The "Liberal" Mentality:  A Politically Incorrect Examination of Coercive Busybodyism

Marxism: The Rise to Power, Atrocities, & Inevitable Decline of a Hard-Core Reactionary Socialist Cult

Greenism: The Environment, "Watermelons" (green on the outside, red on the inside), & Junk Science

Myths, Fallacies & Dubious Cliches:  A New and Growing Section

Liberty Links (General)News & Analysis Section

Objectivist Links

Jokes, Comics & Fun Stuff

Libertarian Links

Ideology Basics Directory Page

Free Market Economics

Foreign Policy & Military Defense

Pending Legislation & Activism Gun Sites & Personal Defense

Web Rings

Business Products & Services

Guest Book Historical Documents

    For many years I have been hoping and dreaming of a true American Backlash (http://www.americanbacklash.com/) against the Liberal-Left miasma into which the U.S. has been sinking. Enough is enough! November 8 was at least a partial realization of that hope and I am extremely happy about it. It was certainly a repudiation of Hillary Clinton, Obamacare, the past eight years of liberal-left policies, the mess that Obama and Clinton made in the Middle East and in foreign policy generally, and the bigotry of the pro-Democrat news media -- as well as the legacy of scandal and criminal activity of the Clintons.

    My concern now is: how lasting is this revolution? Can it be reversed? How stable are the victories in Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Florida? Will further immigration/invasion by New Yorkers into North Carolina and Florida threaten to turn those states to "blue" forever? What about the political education of the millennials?

    How durable is this American backlash?

    And, of course, the exact nature of the alternative response to the past several decades of the Liberal Establishment ruling class will depend on President Trump and what his administration does. I would be much more comfortable and hopeful if this were a President Ted Cruz, whose ideological inclinations are known and much closer to mine. What can we expect from President Trump? Will President Trump be able to keep his campaign promises? Will the border be secured? Will the in-place machinery of statism be dismantled, at least in part? With a Republican majority in the House and a very slim majority in the Senate, this new president has more opportunity than any in a long time to actually get his reforms passed. Will the Republicans be able to keep those majorities in future elections? Will the new president wimp out and negotiate away the victory and mandate of November 8?

    Given the anti-Trump/anti-reform negativity of the media, academia, and the Democrat Party leadership, which will seek every opportunity to sabotage Trump's reforms, a lot of positive, encouraging pressures from the grass-roots public will be needed to keep the new administration on track and to counteract the beltway propaganda.

    The propaganda war will become more intense than ever before. Ain't no hate like liberal-left hate. It is pure emotion undiluted by logic or reason. The media will give communists like Van Jones and professionally engineered demonstrations free coverage while putting pro-Trump news on back pages or ignored completely. New conservative, constitutionalist TV and Internet networks must be developed to answer the lies and half truths of the Establishment Media.

    We do not know the future, but our chances of achieving less statism are far better with a President Trump than a President Clinton. The hope is great.

    Analysis of the 2016 voting in terms of demographics shows that Trump generally improved on Romney's showing from 2012. Before November 8, the media told us that women would generally hate Trump and not vote his way, and this seemed logical because of his remarks on an open microphone from eleven years ago (when he was still a Democrat). It turns out that he still got at least 42 percent of women. We were also told that Latinos would not vote for him, but he did better than Romney with Latinos in 2012. We were told that if he did get elected that the stock market would crash. Not only has this not happened, but just the reverse -- it jumped up. The expectations and lies of the liberal establishment media did not pan out and many Democrats toeay arte still in cognitive dissonance because of the jarring contrast between their ideological template and the real world. Too many on the Left believe their own propaganda. The media has so demonized Trump during the general election campaign that some naive college students think he has horns and a forked tail. As usual, since they do not have substantive arguments on policy, the Democrats resort to claims of "racism" and bigotry or smear tactics. The depth of denial among out-of-touch Democrats about their stunning defeat is breathtaking.

    What about Obama's "job approval rating"?  What does it really mean?  The election results seem to contradict it.  Obamacare (the so-called Affordable Care Act) and Obama regime policies in general were clearly repudiated on November 8.  The job approval rating is the result of polling, the same type of polling that proved so wrong about the presiential election.  The concern about being considered "racist" may have caused poll respondents to mislead the poll takers by giving a more positive response.  When specific individual policies afre asked about, the results were very different.

    The smackdown of the liberal establishment on November 8 has revealed many assumptions to be a phony "Potemkin village" of false ideological expectatons. Outside of their echo-chamber bubbles in areas like San Francisco, New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon, the U.S. of A. is pretty solidly against Obamaism, liberalism, leftism, and anti-Americanism in general. The liberal-left matrix has been exposed to all as a web of lies and fallacies which are increasingly rejected by the American People. Probably if the GOP had run a decent positively conservative candidate in 2008, Obama would never have been President.

    Leftists in general want to impose their own whims as a central plan on everyone else by the force of big government . This is the essence of socialism. They think that government bureaucrats somehow know so much better how to run our lives and so they  should run everybody's lives and spend everybody's earnings for them.  It is called tyranny. By contrast, constitutionalists and conservatives want the government for the most part to get out of the way of peaceful people and allow them to pursue their own plans, spend their own earnings, and run their own lives as long as they don't use violence or fraud. This is the clear distinction politically that must be made to the American people and between which they must ultimately choose.

    Special-interest groups and power elites are inevitable as long as the
    political state can use its power to tke from peaceful citizens and give to
    others for any reason. As long as people continue to sanction
    interventionism/socialism as a legitimate means to obtain any goal for
    any reason (noble or evil), there always will be vested-interest groups
    and lobbies clustering around Congress and the regulatory agencies
    competing for favors from the public trough at the expense of everybody
    else. Only when the machinery of interventionism and socialism (the
    ultimate in political interventionism) has been dismantled, and the false
    ideas, myths, fallacies, and lies behind interventionism/socialism are
    discredited and abandoned, can the final cure for all monopolistic
    conspiracies be realized.

    The ultimate solution is not more controls and regulations from
    government, but to impose on government a policy of "hands off" the
    private property, money, and all voluntary activities of production and
    exchange among peaceful citizens. Controls and regulations belong on
    government, not on peaceful citizens. With the government thus
    constitutionally limited to dealing with violence and the threat of violence
    (broadly, crime and external threats), while leaving peaceful adult
    citizens alone as much as possible, America could be assured a bright
    future of freedom and progress through market capitalism.

    How to "bell the cat" of government to its legit functions? The U.S.
    founders were on the right track. Constitutional limits on the SCOPE of
    government, backed up by a strong desire by a sufficient number of
    people to keep government in its proper place -- that's the ultimate
    solution in the long run. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance on the
    part of enough people and their leaders to keep government in its
    proper place. Not to blindly trust government officials but to bind them
    down from mischief and tyranny with the chains of the Constitution.
 
 

    During some of the debates Mr. Trump, Sen. Rubio, and others used
    such terms as "trade deficit" or "trade surplus" as if those terms meant
    something relevant to the economy.  There is no such thing as a "trade
    deficit" or "trade surplus" outside of highly artificial and arbitrary
    assumptions.  The terms deficit and surplus are legitimate accounting
    terms which refer to budgets and reflect the balance one way or
    another.  They do not refer to exchange, either national or personal.
    One does not incur a "deficit" when goes to a grocery store and buys a
    loaf of bread.  Yes, the bread can be said to be "imported" to the buyer,
    but aftrer all the supermarket imported the dollar as the price for it.  The
    exchange automatically "balances"; otherwise it would not take place.
    The terms "trade deficit" and "trade surplus" are just warmed-over
    mercantilist fallacies refuted in the 18th century by Adam Smith and
    others and by Frederic Bastiat in the 19th century.  Yet, the fallacies still
    hang on even into the 21st century.

    If foreign governments want to subsidize the American economy by
    giving U.S. consumers lower prices, I say let them do so.  It is true this
    is at the forced expense of the foreign governments' taxpayers and thus
    harms their own economy by reducing effective demand and/or
    aggregate savings, but it is the U.S. economy I am most concerned
    about after all, and I have no power at all over foreign governments'
    taxation policies. Some call such practices "cheating" and object to
    them because they are seen as threats to those U.S.-based businesses
    which produce similar products, but no matter how deserving these are
    of sympathy they are only small special interests and do not represent
    the economy as a whole.  Policies should be judged on how they affect
    the whole U.S. economy, not just a part of it.   Of course I realize that in
    Washington, D.C. just because a legislative package is labeled "free
    trade" does not necessarily mean it has anything to do with true
    freedom of trade, especially if its contents are kept secret. I don't trust
    politicians in general and especially don't trust Obama and the
    Obamacrats to negotiate political trade deals for special-interest
    corporations.  Unless there is some real national security issue involved,
    governments should not block or impede trade -- nor should the
    government artificially stimulate U.S. exports with subsidies from the
    taxpayers. Such federal government entities as the Export-Import Bank
    and the Commodity Credit Corporation should be abolished.
 
 

    Does predatory price cutting work to lead to monopoly and monopoly
    profits in a market free of government intervention?  No.  Here's why,
    and why I don't believe we will see $100 per barel oil again.

    In a free market of voluntary relations a person serves himself only by
    serving the wants of others.  He cannot receive what he wants from
    others unless he produces (or already has from inheritance or gift)
    something they want and are willing to exchange for.  Under such
    circumstances, how would a businesman acquire an exploitative
    monopoly in the absence of government favoritism or interventikon??

    What if a large, rich company kept out its competitors by undercutting
    prices -- selling at a loss -- to such an extent that its competitors could
    no longer stay in business?  Would it not then be a monopoly in its field,
    and then begin to charge high monopoly prices in order to recupe its
    loses?  Could a company lower the price of its product below cost to
    drive out its competitors, and then later raise its price well above the old
    competitive market price to make up for its losses?

    By cutting the price orf its product below what it costs to produce it, that
    company is taking a loss, not making a profit, at least in the meantime.
    Furthermore, the larger the share of the market that the company gains
    by this tactic, the deeper are its losses.  Not only is it not making any
    profit, which is the whole purpose of getting a monopoly in the first
    place, it is sustaining losses.  Not very exploitative so far. From the
    consumer's point of view, this is a bargain.  The consumer doesn't have
    to pay as much as he did before.  He has money left over.

    It is true the company may now be a "monopoly" since it has driven out
    its competitors (or more accurately, the consumers have driven out his
    competitors by buying from the price-cutting company and not the
    others), but so what?  It may be the only seller in  its market but
    consider what it had to do to get that way, namely sustain large losses.
    It may have the satisfaction of seeing its competitors driven out of
    business by its "predatory" price-cutting tactic, but it does not gain any
    monopoly profits as a result.  It is sustaining losses and in the process
    giving the customers an excellent sale on that product which they will
    take advantage of by possibly stocking up on that product at its cheap
    price.

    What about the firms that went our of business?  They can go into
    another field of production or temporarily shut down to re-open later
    when the monopoly company raises its prices to try to recupe its
    losses.  Or they might buy up the cheap product of the dominant firm
    for their own inventories to sell later when the monopoly company has
    had its fill of losses and tries to raise its price above a competitive level.
    The mere possibility of companies re-entering that field of production to
    make money would often be enough to keep the price down below
    exploitative levels.  The freer the capital markets, the more likelihood of
    companies, either new or former producers, going back into competition
    with the monopoly company when it tries to raise its price too high.  As
    soon as it tried to raise its price above the market level -- which it would
    have to do if it wanted to recupe the losses it sustained from its
    below-cost pricing -- it would inevitably invite competition from many
    other firms who could product the same product at a lowr price and still
    make money.  The competition for market share would tend to bring the
    prevailing price down to market levels and thwart high monopoly pricing.

    Also, the firms temporarily driven out by the price cutting could go to the
    dominant firm's customers -- who are presumably now facing the
    possibility of being overcharged later on -- and obtain a contract to
    supply their needs at a more competitive price, thus undercutting and
    thwarting any threat of monopoly pricing.  These companies have the
    advantage that they don't have the losses to recupe that the would-be
    monopoly firm has sustained.

    No firm can continue a policy of selling at a loss indefinitely.  Its
    investors will pull out.  Even if it is a very wealthy company, if it doesn't
    concern itself with recuping those losses it will be defeating its original
    prupose in getting a monopoly in the first place:  which is to get even
    richer.  On a free market a monopoly is an expensive rarity.  It is very
    difficult if not impossible to achieve and has a very short life if it exists at
    all.

    Leftists and monopolists generally denounce "destructive competition"
    in the market.  Destructive competition is just a label that a firm uses
    when another firm is selling the product at a lower price and thus giving
    the customers a better deal.  Price "wars" are always to the benefit of
    the consumers.  Price wars are not really wars at all.  A "price war" is
    just companies trying to outdo one another in offering products at lower
    prices or better quality.  No one is killed or wounded.   The companies
    are not competing to destroy.  They are competing to produce and offer
    a better deal to consumers.  There is no coercion or violence involved.
    People are free to accept an offer or not.

    But some anti-freedom mentalities complain that "cut-throat
    competition" (in which no ones throat is cut) can be excessive and they
    call for government intervention on behalf of a company through
    so-called "fair trade" laws or government-mandated price floors.  At the
    same time government uses the alleged lack of sufficient competition to
    justify anti-trust legislation.  If they don't get you for "too much"
    competiton (price too low) or "too little" competion (price too high or not
    low enough), they can get you for "collusion" if your prices are the same
    as the other firms.   You can't win.  Once government is permitted to
    interfere in the voluntary relations of peaceful people. there is no end to
    the pernicious consequences that will result.

    Newly applied methods of oil and gas extraction in the United States
    have now made the U.S.A. one of the main oil producing countries in
    the world.  Oil's price has plummeted from over $100 a barel to less
    than $50.  The Saudis have kept their production up at previous levels
    in the hope of driving the U.S. firms out of business by keeping prices
    too low for them to stay in business.  The Saudis have little choice.  If
    they try to raise oil prices back to $100 a barel, the U.S. fracking firms
    will go back into production and keep supply up and undercut any
    attempt by the Saudis to hike oil prices up high.  If the Saudis reduce
    their output, other major oil-producing countries will supply the
    difference and the world price of oil will be kept low.  OPEC is impotent.
    Unless government intervenes, I doubt we will see $100 per barel oil
    again, at least not for any length of time, as it would invite the U.S.
    companies back into production.  OPEC cannot keep competition out permanently.

       In the past, the hope of the world has been based on two things:
    Market capitalism and U.S. military strength. It was capitalism (to the
    extent it was allowed to exist) that rescued hundreds of millions of
    children from short miserable lives and death by starvation. It was
    capitalism that brought England and America out of pre-industrial
    squalor to advanced economic status with improvements in life for the
    majority of people. It was U.S. military strength that liberated the world
    from Hitler's national socialism and Tojo's imperialist Japan, rescued
    millions from slave labor and death camps, helped South Korea to
    remain free from communist invasion from the north, and it was U.S.
    strength (especially when Reagan was President) that at least pushed
    back the advance of communist imperialism and helped to quicken the
    fall of the Berlin Wall and the independence of countries once under
    Soviet control. It was U.S. military capability that dragged the brutal
    dictator Saddam Hussein off the backs of the people of Iraq.  People
    around the world at least began to hope that more freedom and
    economic opportunities would be possible.

            Unfortunately, what is left of true market capitalism in America has
    been undercut by many decades of government regulations, controls,
    monetary manipulations, taxation, and various socialistic programs.
    America has been coasting on the momentum from its past more-free
    days when it was closer to being a pure capitalist economy. The heavy
    burden of socialism is catching up to us now. The new president,
    Barack Obama, is doing his best to destroy what is left of market
    capitalism in America and will likely destroy the U.S. dollar completely in
    the next few years. This will mean economic disaster for the people of
    the world as well as Americans here at home.

            Meanwhile, President Obama is reducing spending on military
    defense and is pursuing a foreign policy that kisses up to tyrants and in
    effect tells oppressed people to go to Hell -- that he will do nothing to
    help them while he pals around with socialist thugs and bows to fascist
    dictators. If America's strength is allowed to wane significantly, this will
    certainly encourage a resurgence of both communist imperialism and
    jihadist terrorism around the world. I predict terrible times ahead for the
    people of the world as a result of these policies. And Americans will be
    increasingly targeted by their envious enemies. I wish I could be more
    optimistic. The world will be a much less safe place now that the U.S.
    has a socialist cult leader as President.

            Despite all the socialistic programs and interventions that have
    been piled on top of the U.S. economy over the past several decades, it
    is surprising that it is still within the top ten most economically free
    countries. Sadly, with the Obamacrats now in full control of the
    economy, I predict that the United States will fall below the top ten most
    free countries in the next year or two.

            I do not think it is a coincidence that at least 7 out of the top 10
    most economically free nations were British colonies at one time or
    another: Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand,
    United States, Canada, Denmark, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom
    itself. (See the current Index of Economic Freedom). Where there is
    capitalism there is hope and progress.

            It is also no coincidence that the main troublemaker regimes in the
    world today are among those countries with the least amount of
    economic freedoms (see near bottom of list), including mainland China,
    Russia, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea.

            It is a shame that instead of the U.S. and U.K. becoming more free
    and less socialistic, we seem to be following the failed policies of the
    loser countries now under full socialism. At least that is what the
    election of Obama and the Democrats portends here in the United
    States.

            Increasing the top marginal tax rates on income (the rich folks)
    does not really hurt the wealthy people, but makes less capital available
    for funding business starts and economic growth and results in fewer
    jobs and fewer economic opportunities for regular people like myself
    who are just struggling to pay bills. Yet, the Obamacrats continue to use
    the "soak-the-rich" mantra to fool their gullible followers. As an
    American, I apologize to the people of the world for the election of
    Barack Obama and for the current backward regime.  It's high time for a
    pro-capitalist, pro-American backlash but no one knows when that will
    come.

    Markets require the existence of government for them to operate, but
    let's not blur the distinction between proper government functions and
    improper government activities as there is a clear line of demarcation.
    Markets presuppose private ownership and well-defined and
    government-protected private property boundaries, not just in land but
    in all ownable things.  To own something is to have exclusive right of
    control over it.  A proper function of government is to protect peoples'
    property rights from violation.  There are laws against theft, murder (theft
    of life), trespass, burglary, shoplifting, embezzlement, etc. which make it
    a crime to use violence or fraud to violate the exclusive right of control
    over person and property.

    It is a very different (and indeed opposite) thing for government to
    contradict that proper function of protecting private property rights by
    itself violating them which it does when it seeks to redistribute wealth
    or "organize" society or meddle in the private affairs or market (i.e.,
    voluntary) relationships of peaceful citizens.

    The Laissez-Faire Republic would limit the scope of government to its
    legitimate functions while socialism (the opposite of laissez faire) seeks
    to institutionalize the annihilation of private property always and
    everywhere.  In real-world practice socialism amounts to a monopoly
    clique acting through positive government intervention to control all
    major industries and resources.  As Gary Allen said, socialism is the
    royal road to monopoly power for the super wealthy.

    Left-wing activists are now in control of the government and these
    arrogant control freaks pretend that they know so much better than
    everyone else how to run our lives for us and spend our earnings for us.
    But if we are not smart enough or competent enough to run our own
    lives and spend our own earnings, how can we be smart enough or
    competent enough to choose the politicians and bureaucrats who will do
    all those things for us? And why would somebody else's vote to do so
    bind the rest of us who do not choose to delegate those freedoms?

    The statists hastily pushed through their so-called Affordable Health
    Care Act without even reading it. Have they thought their scheme
    through very well? Apparently not, judging from the on-going failures of
    implementation. Not being content to try to persuade us to part with our
    liberties, Obama and his gang are simply imposing their momentary
    whims on the rest of us through the full force of political government.

    Government by whim is tyranny. Our founders knew this. That is why
    they opposed whimarchy by binding government officials down with the
    chains of the Constitution, which sets forth the basic rules and
    limitations on the scope of the federal government.

     Government is NOT instituted to do anything anybody's whim happens
    to dictate. The legitimate functions of government are limited to the
    proper uses of violence force -- national military defense against foreign
    threats, law courts for the ultimate settlement of disputes, and the police
    power to defend against and justly retaliate against crime. The role of
    government does not extend to those activities and areas of human life
    which by their nature do not and should not involve the use of violent
    force. It is not the proper function of government to provide health
    insurance, medical care, dentistry, public education, electric power,
    retirement income, school lunches, housing, community development,
    day care, etc.

     Ignoring the limits placed on the scope of government spelled out in
    the Constitution has brought America to its current sorry state under the
    present corrupt regime. The Ninth and Tenth amendments -- which
    forbid fedgov from getting involved in areas not specified in the body of
    the Constitution itself -- are routinely ignored as if they had been
    repealed. And the more the political schemes fail, the more the
    schemers scheme up more schemes to impose.

     The Constitution is just words after all. The ultimate price of liberty is
    eternal vigilance on the part of enough people to keep government in its
    proper place. I for one would like to believe we still have enough people
    who understand that the scope of government must be limited to
    prevent tyranny and to preserve liberty. Isn't it time for a new American
    Revolution to take back our country?

       There are political conspiracies of course, but for every genuine instance of
       conspiracy there are scores if not hundreds or false conspiracy conjectures
       which circulate among the populace and are accepted by some people as
       absolute fact.  Unraveling all the phony plots and setting history straight
       would be a full-time job and would take years of research and publication
       of books and articles by an organization of professional historians who did
       not have an ideological ax to grind.

       Just taking the murder of JFK in 1963 as one historic example, there are
       several conspiracy theories which purport to explain what "really"
       happened.  There is the one that claims that President Kennedy was going
       to tell the public about what our government knows about extraterrestrial
       aliens, and that he had to be killed to prevent that horrible scenario to avoid
       public panic, according to that claim.  There is no real substance to that
       theory.  There is also the claim that JFK wanted to stop the War in Vietnam
       and withdraw some or all troops and bring them home, and that he wrote a
       memo indicating that.  But in the real world no such memo ever existed
       outside of the Olive Stone propaganda movie JFK.  There was never any
       real indication that President Kennedy was just about to end the war in
       support of South Vietnam against the invading communists, despite what
       many now believe as a result of Stone's fictional movie.  Then there is the
       conspiracy theory which claims that JFK wanted to stop borrowing from the
       Federal Reserve System and instead have the U.S. Treasury print its own
       paper currency.  Again, there is no real evidence that JFK wanted to do
       anything like that on any large enough scale -- or that "the powers that be"
       would have him taken out for doing so.  But those who believe in one of the
       above conspiratorial tales are not likely to change their minds by the lack of
       evidence.

       I would further point out that the same claim has long been made about
       Abraham Lincoln's assassination -- the notion that President Lincoln was
       killed at the behest of powerful banking interests because Lincoln had
       signed the greenback legislation instead of borrowing from the bankers to
       pay for the war against the Confederacy.  Not only is there no evidence at
       all for this belief, but the greenback legislation itself was largely written by
       a banker from Albany (then a major banking center) and one could much
       more easily argue that bankers had more of a vested interest in the
       greenbacks as they would serve as additional reserves against which the
       banks could inflate in their fractional-reserve demand deposit system.
       They could make much more money that way than they had done under
       the partial gold standard which had limited the extent of their inflation.

       Lincoln was not "money martyred" at all.  He was assassinated by a fervent
       supporter of state sovereignty and secession, someone who perceived
       Lincoln as a traitor to American freedom and true federalism.

       Left-wing ideologues and professional prevaricators from Mark Lane and
       Fletcher Prouty to Oliver Stone and Michael Moore have always put out
       whatever spin they consider helpful in distracting people from the truth or
       in muddying the waters enough to confuse the public about who really did
       what to whom.  Most of the widespread JFK murder stories have one thing
       at least in common:  they all seek to distract the public away from the
       history, personality, and motivations of Lee Harvey Oswald -- either to
       claim he was not acting alone or to exonerate him altogether as merely
       a patsy who had nothing to do with anything.  The latest line from the
       left-wing establishment is that LBJ was behind the assassination.
       Again, anything to distract the public from understanding that a U.S.
       President was murdered by a Far Left zealot.

       The point is that some of these conspiracy theories or political spins -- as
       wrong-headed as they may be --  are nonetheless taken as Gospel by
       some people -- propaganda being as effective as it is -- and that includes
       individuals who are mentally or psychologically unhinged or unbalanced.
       And sometimes some of these persons act on their false beliefs.  A key
       aspect of paranoia and schizophrenia involves losing perspective by taking
       facts totally out of context, disengaging from reality, or perceiving "facts" or
       relationships that are not true or do not exist at all.

       Based on his reading of various left-leaning internet sites, self-styled
       "liberal" Steve Kangas believed that businessman Richard Mellon Scaife
       was the center of a great "right-wing conspiracy" and that he was evil.  This
       belief motivated him to try unsuccessfully to murder Richard Mellon Scaife.

       Jared Loughner, a troubled individual who believed in various left-wing
       conspiracy theories, hated Congresswoman Giffords because it became
       increasingly clear she was not left wing enough for him.  She had greatly
       disappointed him when she sided with the conservative Republicans and
       stayed and even participated in the reading of the U.S. Constitution when
       almost all other Democrats had rudely walked out.  There ain't no hate like
       left-wing hate.

       This photograph taken by Oswald's wife in their back yard shows Oswald
       holding up the gun that was later used in shooting President Kennedy.
       Along with the gun, the photograph shows Oswald proudly holding up two
       Marxist newspapers, The Militant and The Worker.  The picture was taken
       after he tried to assassinate Gen. Edwin Walker, an outspoken
       anticommunist.

       Lee Harvey Oswald's supposed fondness for President John Kennedy
       turned to anger and hate when he was convinced by the Marxist literature
       he read avidly that Kennedy had tried to unseat and even assassinate his
       communist idol Fidel Castro in Cuba.  In his attempted assassination of
       General Walker and his murder of JFK, Oswald saw himself as a
       Marxist hero.  He had motive as well as opportunity in Dallas in November
       of 1963.   Of course I am under no illusion that people will not continue to
       believe what they already believe about the Kennedy assassination, and
       that many Americans will always be confused and uncertain about
       communist Lee Oswald's role in that event.

       The programming of individuals by propaganda sets them up to do things
       they would not do otherwise.  Considering the barrage of inflammatory
       left-wing hate speech and slanderous rhetoric against such outspoken
       patriots as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, and others, might
       yet another militant leftist emerge to try to do harm to peaceful American
       citizens?  How many potential Loughners or Oswalds are out there waiting
       to be triggered into acts of evil?

       One should always ask, "Who benefits?"   Will the result be less
       government interference with the freedoms of peaceful adult citizens -- or
       more government control over us all?  Will it advance a
       freedom/constitutionalist agenda or a socialist/tyrannical world view?

       Also, another question to ask is:  who will be next?  Will some left-wing
       kook try to murder Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Ted Cruz, or some other
       pro-freedom advocate?  I only hope people will be on their guard against a
       new wave of left-wing violence.
 
 

    Outside of direct confiscation of existing wealth, there is not much the
    government can do to really hurt the rich. Hiking the income tax a few
    points on high earners won't make much difference to their lifestyle.
    They are already rich. The people hurt by "soaking the rich" are the rest
    of us whose jobs and living standards depend on private savings and
    investment and more capital accumulation to pay for new and expanded
    businesses. With less money saved or invested in new tools and
    machines and wages, fewer job opportunities are the consequence.
    Targeting the rich on the basis of "fairness" does little or nothing to
    improve the lives of low-income or middle-income families. What it does
    tend to do is to make it more difficult for low-income or middle-income
    people to rise to the high-income level, as income taxes are on current
    incomes and do not affect already-acquired wealth of those already on
    top.

    Behind the socialistic idea of "soaking the rich" is the false notion that
    rich people got that way by somehow taking advantage of the poor. The
    neurotic urge to "redistribute the wealth" comes from false ideas of
    where wealth comes from and the notion that all wealth is static, so that
    if someone has more than others then it must have come from those
    others. The exploitation theories of Marx and Rodbertus and others have
    been thoroughly refuted by von Boehm-Bawerk, von Mises, Thomas
    Sowell, George Reisman, and other competent economists. What
    remains today is the moribund, dishonest religion of the Left still being
    pushed by the momentum of the emotions generated by those past
    fallacies. The Left's stale, counterproductive nostrums are dying a slow
    death. The control freaks will no longer be able to hide their lust for
    power behind the pretense of helping the common man. In the
    meantime, will they take the rest of us down with them?

         I.    Fundamental Individual Rights in Person, Liberty, and
    Property

        II.    Freedom of Production and Voluntary Exchange

       III.    Freedom in Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and
    Petition

      IV.    Freedom in the Keeping and Bearing of Firearms

       V.    Personal Freedom and Responsibility in the Ingestion of
    Chemical Substances

      VI.    Freedom in Education

     VII.    Freedom in Money and Banking

    VIII.    Freedom in Personal Associations

      IX.    Limitations on the Means of Financing the Government

       X.    Prohibition Against Unwarranted Searches and Seizures

      XI.    Standards and Procedures to Protect the Criminally
    Accused

     XII.    Retained Rights and Reserved Powers

Full Text

    It is interesting that a mask representing the face of Guy Fawkes, the
    most notorious of the infamous would-be bombers of Parliament and
    the British government of 1605, is seized upon by some of the Occupy
    Wall Street leftists as some kind of badge of protest.  If Fawkes and his
    zealous cronies had been successful and had had their way and did
    manage to blow up the legislative, judicial, and executive officials of
    government (since they were all there on that day), the result would
    have been far more statism, far more tyranny, not less, as these radical
    Catholics planned to have the King of Spain over and impose the
    Spanish Inquisitin and his own religious faith on all, as Bloody Mary
    Tudor had tried to do.  By contrast, the relatively moderate policies of
    James I helped set the stage for development of protolibertarian thought
    during that century and ultimately helped to make possible the Glorious
    Revolution of 1688.  If one is a  genuine libertarian one would
    assiduously eschew the gunpowder plot of 1605 and celebrate its foiling
    by burning Fawkes's image on November 5.

    Ideally, the proper function of government, essentially, is NOT to govern peaceful people in their private lives or voluntary exchanges. It is limited to governing criminals -- those convicted of violating the rights of peaceful people. It is not to set prices, regulate what vitamins we may take, establish racial quotas, manage healthcare, or redistribute wealth among non-criminals. If Obama's true goal was to help the economy recover, his policies of massive federal spending and indebtedness have failed. This administration has spent more than all previous administrations combined. Yet, they have destroyed far more jobs than they have created. Trying to "stimulate" the economy back to health through government spending is like trying to gain nourishment by drinking your own blood! The government cannot put back into the economy more than what it takes out of it -- and given the huge overhaed and waste involved in government programs -- on net it puts back in less than it takes away while artificially stimulating some sectors at the forced expense of others. When FDR tried this, it kept the country in depression for many years unnecessarily and causing widespread economic anguish. What must be done is to slash federal spending to the bone, cut taxes generally, abolish the capital gains tax, repeal Dodd-Frank and many other laws, and replace the Federal Reserve legal counterfeiting monopoly with a sound (golden) monetary system.

    Too many "libertarians" nowdays use a lot of the old anarcho-Trotskyite crackpot rhetoric of the seventies and eighties and there is a simple-minded blame-America-always attitude when it comes to foreign policy that offends many who encounter these self-styled libertarians.   But there was a time when libertarian meant someone who supported the classic position of laissez faire as the proper scope of constitutional government -- that government's scope should be limited to strongly policing, isolating, and punishing criminals and defending against foreign threats while leaving peaceful adult citizens alone as much as is possible.  This was the position of those who founded the Libertarian Party such as John Hospers and David Nolan and those scholars who influenced the cause of constitutional liberty such as John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, Herbert Spencer, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, Hans Sennholz, Roger MacBride, Leonard Read, Isabel Paterson, George Reisman, and others.

    The anarcho-Trotskyite leftover types kind of glombed onto the libertarian movement perhaps mistakenly thinking that "anti-statist" meant "anti-state" and many even became active in the LP, though one wonders how they squared working within a political party with their vaunted anarchism.  This is not the only reason libertarianism has acquired a bad name with the public but it is at the root of why many of the more rational people have become alienated from anything with the label "libertarian" on it.   The cause that started out with so much hope decades ago has become distorted almost beyond recognition by left-wing reactionaries who claim to embrace free-market economics but at the same time advocate a whimarchist politics of gang wars and unlimited violence in which free markets cannot exist.

    Since a member of the LDS church is running for President this year, the only real alternative to four more years of disastrous Democrat rule, whatever his deficits, those who support constitutional liberty must now try to make him and his candidacy as good as they can be.  I am not a Mormon, but I strongly agree with the political position expressed so eloquently by the late Ezra Taft Benson, LDS leader, in his small book On the Proper Role of Government.  It should be required reading by all Americans, especially in the year 2012.  Indeed, given the opportunity before us, this may well be the best way to spread true libertarian ideas.

The war in Iraq issue has divided libertarians or has exposed divisions which were already there. I believe many libertarians and some conservatives sincerely oppose the war on essentially procedural grounds -- that the word "war" was not explicitly used in Congress's grant of military authority to the President in going into Iraq. Even though there is disagreement among constitutionalists about whether Congress's authorization amounted to a "real" declaration of war or not, this is at least an argument which tries to refer back to the Constitution and I understand it even if I do not necessarily agree with it. I see that as perhaps their strongest legitimate argument against the war in Iraq. It at least appears to be a libertarian or constitutionalist argument. (Yet some of the same people who claim this as their basis for opposing the war in Iraq nevertheless supported the war in Afghanistan, which had no explicit declaration of the word "war" from Congress either. Inconsistent constitutionalism, it seems to me.)

But I also believe many of the "anti-war" libertarians have accepted certain Democrat media talking points as the basis for their opposition, even though they are not true. They have absorbed the hate-Bush propaganda which is so ubiquitous in the media, especially Democrat Party establishment house organs such as NPR, NBC, ABC, CBS, Time magazine, Washington Post, L.A. Times, and the New York Times, just to name a few. Those who rely for their news and interpretations on such sources are apt to be misled, especially on the issue of the war in Iraq. Many Americans have been led to believe, for example, that Bush and Cheney "lied us into war" and that Scooter Libby exposed Valerie Plame as a "covert" CIA agent and that this was in revenge for her husband's claim that Saddam Hussein never sought "yellow cake" uranium in Africa. None of these claims of this scenario are true. The statements of Valerie Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, have been shown to be without credibility. Libby was not the person who "outed" Valerie Plame (who was not a covert agent anyway). Yet, because most Americans get only "impressions" of news and generally get those impressions from watching television every night, the constant barrage of propaganda has caused many, including even some libertarians, to buy into this chain of false claims disseminated by anti-Bush partisans within the federal bureaucracy and their Democrat allies in the media.

A clash between the U.S. and Saddam Hussein was virtually inevitable and not avoidable in the long run. My position has been that the U.S. had little choice: either deal with Saddam Hussein and his military buildup now (ASAP) or have to fight him years later when confrontation could not be avoided any longer and when his forces would have been far stronger and more destructive in terms of weapons of mass destruction and alliances. That being my view, I'd rather see it done now and with Bush 43 as President rather than put it off when Saddam would have been more dangerous and when the U.S. President might be some doofus Democrat like Kerry or Gore or Hillary Clinton. Whatever mistakes the Bush Administration has made in the war against the jihadists, I am easily persuaded in my mind that a Democrat President would have done far worse. Despite my consistent opposition to President Bush's liberal policies on other issues, it is clear that things would be far worse if Kerry or Gore had been elected, especially with regard to foreign policy, national security, and defense. (Again, as I have said before, it's not that I think Bush is so good, but that the Democrat alternatives were so bad. Unfortunately, too many Americans still do not have a clue about how much damage Bill Clinton did as President to this country's national security and too many people continue to underestimate the extent of duplicity on the part of the current Democrat leadership.)

The U.S. (or anyone else for that matter) had both the legal and moral right to take down Saddam and his regime. In addition, it was in the geopolitical interests of the U.S. to do so. The Iran-Iraq War was long over. He had ceased to be an "ally" long ago. He was harboring anti-American terrorists including Zarqawi and Abu Nidal. (There is even evidence of terrorist training camps inside Iraq going back to the 1990s.) Intelligence from all over the world indicated Saddam's military buildup included weapons of mass destruction and programs for developing WMDs. He had already used WMDs against Iraqis, killing Kurds in great numbers. How would he use them in the future? Might some of them find their way into the hands of terrorists like those who attacked the U.S. on 09/11/01? Sadam had been properly slapped down by Bush 41 after his unprovoked aggression against neighboring Kuwait, with whom the U.S. had a defense agreement. Saddam continued to violate the terms of the ceasefire after that first Gulf War, Anyone who claims that the U.S. did not have a right to strike Saddam Hussein and curtail his military buildup in retaliation for his military actions and threats ignores what was happening or was just not paying attention.

Contrary to Democrat talking points and anti-Bush partisan political propaganda, the evidence indicated Saddam Hussein did have WMDs, did have programs for developing WMDs, and was seeking to get "yellow cake" uranium (despite Joseph Wilson's claims to the contrary). Some WMDs and evidence of WMDs were later found by the U.S. military in Iraq, but there is evidence that most of the WMDs were transported out of Iraq prior to the arrival of U.S. and allied troops. There was plenty of time to accomplish this as the Bush Administration clearly telegraphed its punches.

Whether the U.S. invasion of Iraq is seen as a rescue of the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein or as an attempt to replace Saddam with a reliable ally in the broader war against the jihadists, or both, it was certainly not a case of "U.S. imperialism" or unprovoked aggression by the allies against a peaceful government -- as the anti-American Left would have people believe.

In his recent article published in the Wall Street Journal ("Libertarians and the War:  Ron Paul Doesn't Speak for All of Us" July 17, 2007), Georgetown University professor and libertarian writer Randy Barnett does not appear to address the "declaration of war" issue which many anti-war libertarians invoke, but he does point out quite correctly that "[w]hile all libertarians accept the principle of self-defense, and most accept the role of the U.S. government in defending U.S. territory, libertarian first principles of individual rights and the rule of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriate and effective self-defense after an attack." And, of course, no one ever claimed that they do, at least no one I know of in the pro-Iraqi liberation faction among libertarians.

Strict libertarianism says it is wrong to initiate force against a peaceful person or regime that has not initiated force against others. It does not say that you cannot use force in retaliation against someone who has initiated force, which Saddam Hussein had done on a massive scale. Specific tactics and strategy of war cannot be deduced from such first principles as self-ownership, private property, rule of law, etc. There is nothing in libertarian principles or the theory of the laissez-faire constitutional republic which dictates such matters. Such specific issues of tactics and strategy are matters of judgment and prudence by military experts. Other than advocating an international gold standard, low or no tariffs, and trying to avoid (if possible) foreign wars as a general policy, there can be a wide latitude of positions among libertarians when it comes to foreign policy and geopolitical strategy.

By making himself a single-issue candidate -- especially on an issue on which libertarians are so divided – Ron Paul is sadly distracting from other very important issues and from the bedrock libertarian principles on which we all agree. As Professor Barnett writes in the closing paragraph of his WSJ editorial, those libertarians who supported the liberation of Iraq and who support success in leaving behind a stable ally there ". . . are still rooting for success in Iraq because it would make Americans more safe, while defeat would greatly undermine the fight against those who declared war on the U.S. They are concerned that Americans may get the misleading impression that all libertarians oppose the Iraq war -- as Ron Paul does -- and even that libertarianism itself dictates opposition to this war. It would be a shame if this misinterpretation inhibited a wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote the general welfare of the American people."

I agree. Thank you, Professor Barnett.

*   *   *

Hardcover - 285 pages (July 4, 1998) Regnery Publishing Inc;
ISBN: 0895263548

The publisher, Regnery Publishing Book Summary:
 

       Is America on a slow-motion trip toward socialism even as much of the rest of the
       world moves away from it? Hungarian-born historian and world-renowned concert
       pianist Balint Vazsonyi, who knows first-hand what it means to live under an
       authoritarian regime, makes a powerful case that it is.

       Drawing heavily on his personal experiences living under different versions of
       socialism, Vazsonyi describes how our hard won freedoms are being gradually
       eroded.

       Vazsonyi traces the essence of what makes America unique back to the founders and
       shows how those who want America as we know it to fail are undermining the
       founder's original intent.

       The author documents how America's founding principles of rule of law, individual
       rights, the guarantee of property, and a common American identity are being
       gradually replaced by government mandated group rights, redistribution, and
       multi-culturalism.

       The thirty year war is being fought between those who promote liberty, rights for the
       individual and a continued need for moral guidance on the one side, and those who
       believe that the supreme power is human reason which, operating through a central
       authority, can and will create the perfect world on the other. While the picture is not
       rosy, America has every chance of winning, if the intentions of the two sides are
       exposed, and the consequences weighed. This witty, simple-to-follow, and
       engagingly personal book should aid in the process.

       With unmistakable clarity, Vazsonyi shows how every time America moves away from
       its founding principles it moves in the direction of a system where a fantasy of
       "social justice" is pursued through ever-greater government control. America's Thirty
       Years War is an inspiration to those who have lost touch with our founding principles
       and ammunition for those who believe that our freedoms must be defended every
       day.

To read more short reviews of this book or to buy a copy for yourself from
Amazon.com, please click on this line!
 
 

    I don't know what will wake up the apathetic, uninformed, and politically
    naive people who are enamored of the Elmer Gantry in the White House,
    former President and Criminal in Chief Bill Clinton. Some of us have
    understood for many years that Bill Clinton is a corrupt traitor. Maybe this
    book will wake up more people to the disaster he and his advisors have
    brought about -- and the serious consequences for American national
    security in the coming decades. Selling out one's country in exchange for
    illegal campaign contributions from Red Chinese dictators -- just so he could
    have four more years in the Oval Office -- is contemptible beyond words.
    Giving away the military technology store to the ruthless Communist regime
    will be Bill Clinton's outstanding legacy -- and is likely to set back the final
    triumph of freedom and progress in the world for several years if not many
    decades. People of the future will curse the names of Bill Clinton and Sandy
    Berger.

(Links to Earlier News and Commentary
from Eddie's Controversial Web Log Rants & Raves)

May 2003
April 2003

---

---

ARTICLES, ESSAYS, & SHORT STORIES SECTION

---

John Galt -- Enemy of the State!
The Mission Impossible Squad vs. American Hero John Galt!
Bill Clinton and Janet Reno demand:
"John Galt must be destroyed!"

---

Some Basic Definitions

An Introduction to Some Basic Definitions of important terms in the Freedom Philosophy

What is the proper role of government, and how should it be limited? With which categories of human activity should political government be concerned?

Separation of Force and Whim -- A Key Principle of Freedom

For a lively dialogue between two friends on the idea of a free society versus Big Government, feel free to enjoy the following: A Poem About Individual Rights

Hey! Do you know your left from your right? Many Americans don't these days! They are like someone watching a football game without knowing the rules of the game, which team is which, or how to keep score! Politics is very confusing to them.

"Left and Right" by Joseph Sobran:  What Do the Terms "Left" and "Right" Mean in American Politics?

A Vertical "Peg" Spectrum? --  A New Slant on an Old Conflict

     What is the basic definition of "libertarian" in today's political arena?   And, how are libertarians different from conservatives, from liberals, from democrats, from anarchists,  & from pragmatists?  This essay seeks to answer these questions in clear English.

     David F. Nolan, cofounder of the American Libertarian Party, sets forth five essential platform planks which unite all Libertarians despite any differences they may have on other issues.

  Is fascism the opposite of Communism or is it just another variant of Big Government socialism?

---

"Seattle Riots Reveal Where the Real Threats Are Coming From" by Sam Francis

Where does the real danger of violence and terrorism come from in the world today -- from the Right-Wing or the Left-Wing? Controversial columnist Sam Francis gives his answer.

     What is the difference between a democracy and a republic? Was the American Constitutional Republic a democracy? Here, in a very short, easy-to-read exposition, are the clear answers to those questions .

What are the two ultimate political systems between which all others may be placed? Consider An Alternative Outline of Political Systems

Monopolistic Robber Barons:  Under  Which System Do They Fare the Best -- Interventionism or Laissez Faire?  This is the first of what will be several articles in a series on "monopoly" and "competition" which will be a fairly comprehensive overview of the important topics and dealing with the cause and cure of exploitative monopolies.

General Outline for a Course on Monopoly and Competition

With references to a variety of sources from different points of view on the ideological spectrum, this paper shows how government interventionism and socialism are the politics of oligopoly and monopoly power, and includes notes and selected bibliography.

"Not Yours To Give"   An inspiring short story from the legendary Davy Crockett

U.S. FOREIGN AID AND UNITED NATIONS VOTING -- THE RECORD: Contrary to what many people believe, U.S. foreign aid is not buying many real allies around the world. This Heritage Foundation Backgrounder report (6/11/98) provides continuing proof that recipients of U.S. foreign aid vote against the United States more often than they vote with it.

The Disaster of Government-to-Government Foreign Aid Programs :  Who Really Benefits -- and Who Loses -- in These Costly Subsidy Schemes?

LETHAL COMPASSION: Why national health care is the cure that kills. Here is the affordable alternative

The Scandinavian Welfare States-- The Future That Doesn't Work.

The Rise and Fall of the Swedish Model by Mauricio Rojas-- an analysis of the roots of the Swedish model, why it seemed to succeed for a time, and why it collapsed in failure.

What Went Wrong in Sweden-- a new book which reveals the truth about the failure of socialism and welfare-statism in Sweden

The Truth About Global Warming & Greenhouse Gases

"Global Warming & Hot Air:  Angela Antonelli reports on why the talks broke down at the Hague 12/04/00

"Environmentalism's Malaria Holocaust" by Dr. George Reisman:  Why the Eco-Fascists Have Blood on Their Hands -- the Price in Human Suffering from Unnecessarily Banning DDT

The Green Gestapo: Environmentalism Gone Insane! by Jarret Wollstein

The Truth About Freaky Frogs: A New Report from Science Daily

JunkScience.comExposes Junk Science

Anxiety Center The good news is the bad news from the Eco-Fascists is WRONG

Access to Energy a Pro-Science, Pro-Technology, Pro-Free Enterprise Monthly Newsletter

Planet Earth 'has not got any warmer since 1940'

Green Watch Keeping tabs on the extremist groups, what they are up to, and the sources of their funding

The "Liberal"/Fascist/Socialist Mentality

Examining the Anti-Reality Psychology Behind Those Who Yearn to Run Other Peoples' Lives and Spend Other Peoples' Earnings & The Irrational Roots of the Politics of Class Envy, Selective Pity, and Manipulation through Guilt Tripping

"Liberals" & the Cult of Moral Relativism:  An Introduction

"Liberalism" Today in the U.S.A. -- Parallels to German Socialism

"Liberalism" as one of the "Degrees of Busybodyism?"

Right on! by David Horowitz This articulate former leftist is one of the most astute and intellectually honest reporters on the political Left in America, past and present. Few can do a better job at explaining the left-wing cult mindset and its implications. One cannot really understand the Clinton regime without a sense of its anti-American left-wing roots of thirty years ago.

"Socialist Hallmarks" by Balint Vazsonyi (Aug 3, 1999, The Washington Times)

Introductory Guide to Political Correctness

Accuracy in Academia -- monitoring the rot in our colleges & universities

Little Red Riding Hood

Liberal Cliches, Fallacies, and False Political Claims

Left-Wing Demonstrators Miss the Mark

Dare to Compare the Socialist Agenda of the 1920s-1930s

Socialism is super busybodyism with the power of the meddlesome state behind it. What are the degrees of busybodyism?

Marx's Manifesto: 150 Years of Evil by David Horowitz

Marxism Wanted Poster -- for the crimes and atrocities of the militant cults of Marxism

Those Crooks in the Clinton-Gore White House: The Sellout of America by Power Addicts
He can't even run his own life -- how dare he try to run ours!

Clinton and Missile Defense by J. R. Nyquist

Our National Security Nightmare by Frank Gaffney Jr.

China holds ace in the hole with Clinton by William Safire

The Deadliest Download by William Safire

Military Decline Puts U.S. in a Bind by Bruce Bartlett

Teaching by Example by Al Knight

No Imperial Presidency by Dr. George Reisman

The White House Elmer Gantry & His Enablers by Sam Wells

Undermining the Military  by Thomas Sowell

An Apology by Eddie Willers

The Clintons versus American Military Personnel and Defense Preparedness  by Paul Craig Roberts

Clinton Foreign Policy Screw Ups Endanger Amnericans in the Long Run by Frank Gaffney Jr.

Clinton's Utah Coal Lockup: A trillion dollar Lippo payoff? by Sarah Foster

Sex, Lies & Vast Conspiracies by David Horowitz.
Telling the truth about the Clinton Regime and its spinmeisters, this former Marxist reveals what's really happening there! "David Horowitz [keeps] crusading against injustice. In his writings, he grabs for the throat and squeezes. Hard. In his followup to his introspective memoirRadical Son, he turns the flamethrower on Bill Clinton and the courtier intellectuals who defend his every move." -- World Magazine

King Clinton's Incredible Statement!

Wanna Support Truth, Justice, and the American Way? Join That "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"!

"Pop a Smoke!"   Like Hanoi Jane Fonda, Bill Clinton's long-standing contempt for the U.S. military and military personnel is well-known -- and morale among the services is at an all-time low because he is their Commander in Chief. Here are some candid observations about Bill Clinton from Marines who served in Vietnam.

Two Belgrade Bombers Compared

Judicial Watch  Larry Klayman fights a valiant battle for a thorough and no-holds-barred investigation of Bill Clinton!

Has the democratic welfare state become that great fiction by which nearly everyone seeks to live at the forced expense of everyone else? Government cannot give anything to anybody unless it takes it away from somebody else, and when it does this it uses force and coercion in violation of the rights of those from whom it takes. The political state -- interventionist government -- cannot bestow any benefit to society as a whole -- it can only take from some and give to others, minus the overhead absorbed by the administering bureaucracy.

---

Jokes, Comics, & Other Fun Stuff!

P. J. Comix! -- No-holds-barred satirical comic strips (parental discretion advised)

The Comics Directory

Janet Poppins! The new nanny from Amerika has arrived!

A Satirical Political Beliefs Assessment Test A humorous test to discover if you're a conservative, liberal, libertarian, or a communist.

Current Column by multidisciplinary scholar Dr. Thomas Sowell

Column by conservative diva Ann Coulter

Recent columns by famed concert pianist and Hungarian-born historian Balint Vazsonyi!

Current Column by Dr. Walter Williams of George Mason University

Walter Williams explains why politicians are often so bad.

A Very Short Article by Professor Walter Williams on Violent Force & the Moral Limits of Governmental Action

Current Column by Black libertarian talk show personality Larry Elder

Don't make the mistake of depending on only one source for news and commentary (especially if the one source is TV)! Investigate for yourself and get news weeks or even months BEFORE the "Liberal" Media Establishment decides to finally report on it. The Internet offers a greater diversity of news and opinion than you will ever get watching the Boob Tube.

Human Events

The Drudge Report

   -- America's News Page

-- A Free Press For A Free People

Accuracy In Media-- Watchdog on Media Bias

The Washington Times

Rush Limbaugh -- the Web Site! The conservative Republican weighs in against "liberal" Democrats and environmental whackoes!

-- Conservative News & Information

Conservative News Service -- An alternative news network

Big Eye! A different way to search the Web and discover the best sites.

The Kansas City Star -- The Web Edition of the K C Star