Presidential Cult?

Gene Healy of the Cato Institute doesn't like the exercise of presidential power. Nor do I. He itemizes the dangers of president-as-messiah here. I think he's largely correct.

Still, those with wonkish proclivities might want to view politics as a purely intellectual exercise. Here in the Healy Construct, logic and reason are the only legitimate arrows in the quiver of those who share political values. Squishy, subjective considerations such as appeals to emotion and political theater are verboten.

Good luck with that approach, sez me.

Charisma, style, and being telegenic seem to me to be requirements for how this game is played. Deal with it. Being a strong, silent type in the mold of Coolidge strikes me as a matter of style. A= A robots need not apply.

With any luck, excellent politician/actors will step forward in coming decades who understand that the state can and should be rolled back, but who can also inspire and motivate the nation toward a more peaceful configuration.

Think of a smaller-government Obama.

-RC

Obama: Pot Smokers' Choice?

Barack Obama has given free liberals another reason to cheer his candidacy with his humane views on medipot:

As the candidates prepare for a May 20 primary in Oregon, one of 12 states with a California-style law, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has become an increasingly firm advocate of ending federal intervention and letting states make their own rules when it comes to medical marijuana.

More here.

Ron Paul #1 on Amazon

Here's the book, and here's the top-sellers list.

A bestselling cult-leader. Whodathunk?

H/t, as usual, to David Freddoso. I hate to keep stealing his posts, but he's on top of the libertarian scene, it seems. Here are his most recent posts on the Corner.

-MT

Undercutting Collectivist Thinking, One Award at a Time

FYI:

Michael Hirsh's “How the South Won (This) Civil War” was given the inaugural "WEeding Award" today, for its misuse of the first-person plural.

Since the misuse of words like "we" (as when one speaks in the first-person of some action in which one actually had no hand) supports a distorted sense of group identity -- including the reification of The Group as something over and above the individuals which comprise it, and the portrayal of The Group as something to which individuals must bow -- it is time that such mistakes be "weeded out."

The WEeding Awards will, in a light-hearted way, bring awareness to this critical issue. It's time to stop speaking "Collectivist."

For the inaugural announcement, and to find out "How the South Won (This) Civil War"'s WEediness Quotient, visit my personal blog.

And if you find any articles that need WEeding, just send 'em my way.

-MT

Enivornmentalism Turns Against Itself *UPDATED*

After Dr. Foldvary's article (Ethanol subsidies starve poor kids) and seeing a report on Comcast News about the rising cost of "organic" and "environmentally friendly" food -- and headlines like "Era of cheap food ends as prices surge" (h/t Drudge) -- I'm beginning to wonder whether the environmentalist movement doesn't need to be a lot more centralized and coordinated.

If environmentalist causes drive up the cost of food, and that keeps people from buying "environmentally friendly" foods, then . . . . What was that about "a house divided against itself"?

Speaking of the unexpected results of environmentalism, did you see this from NPR last Fall?:

Rice fields are a major source of methane — one of the so-called greenhouse gases linked to global warming. But switching to other crops is unthinkable in Asia, where rice is the primary source of calories for many people. So scientists in Thailand are trying to find rice cultivation techniques that produce less methane.

And speaking of government subsidies (in the name of environmentalism) getting in the way of "environmentally friendly" causes, see Peter Robinson's interview with T.J. Rodgers (in five parts: One, Two, Three, Four, Five).

The centralized power of the US government evidently isn't enough to coordinate the environmentalist movement. And it would be no use appealing th the UN.

(But why use a government body at all?)

-MT

UPDATE:
Looks like it's a busy week on the ethanol/food/environmentalism front. See the following four pieces on NRO today:

Hungry Like the Ethanol Wolf [Editorial]
A New Environmentalism -Victor Davis Hanson
Global Food Riots -Deroy Murdock
Saving the world is cheaper than free -David Freddoso

And see the following recent headlines on Drudge:
Americans hoard food as industry seeks regs -Patrice Hill, Washington Times
Load Up the Pantry -Brett Arends, Wall Street Journal
Two major US retailers ration rice amid global food crisis -AFP
Run on rice makes its way to U.S. -Jerry Hirsch and Tiffany Hsu, Los Angeles Times

Hillary Hung On

Hillary Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania makes a remarkable statement about how important *strategic thinking* is and that you shouldn't give up because of a few nicks and bruises. Wait, what was his name? Oh, Mitt Romney -- the Republican who threw in the towel before the race was over.

Although a lot can be said about the ordering of the primaries governing the outcomes of the nomination races, there is still a lot to be said for those candidates who have the pluck and courage to stick it out till the bitter end. The presidency is about character after all.

Way to go Hillary! I don't support your campaign, but I admire your dedication to your cause. We can all learn from your example.

/KDR

Obama Between the Extremes of Excess and . . . Excess?

To balance out Obama's association with Ayers, Sunstein points out that Obama hung out with libertarians: (h/t Frum)

I know for a fact that Obama has actually played basketball with Richard Epstein, a libertarian on the law school faculty who has written some pretty controversial things on property rights and government regulation.

This is the new centrism, I suppose. It's nice that Aristotle's understanding of virtue as "the mean between the extremes of deficiency and excess" still has some sway in our society. But it seems to me that Sunstein's balancing attempt is like saying Obama is okay because he hangs out with both Bad Prince John and Robin Hood. Sunstein seems to think that both domestic bombing campaigns and libertarian thinking are excesses.

But there are two problems with that: First, having two forms of excessive companions doesn't make you a centrist. There is no mean at the extremes, as Aristotle himself points out. You can't commit adultery at just the right amount (not too much, not too little) says the Stagirite.

Second, libertarians are much more like pacifists than Robin Hoods (i.e., libertarianism is much more like a deficiency of action rather than an excess thereof). But if Sunstein said, "Obama hangs out with people who did too much, and with people who don't do enough" -- which would be more plausible -- the argument would lose it's force. It's always worse to be Prince John than to be an absolute pacifist; pacifism can't balance out tyranny.

And then there's the portrayal of libertarianism as being a right-wing ideology, tout court. After all, if Ayers is left-wing, we've got to balance Obama's friends with a right-winger.

I'm confused, obviously.

-MT

Obama under Attack over Patriotism at Debate

No punches are being pulled at tonight's Dem debate.

Both candidates started the evening with references to "the promise of America" (which is what Progressive patriotism is about). But after getting attacked for a while, Obama tried to position himself closer to the Conservative version of patriotism by talking (as he has before) about himself as evidence that America has actually fulfilled some of its promise already.

Evidently, Obama's campaign can't get by on "hope" alone. There's got to be something good about America now.

Hillary vs. McCain Faux Pas: Which Matters More?

By now, most readers are undoubtedly aware of Hillary Clinton's fib about her coming under fire (video here) on the tarmac in Bosnia back in the 1990s. While Clinton has been rightfully pilloried for her remarks, another candidate, John McCain, was making equally-ridiculous remarks, yet was being given a pass by the media.

McCain, an extreme hawk who has asserted that American troops might be in Iraq for 100 years, recently stated that Al Qaeda in Iraq (a Sunni organization) is receiving support from Iran (a Shiite organization). This was, unfortunately, not an isolated incident and it either shows a great deal of ignorance on the Senator's part or is an outright lie because the two sects hate each other almost as much as they hate us.

Unfortunately, the media, either not grasping the importance of McCain's gaffe, has worked to downplay the error/lie and even argued that McCain is viewed as such an "expert" on foreign policy that he should simply be given a pass. Unfortunately, McCain is only perceived as an expert by the media because he is a hawk.

Is it any wonder that the media give Democrats the advantage on economic policy issues and Republicans the advantage on foreign policy? The media by and large love big government!

You Libertarian Relativist, You

Jeffrey Rosen writes in The New Republic that Justice Scalia was concerned about the "relativism" which would occur after the Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. (h/t Ponnuru) Then Rosen says:

Watching the end of Spitzer's political career, however, I couldn't help feeling that Scalia had it entirely wrong. Despite the best efforts of some libertarians, the days of morals legislation are hardly over. Not only do the courts seem to be in no hurry to strike down these laws--the American public refuses to rush down the slippery slope that Scalia described.

One of these days, when I've finished everything else I have to do, I shall have to read Scalia's opinion. What I'm wondering right now is why we would look to the government to tell us -- through their laws -- what's right and wrong. I, for one, usually turn to other authorities when it comes to morality.

-MT

Forget Iceland 1000 AD. How's About Switzerland Now?

Free Liberals might find John Fund's piece on Switzerland hopeful.

-RC

Mad Hatter Daze

Southwestern University School of Law professor Butler Shaffer offers some big-picture insight regarding the insane asylum's zeitgeist, circa 2008. Recommended.

The only quibble I can offer is that Shaffer seems to suggest that "collective insanity" is somehow a new thing. Of course, it's been with us a long, long time. There does, however, seem to be an ebb and flow to lunacy-as-conventional-wisdom, and even crests and crashes.

Hamlet told us that "Denmark's a prison," but -- hint, hint -- "Denmark" wasn't just Denmark.

MacBeth was more on point:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time;

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

The "idiots" keep telling us what to think whilst they strut and fret. At the end of the day, we can take a certain comfort knowing that it indeed does signify nothing. Nothing at all.

-RC

Taxing v. Killing Peasants

The notion of taxing carbon (or better still negative externalities) seems to be gaining traction among the thoughtful. Can't say I agree with all of the conclusions here, but here are some data points, FYI.

-RC

Paying for It

Everybody loves to hate a sanctimonious hypocrite. Enter, stage left, Eliot Spitzer. Like Jimmy Swaggart in a different arena, Spitzer built his reputation as a "tough" -- I'd say "overzealous" -- prosecutor. Some would say a power-drunk prosecutor, whose prosecution's became all about Eliot and his manly will. He gave new meaning to prosecutorial sword fighting.

Whatever Sir Spitzer was working out when he was a prosecutor, he is now acting out the truism: What goes around, comes around. Tragically, his family is caught in the crossfire.

Yes, of course, prostitution and playing the John should not be a crime. It's merely a capitalist act among consenting adults.

That's the thing with hypocrites: They never know when and how the bad-karma boomerang's going to hit them upside the head.

Try as we might to look away from this roadside wreck, it's hard, isn't it? On some level, something deep inside of us recognizes the hypocrite in us. We hate it. Yet, we look.

So, the only appropriate response is compassion. Yes, Governor Spitzer should sort this one out in private as a private citizen. Casting stones at him will not allay our own guilt.

But you knew that.

-RC

Obama: The Best Antiwar Option Left

I remain part of the Ron Paul revolution. That said, of the three candidates left, I think Obama is the least evil. Justin Raimondo over at Antiwar.com expressed that sentiment in a new article.

Why should Free Liberals choose Obama? First and foremost, unlike Hillary he opposed the Iraq War from the outset and at least represents a somewhat different perspective on foreign policy that is not so doctrinaire and beholden to the War Party. Also, his health care proposal is not quite as repressive as Clinton's. Lastly, even though many of his supporters may be ignorant of the matter, Obama does have a major legislative accomplishment to his name (pro-freedom transparency legislation that he co-sponsored with Sen. Coburn). What has Hillary done?

Will the establishment strangle Obama's candidacy as it did Dean's candidacy 4 years ago? Only time will tell. But in my opinion, Obama is the best choice of Free Liberals at this point. That said, if former Congressman Bob Barr jumps into the race, his candidacy would be catnip to Ron Paul revolutionaries.

Not So Fast

Just when it looked like the race for the White House looked like McCain v. Obama, Hillary Clinton surges back in the last round of primaries, making the D outcome murky. Like Glenn Close's character in Fatal Attraction, this race refuses to die.

Yet, the D race generates much heat and no light. Instead, they position themselves over the tiniest of differences, mostly vague notions of style and years of experience. The differences have already been established, with Obama being slightly more anti-war and Clinton being more willing to use government force. Obama's health plan was oh so slightly less coercive, yet Clinton tries to paint this as a weakness!

As Micah Tillman notes, some conservatives like that Obama v. Clinton continues into extra innings. Yes, McCain can lay low for months, which in his case is probably a good thing. The counter is that if Obama and Clinton continue to generate all the coverage, they could transform that into strength, come November. This is especially so if they can heal this rift between them. Offering the other the VP is the easy answer.

Paraphrasing Shakespeare, this brief candle continues to burn to its base. But the D candidate will get a new candle when nominated. McCain's second candle has already started to burn, and few are drawn to the light, and even fewer enthusiastically so. He never found his base. Clinton and Obama have.

Oh, yes, then there's the little matter of the D's FL and MI delegates. Again paraphrasing Shakespeare, we can't kill all the lawyers just yet. Solving what to do with those two high-population states's delegates should prove to be high drama. Odds are high, however, that it will signify nothing.

-RC

Change in DC without "Debaathification?"

Re: Kevin's post below in which he quotes an FT piece on whether Obama's stance on free trade won't end up hurting the very international relations he's supposed to repair --

Evidently it's been reported that "Obama's senior economic policy adviser" told the Canadians that Obama's free trade talk was just posturing. (Hat tip: York)

If it's true, that sounds a lot like "politics-as-usual" to me.

And it reminds me that David Axelrod, by no means a new name in Washington politics, is Obama's campaign manager.

Not that I have anything against Axelrod (he's got a cool name), but wouldn't you need to "debaathify" DC (or at least your own campaign/administration) to really have the change Obama says he represents? Or is George Bush the only politician who's tone/policies/tactics are determined by his "architects" and "advisers" and "operatives" and "vice" presidents?

-MDT

09: Cause for Optimism?

Normally, the prospect of a President McCain or President Obama might be depressing for a Free Liberal.

McCain gets points for a pretty good fiscal track record. Bonus points for his take on torture, and probably demerits for McCain-Feingold, despite some fairly positive motivation. But we are looking at a man who seems devoted first and foremost to fighting "them" over there and apparently in perpetuity.

On balance, a fairly grim prospect, with the wild card that this is a man who would appear deeply wounded by his time as a prisoner of war. Still, the Ds are likely to hold Congress by comfortable margins, so McCain is likely to be checked-and-balanced by them. Yes, he may well participate in logrolling – perhaps war with Iran for socialized medicine – but we can at least hope that such neat "deals" won't come to the fore.

And, McCain will not be saddled with rationalizing the Bush Administration's policies. The slate won't be clean by any means, but at least he has the option to disown a series of anti-civil-liberties initiatives by Team W.

I'm persuaded that President Obama would take office with the intention of withdrawing from Iraq. That's a big plus in my book. Odds are high that it will take longer than I'd prefer, but then I don't pretend to be expert in such tactical questions. On the major issue of the day, I'm pulling for Obama to follow through on this move in the direction of more liberty.

Obama is the most rhetorically transpartisan politician in my memory, perhaps ever. He does not seem to ascribe to us-and-them thinking, perhaps because he really believes (perhaps vaguely) that them is us and us is them. A good sign, from where I sit.

Sure, his lean is for more government and less liberty domestically, but here we need a bit of faith in the remaining Rs in the Senate. Perhaps these senators will reacquaint themselves with their backbones. It's a theory.

Undoing the damage that W has wrought won't be easy and probably will be incomplete. Politics is like watching football before the invention of the forward pass – progress and setbacks happen at a glacial pace.

Chicken Little might be right, but the case is strong that the sky will be in place in 2012.

-RC

John McCain: Unfit to Lead

Sheldon Richman over at Future of Freedom Foundation has a great article about John McCain and the conservatives who oppose his nomination as the Republican Party candidate for President. I, like Richman, have major problems with McCain's candidacy and agree with him that his immigration stance is the least of our worries. As bad as Clinton or Obama may be on a variety of issues vital to conservatives, free liberals, and libertarians alike, none of them have joked about bombing Iran.

While it may be tough to discern what "conservative" means or what the Republican Party stands for, if anything, if McCain is elected and does decide to go into Iran, the concepts of limited government and individual freedom will be rendered meaningless in this country. While conservatives may oppose McCain for different reasons than we would, I hope they remain firm in what principles they have left against a McCain presidency.

Is The Path to Liberty to the North?

Here's a pattern that may be of interest to TFL readers: On Super Tuesday, Ron Paul broke double digits in four states. Part of this might simply be because the field is smaller. On the other hand, the early primaries were more jump-balls, without a clear front-runner, which McCain has become since FL.

Perhaps more interesting is that Paul bested 10% in northern tier states, and did worst in southern tier states on Super Tues. He achieved double digits in MN, ND, MT, AK, and nowhere else.

Paul's support was worst in the southern states of GA, AL, OK, along with MA, which is no surprise. Throw out the convention format in WV, and UT as a kind of Mormon pride vote for Romney, who got 90% there.

Implication? Perhaps none. But it could be that the "leave me alone" attitude is stronger in colder, more isolated places.

-RC

Obama Can Fix America's Image

So says "U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar, the dean of the Minnesota congressional delegation . . . ."

I believe the largest challenge of the next president is not global warming, not restarting the domestic economy, but changing America's image in the world," he said. "For that we need a transformational president. I think Sen. Obama will be that transformational president around whom the rest of the world can rally.

Where I come from, we call that "Amero-centric Thinking." Or something like that. I thought it was Rush Limbaugh who believed in "American Exceptionalism."

The portrayal of "image" as being an important, pragmatic issue is interesting, given the traditional distinction in our culture (going back to Plato and Aristotle) between "image" and "substance."

*ponders*

-MT

Ba-Bye, Rudy and Fred

There you stood on the edge of your feather, Expecting to fly.

-Neil Young

The recent drop outs on the R side of the ledger got me thinking about Neil Young's song, "Expecting to Fly." As one who admires the seeming sloth of Calvin Coolidge over the micromanaging ways of Jimmy Carter, it pains me to say: Even if you are lazy, it pays to look like you're not. Think of the George Costanza character on Seinfeld, feigning overwork and stress whenever a colleague or superior was in earshot. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

Rudy Giuliani – once angling to be the nation's first Italo-American president (HT to fellow pizanne Nick Gillespie) – has puzzled me for over a year. How could he possibly appeal to the social conservatives? He seemed to pull it off, for a while, making them forget their prudish tendencies for an even bigger fear: 9/11, or more properly, a repeat of 9/11. Still, I was shocked that he held the #1 spot in national polls for as long as he did.

But then came the actual primaries and caucuses. Rudy was a no-show. Did he not learn of the import of the Big Mo from Bush the Elder? To be a leader, you've got to look like one, act like one, win the early skirmishes, or at least artfully play the expectations game. Giuliani did none of this that I can detect.

Fred Thompson seemed relatively benign to me personally, compared with the rest of the "top tier" candidates. He all but yawned in the debates. It's one thing to strike a stately, dignified, above-the-fray pose when running for prez, another to seem numb and uninterested. It even started to appear that his young, comely wife had pushed him into running.

Seems like we Americans don't want hen-pecked, lazy dudes in the Oval Office (although I can think of far more inappropriate qualities). But the lesson learned is: If you want to fly Air Force One, you've got to at least flap your wings.

-RC

Work for a Corporation, Democrats Say

I'm watching the State of the Union and I'm appalled to see that Democrats, including Obama, are not clapping at Bush's call to reform tax law so that individuals can get their own health insurance and take it with them. In other words, keep working for the paternalistic corporations, don't be your own boss.

Very un-free-liberal.

/KDR

Camelot Gathers 'Round

It's days like today that remind me I've missed out on too much of the (relatively) recent history which is still shaping our politics (no matter how "old" I feel compared to my freshmen students . . . ). Barack Obama is the next JFK, everybody knows, and today the Kennedy Family gathered to give him one massive endorsement party.

Not to make fun of Obama, but it's like Arthur has returned to Camelot. Makes even a late-comer like me feel a tad nostalgic and excited (and I don't even like Ted Kennedy!).

Just shows you the power of myth even in our "modern" age, I guess.

Petraeus '12?

OK, punditry is officially and completely off the tracks. The yammering has reached a fevered pitch revolving around this year's presidential scrum. (We here at TFL don't "yammer," btw. We soberly and insightfully comment on the state of affairs-- ahem -- just to be clear .)

I reached this conclusion when I read this headline:

Petraeus '12

I really couldn't read all of this piece, mostly because the whole thing is so preposterous. Could happen, but the layers of speculation are so deep, betting on Petraeus in 2012 is like betting on what teams will be in the Super Bowl in 2012. It assumes, for instance, that the Ds win the White House in 08, and that seems like a reasonable guess. But it also assumes that by 2012, the Iraq quagmire will have been exited in ways that the US doesn't look Adam Sandler at his goofiest or Genghis Khan at his bloodiest. That would mean we're out, the Iraqis have a functioning government and there's relative peace in the streets.

It assumes any number of conditions come to the fore. The premise seems to be that Petraeus would follow the Eisenhower Model. Big problem: Ike was a war hero in a world war. Iraq's not WWII, and, Lord willing, it doesn't become WWIII.

It's one thing to say, Gee, Patraeus may be a man on the rise in the public consciousness. But a President Petraeus? I like the alliteration, and maybe it could happen, but this notion just seems profoundly silly to me. Perhaps the drama of Election 08 has released silly gas from the Earth's core.

-RC

Asymmetrical Information

Sometimes, we get some very thoughtful comments. Here's one by "a concerned citizen" (ACC).

ACC opined on my blog Exploding Myths. Rather offhandedly, I wondered out loud why the US has an EX-IM Bank. ACC shared the short version. This ACCism caught my eye:

Now, if you believe that all markets are perfectly efficient and that the private sector is infallible in its judgment ..., this would be a bad thing. However, in reality, markets are not perfectly efficient. Information is asymmetrical.

Obviously, markets are not perfectly efficient. Does anyone believe that? Of course information is asymmetrical.

This begs the question: Does ACC believe that the government is more efficient than the market? Does government have better, more reliable information than the market? Can the government assess that information better than the market?

Hmm, let's see. WMD in Iraq. Synfuels. Profoundly large and unpredicted unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security. Again, one needs hours to cite the list of government failure in the information game.

And while it may be sorta OK that the Ex-Im Bank contributes to the Treasury on one level, has American prosperity increased because of Ex-Im Bank? Hard to say. In fact, arrogant to say. Perhaps mitigating political risk to export is a bad idea. Maybe the market -- that is, the people -- have signaled the market that those products should not be produced, or perhaps they should be sold domestically.

Square one is generally a good place to start in any inquiry.

-RC

Endorsements

We at TFL are sometimes asked who we support in the presidential campaign. The answer is: No one. Making an endorsement in a partisan race is inappropriate, given our charter. We do comment on developments in the race that we believe will be of interest to our readers. And sometimes our writers will indicate their personal preferences.

TFL is staking out a new way to look at politics. Not non-partisan, TRANS-partisan. We constantly search for sound ideas that we believe increase liberty and community in the world, regardless of which camp the idea sprung from. We connect the dots in sometimes unconventional ways as well. We encourage people to think outside the box.

In fact, there is no box.

-RC

Giving Credit Where It Is Due

Here is a good column by Pat Buchanan asking why we are stretching the credit of the American people to pay for the defense of other nations. (Hat tip: Norm Singleton)

We are thus in the position of having to borrow from Europe to defend Europe, of having to borrow from China and Japan to defend Chinese and Japanese access to Gulf oil, and of having to borrow from Arab emirs, sultans and monarchs to make Iraq safe for democracy.

He relates our foreign adventurism to our fairy tale monetary policy, where we can use the money supply to inflate our way out of debt.

I have no problem with the US trade imbalance or that our banks sell debt and equity to further their business per se. Such is free trade.

But, we do have a problem when our government engages in such fiscal extravagance that it is borne heavily by the economy such it that drives us into inefficient debt.

Pat Buchanan also rightly gives Ron Paul credit for being the only candidate to talk about these issues. Indeed Ron Paul has been the only candidate who seems to care about the details of how foreign policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy interact. The debates this year would have been much poorer without his participation.

I think it is really a shame that the voice Ron Paul has brought to these matters has been so tainted by the recent newsletter scandal. But, he deserves credit where credit is due.

/KDR

Exploding Myths

Warren Buffet, the second-richest-man in America, seems to think he’s under taxed. I for one don’t see how he can reach this conclusion, no matter how you slice it. Michael Bindner suggests here that the reason is “[h]igher income taxpayers are currently paying at a lower rate than the average American.”

Some people seem to believe that, but then people believe a lot of things that are simply not true. The most comprehensive view I’ve seen is here and I’ve previously blogged on this here.

Tax equity is a consideration, I’ll grant, but the primary issue is that taxing and spending are out of control. We’re all – rich and poor – paying way too much for this stinking war, bridges to nowhere, the Ex-Im Bank (what exactly do they do?), and give me many hours to itemize just the absurdities alone.

I suggest we keep our eyes on the prize. It’s time to unburden the people from out-of-touch elites and their cavalcade of pet projects. Along the way, we can deliberate over the wisdom of taxing dividends (a bad idea, in my book). But let’s not give Nero a pass. He’s fiddling. Put down the violin, Nero, and put the fire out.

-RC

Running and Hiding

Perhaps there's a benign explanation for this. One strains the brain, however, and cannot come up with one.

"The burden of the newsletter content is on Ron Paul, the man whose name graces the covers, and shame on you scoundrel 'libertarians' for automatically drawing the assumption that Lew Rockwell must have, had to be, surely was involved in writing those passages that have you all so horrified. Yet you claim that this man, who has worked so hard - on his own time and dollar - to open peoples' minds to the more radical aspects of freedom and free markets, is 'destroying your movement,' as if this is some juvenile brotherhood of badges, pin pricks, sworn statements, and membership cards."

Whole “thing” here. Here's a sample:

Lew doesn't use his website to promote queer marriage, gay this and gay that, Rosa Parks, MLK, or any other "hero" of the politically-correct, libertarian Kochtopus.

and

Let's define what is really meant by "homophobe." This word has always left me bewildered because it is essentially a 'tag" for those people who do not actively support queer sex; queer marriage; and special, collective rights.

For background on this “thing,” check here, here, and here. The author of this “thing” is a putative supporter of the “love revolution.” Where is the love?

It strikes me as lacking, utterly so. So much so that this "scoundrel" – that would be yours truly -- has been listed as a “war criminal.”

I ask again, where is the love?

HT Andrew Taylor.

-RC

The OTHER Open Letter

Daryl Sawyer blogs he wants more information on the matter of "who ghostwrote those hateful words in Ron Paul's name." In these days of Internet dirty tricks, anything's possible. But my research so far indicates that this latest open letter is authentic, and sheds a LOT more light on the situation:

Open Letter To Lew Rockwell - January 12, 2008

Dear Lew,

You have now had three opportunities –1996, 2001, and 2008 — to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time.

This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron’s newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands.

Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable.

If you were Dr. Paul’s friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron’s message.

You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it’s time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago.

John Robbins, Ph.D.
Chief of Staff
Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985

IMO, the answers coming from the Paul campaign are insufficient on many levels. Some feel the explanation is sufficient, and chide those who don't agree. I'm going to be so bold as to say that if you don't see that this matter has not been put to rest, you are simply not paying attention. The game of American politics is not played that way.

Welcome to the Big Leagues.

-RC

Racist Words vs. Racist Deeds

So you wish to improve racial equality and you have two candidates to choose from. Which of these do you choose?

Candidate A uses politically correct language, supports current civil rights laws, and otherwise supports the status quo.

Candidate B has a history of hanging out with old-time racist conservatives, questions civil rights laws, and wants to end the War on Drugs.

Objectively speaking, Candidate B is better, by an overwhelming margin. Jail time really stinks up a resume, far beyond what civil rights laws or affirmative action can repair. And I hear jail time is rather unpleasant. How many racial slurs does it take to equal one man-year in jail in terms of unpleasantness? My estimate would be on the order of many thousands at least.

So, theoretically Ron Paul is the least racist candidate running for president this year. But I cannot fault anyone who begs to differ. Those old newsletters written in Ron Paul’s name were truly vile.

True, deeds are more important than words. If Ron Paul were to win the presidency and pardon non-violent drug offenders as promised, those deeds would far outweigh the ugly words.

But the words happened while the deeds are in a future, a rather unlikely future given the polling numbers and the current scandal. My own enthusiasm for the Ron Paul Revolution has thus plummeted. I’ve removed my bumper sticker and turned over control of my local Ron Paul meetup.

And I will continue to disassociate with Paul’s campaign unless the campaign makes it extremely clear that the Ron Paul Revolution is not some covert racist operation. The tepid rationalizations to date don’t hack it. The campaign needs to:

1. Donate the Stormfront money to a Jewish charity.
2. Out and vilify – or extract a public apology from – the actual author of the offensive editorials.
3. Go on the offensive on the race issue. Spend some big bucks on ads pointing out the horrible injustices perpetrated against black communities today by the drug warriors. Promise pardons, restorations of voting rights, in your ads.

The third item will cost some social conservative votes. But such cost would constitute sufficient restitution for prior sponsorship of racists. And it would allow me and others like me to once again proudly say “I am a Ron Paul supporter.”

Haters As Cowards

Bridging on Kevin Rollins blog, Ron Paul Isn't a Racist, I agree 100%. I especially agree that the ghostwriter(s) should reveal themselves.

Were I a betting man, an act of contrition seems unlikely. Racists and homophobes are, by definition, cowards. They fear what they don’t know. Deep down, their own self-loathing is projected out onto the world. These particularly sick individuals use blacks and gays as scapegoats. They sometimes dress up their hatred in “scientific” and “pithy intellectual” language, but at root they are frightened children – dangerous ones at that.

Perhaps the real reason why Klansmen hide under sheets isn’t for anonymity. Could it be that can’t bear to look in the mirror?

Rumors have started to swirl in cyberspace as to who the ghostwriter really is. Is the movement more important than his precious reputation?

A coward – slinking into dark corners of denial – predictably would choose “reputation” over the greater good. A cozy life in the shadows, taking potshots at anyone who disagrees with his twisted worldview, is more important to the coward than moving the nation toward liberty.

Of course, confession actually is good for the soul. And the coward might be surprised that others are willing to forgive wrong-minded thinking. Of course, being in denial, the coward believes he is innocent; this is all a conspiracy, a fabrication, a smear.

As we all learned from The Wizard of Oz, even the cowardly lion can choose to be brave for once in his life.

-RC

Ron Paul Isn't a Racist

A political hit piece appearing in The New Republic today delves back into Ron Paul's past to re-reveal a stain on his record: racist diatribes published in newsletters which bore the good doctor's name.

Personally knowing Ron Paul and his staff, I can report that never have I had an inkling that this was a group of people with ties to any kind of racist or hate-filled organization. The Free Liberal would not run his columns if we believed that he was an advocate of hatred.

In fact, I have a quote pinned to my home office wall, from one of Ron Paul's speeches before Congress "Liberty is where the minority is protected."

The truth it seems, is that Dr. Paul made a very bad judgment call about whom he did business with. The person(s) who are truly responsible should step forward and apologize to Dr. Paul.

The campaign should continue to make clear that it does not buy into the craziness of the 9/11 Truthers or the Stormfront wackos. David Duke can support Paul all he wants, but that doesn't mean our favorite Texas Congressman supports David Duke.

In general, the libertarian movement doesn't need the support of any kind of hate-mongers. And I mean people who hate for any cause, not just for race or ethnicity. Let's toss 'em out.

Kevin D. Rollins
Publisher, The Free Liberal

Thoughts on New Hampshire

It has been quite an interesting week politically. Some of things I'm most interested in:

Barack Obama as a transpartisan candidate?

Obama has been proclaimed "post-partisan" which is much closer to "transpartisan" than "bipartisan." Transpartisanship is about keeping one's values but addressing the values of others, whereas bipartisanship is about compromise. A tranpartisan president could be very good. My emotional read on his personality is that he is open to talk, which makes me much more hopeful about his candidacy than Edwards or Clinton both of whom seem to have very hardened views about the need for big government to fix America's woes. Edwards presents class warfare as the central element (very Marxist!) and Clinton seems to be campaigning to be "chief bureaucrat."

I also think it would be very good for America to elect a black president, if only to put the final nail in the coffin of American racism. The fact that Obama hasn't played the race card makes this statement even stronger.

Ron Paul is Stayin' Alive?

Ron Paul can go three ways: up, down, or plod along.

If Ron Paul increases his vote share (more than 10 percent) he will appear to be on the rise and can use that to fuel bigger numbers in the next contest. It will be hard for the media to ignore him if he gets above 15 percent. If he gets less than 10 percent, he is on his way into irrelevance (or a spoiler third party candidacy). New Hampshire should be a strong state for him, being as libertarian as it is, but it is possible that many people still haven't heard about him, or don't take him seriously yet. Most likely seems that Ron Paul will get his 10 percent and continue plodding along. To break from this, he needs to go after the other candidates (as a group) for continuing to advocate failed policies. A focus on more ordinary language and less obscure comments about Austrian Economics would help him better sell liberty.

/KDR

Fox News, Ron Paul and Conservatives

Jacob Hornberger does a very effective job of explaining where modern conservatives went wrong in this piece. While I didn't have to wait for Fox to exclude Ron Paul from its "debate" in order to boycott that particular station, the greater issue is that conservatives and by extension the Republican Party really is at a loss for meaning.

After all, Democrats, while there is dissent, are basically trying to figure out how far and how fast they want to go with their agenda. Republicans, on the other hand, are genuinely divided. Can you think up three more different characters than Huckabee, and Paul?

George Bush once claimed to be "A uniter, not a divider." Not only has that turned out not to be the case nationally and internationally, but his legacy to the Republican Party may well be that he has effectively splintered the Party, rendering it fit for status in the minority for the forseeable future.

Challengers from the Mainstream

In my last blog, I may have coined the term "challengers from the mainstream." (I say "may" because nothing's new under the sun.)

Most real politics is quibbling around the center. Like it or not, that's a fact. I'd go further and say that most citizens are more or less comfortable with that. Why? As social beings, humans tend to align with the notion that there's safety in numbers.

Sure, sure, a lot of folks like to "assert their indiividuality," but even that is huddled close to the center. The wildest it gets is voting for Perot and driving a Scion for, say, 95% of the population.

It's this paradox that successful presidential politicians attempt to harness. Be of the center, yet be a change agent. Usually the "change" is vague and not really much of a change. Barack Obama seems to be the newest and best exponent of this strategy. It seems to be working for him. Indeed, regardless of the outcome, Obama has already won. He' a national figure we'll be seeing on Meet the Press for perhaps decades.

We are seeing the Insurgent Paradigm in this election cycle. Pat Buchanan used it in previous runs, and it met with modest success. This go round, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are using it. Mathematically, it's more challenging to pull together enough support to challenge the mainstream at its root. Implicitly, the Insurgent asks the mainstream to wake up, uproot and move.

Whether the mainstream wants to wake up is an open question. And whether they want to be uprooted -- even before their morning cup of joe -- is an even bigger question.

And, yet, it can happen, as it did in 1776.

-RC

Love and Hate, Iowa Style

One take – my snap take – on the Iowa caucus results:

We Americans have a love/hate relationship with “winners.” Winners in America are folks like Britney Spears, folks we like to exalt, then smack down like yesterday’s news. Or folks like Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton.

Romney looks and acts like a president, IMO. Too much like one, apparently, according to Iowans. Clinton’s already been “co-president,” so she knows what to say and how to say it . . . perhaps all too well. Make your campaign’s sub-text “I am inevitable,” and you’re sure to hackle the ire of Iowans, and Americans generally. Sure, this is a stylistic analysis, but, then, perception in politics is reality.

Both lost the Iowa caucuses after having once had a significant lead in both Romney’s and Clinton’s case.

Americans also like “outsiders,” but don’t be too “outside.” This may be the challenge for TFL columnist and 10-term Texas congressman Ron Paul. While NH is probably the better test for Paul’s anti-war, limited government message, coming in a close fifth in Iowa may show that being too outside is a disadvantage in American politics, at least as this particular game is played.

This may be why folks like Huckabee, McCain, Obama and Edwards positioned themselves as “challengers from the mainstream.” It tends to work in presidential politics, especially in the Iowa caucuses. It may be philosophically unsatisfying, but politics is not philosophy. It’s less than that, much less, in my estimation.

-RC

[Blank] Need Not Apply

Our discussion of undocumented immigration on TFL's Free For All has stoked all sorts of comments, much of it impassioned and well stated. I recommend the dialog to all our readers.

The US is a nation of immigrants. Arguably even Native Americans (or American Indians, if you prefer that label) probably came to North America from Asia. Each wave of immigration has sparked sometimes hateful, hyperbolic rhetoric from those already in the US. Thankfully, the US is still the land of opportunity, hence a magnet for those residing in less free places.

It's also the case the our nation's abundance includes social programs designed to aid the less fortunate, and that -- to a lesser extent -- is a magnet for some immigrants.

And it's also the case that there are laws and regulations governing the appropriate process to immigrate to the US. 10 to 15 million people have disregarded those laws, and are residing in the US.

Is that a problem? Yes. Should undocumented immigration be checked in some form? Yes. Are all undocumented immigrants "criminals" like murderers and thieves? No. Do those who want to check illegal immigration sometimes sound xenophobic? Yes.

I suggest this as the parameters for civil discussion of this subject.

-RC

Welcome to 08

Wasn't it just yesterday that we were worried that all the world's computers would shut down at the turn of the millenium?

Guess not. I guess that was eight years ago.

Now is now, and now we seem to be in the midst of selecting a new Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Why anyone would want the job of president astounds me. Power may be intoxicating, but there is a serious price: No privacy. Profound pressure. Constant hassle.

Who knows what will happen over the next six weeks or so. The TV cameras have staked out each nook and cranny of this sausage factory we call the presidential election cycle, and at this point I say "Too much information."

Yet, we watch, like we rubberneck at the car crash on the highway. Don't deny it: You do look!

So, I wish you much pleasure this year. Just make sure you've thoroughly fried that sausage, knowing what's really in it.

-RC

Go Home, Ron Paul!

That's what Fox News is saying to the Ron Paul campaign regarding the planned debate on January 6th (two days before the New Hampshire primary). Only the top five candidates are invited, apparently. But who *are* the top five candidates?

Recent polls suggest there is great fluctuation in preference among early primary voters. Certainly, Ron Paul's recent fundraising (Can anyone say $19 million?) and his iconic message should earn him a seat among the anointed. Perhaps he has the wrong message?

To ensure fairness, CNN, or another major network could offer Ron Paul an hour to talk about the war and other issues on which he has major disagreements with the other candidates.

Surely, the FCC and FEC shouldn't have objection to an alternate station attempting to balance the field in the presidential race? Public policy should be geared toward helping the public be as well informed as it can be. Doesn't that make sense?

/KDR

Who Would Reagan Vote For?

The mantle of Ronald Reagan is such an important thing in conservative circles. The author of this article makes a convincing albeit brief case that Ronald Reagan himself would support Ron Paul in the Republican primary.

While it is of course impossible to determine what Reagan would think about the political climate today, it certainly seems hard to believe that the Gipper would have supported the neoconservative outlook given the fights he had with those folks when he was President.

Huckabee: The Last Whig

As reports of GOP hopeful Mike Huckabee's disturbing brand of populism become known, let's look on the bright side:

If Huckabee gets the nomination, could he become the Last Whig?

-RC

This is getting INTERESTING!

Reports from sources close to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggest that the multi-billionaire is set to make an independent run for US President. Bloomberg is a former D and a former R.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-CT, and former running mate in 2000 of Al Gore, has endorsed John McCain’s bid for the GOP nomination for president. Lieberman won re-election to the Senate as an independent, having lost in the D primaries to an anti-war businessman-turned-pol.

And, while Rep. Ron Paul all-but-denies that he’ll consider going third party should he not get the GOP nod for president, rumors swirl around the candidate, as his campaign has become a formidable fund-raising machine. His anti-Iraq-War, limited government message arguably has the most intense support in the R field, and possibly all of the major candidates.

It appears that “party discipline” is breaking down. Bloomberg is at this stage a true independent. Some suggest that McCain/Lieberman would make an ideal Unity08 ticket. Paul has already once quit the GOP to later run for President as a Libertarian.

Mathematically, the two-party “system” is the default position in American politics. Winner-take-all elections see to that. Yet, the system seems to be failing. Politicians like Paul, Lieberman, McCain, and Bloomberg sense that, and may step up to challenge the orthodoxy.

Free Liberals – with our transpartisan bias – should applaud these stirrings. Our politics have become so sclerotic that a new approach is desperately called for. Should any of these candidates go third-party, they should at minimum be in the presidential debates. Should two of these tickets be forthcoming, the case for more open debates gets stronger. All bets would be off.

Hold onto your hats. 2008 could be a watershed year.

-RC

Ron Paul Raises Record Cash

Ron Paul's campaign raised record money on Sunday, the 334th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Win or lose, it looks like Dr Paul's campaign will have money for the entire primary campaign. That is good for those of us who are embarrassed to try to explain US Foreign Policy.

Rodney King: Call Your Office

The Free Liberal’s “transpartisan” approach has many applications. Here’s one:

Two wings of libertarian thought are going at it over an article in The Nation magazine. (The Nation is a long-running progressive, left-liberal publication.)

Nation summarizes the dispute reasonably fairly and accurately this way:

The division between paleolibertarians, centered around the Mises Institute, and cosmopolitan libertarians, centered around Cato, is also a case of "culture clash…."

The article points out that the paleolibertarians have been whole-heartedly supporting Ron Paul’s insurgent run for the GOP presidential nomination. People associated with Cato, less so, or not at all. Again, a reasonably fair and accurate characterization.

But then things get personal and hyperbolic.

One DC-based libertarian--who asked not to be named because he "would like to avoid getting endless 2 am calls from nuts yelling at me for not agreeing with the gold standard"--told me he thinks [Lew] Rockwell [head of the Mises Institute] is "one of the most loathsome people ever to set foot on this continent."

The response from Rockwell:

To the other anti-Ron Cato VP who called me "one of the most loathsome people ever to set foot on this continent," I say: See you at the inauguration.

A review of the original Nation article, however, does not say that the anonymous source was “anti-Ron” nor that he is a “Cato VP.” When political discussion becomes divorced from facts, all bets are off.

Time for a Rodney King chill pill: “Can’t we all just get along?”

-RC

Ron Paul v. the Beltway Libertarians

It figures that it would take a leftist publication like The Nation to cut through the crap, but the author of this story nails the issue when he talks about the lack of support for Ron Paul among the inside the Beltway so-called libertarian crowd. I have identified the problem in the past on this board and, while I don't agree with Ron Paul 100% of the time and I do think that Cato is a great organization with a lot of great people, the beltway libertarian groups are missing out if they don't support Ron Paul.

More importantly, Brink Lindsey just comes off as a twit because libertarianism is a very difficult ideology to sell if you demand that potential converts "eat the whole cow" all at once. On the other hand, if you show a drug legalizer for example how taxes and foreign policy impact them, you have a chance of converting them over time.

Wonderful Ron Paul Article in Washington Post

It shouldn't be too surprising that Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of the libertarian Reason Magazine wrote this outstanding article about Ron Paul and his amazing success in the presidential campaign and in educating Americans on libertarian ideas. Of course, I've been less than thrilled with the response of some in the movement to the Paul campaign. The good folks at Cato still haven't been too positive, but it is good to see the folks at Reason hopping on the bandwagon.

Paranoia, self destroyer

Bridging on Carl Milsted's blog on Liberty Dollars, the bust of the Liberty Dollar operation reminds me of the old Kinks tune, Destroyer.

No Gold Bug here, in part because I am offput by Gold Bugger's tendency to spin out paranoid-sounding scenarios of the imminent collapse of the Western World. Thing is: They're been sounding this call since at least 1980. That Boy's cried Wolf just a bit too long for my tastes.

Still, the timing of the Liberty Dollar bust does seem awfully suspicious. The greenback is plunging. Sub prime slime is spreading. Wall Street's acting out at its most bi-polar.

So, the Feds swoop in now? Hmm, call me paranoid, but this "coincidence" feels awfully fishy to me.

-Robert Capozzi

Republican Rehab

Listen!

An amusing diagnosis of what ails the Republican Party these days.

-RC

"Healthy" State Seeking Perfection?

Bridging on Paul Gessing's blog Club for Growth Assessment of Ron Paul: Fair or Hatchet Job?, I agree with most of what he says there. It is odd how fiscal conservatives compartmentalize foreign and defense policy, as those are very substantial portions of the federal budget. I suppose that they are still influenced by the "Better Dead than Red" slogan from the Cold War years. Perhaps conservatives think that the world is a risky, dangerous place, and military spending is what keeps us alive.

The slogan "War is the Health of the State" is why I blog, though. While a useful concept, I avoid that rhetorical flourish. States and war are not, IMO, healthy endeavors. States seem to be necessary to keep the peace. But, to me, they are more like a flu vaccine...unhealthy, but necessary in small doses to keep the patient immune from full-blown influenza.

It is true that governments seem to revel in warring. "Great" presidents are those who were in office during wartime. This is nothing new, as victors get to write the history as they like it remembered.

In a nation that is dominated by people who call themselves Christians, there does seem to be a profound disconnect. On the one hand, "blessed are the peacemakers," on the other Americans seem to have a bloodthirsty streak. Historically, there does need to be some provocation, but once provoked, the American psyche seems to have a propensity to overreact.

So, while we can quibble with some of Ron Paul's positions, the thrust of his campaign seems to be: End the Iraq War. He is introducing the notion that fiscal conservatives need not be hawks -- and in fact should be doves -- to a nation that desperately needs to hear that message.

-Robert Capozzi

Jay Leno and Ron Paul

If you didn't see it last night, Ron Paul was amazing on Jay Leno's show. Link is here. Also, I agree with the author's analysis; while I like and respect the folks at Cato, Dr. Paul has done more in the last year to promote the ideas of liberty than any DC-based think tank or organization ever has. Ron Paul is truly a rock star (just ask the Sex Pistols!).

Missing Warren G. Harding

Mainstream rankings of American presidents always frustrate me. Like this one from US News and World Reports which ranks the 10 worst and includes some other rankings of the best Presidents, scholars don't seem to base their decisions on human freedom, rather who did the most to centralize power in the Executive Branch.

Into this debate steps Lew Rockwell with his excellent defense of Warren Harding (2nd on the US News worst list). Martin Van Buren is another President who does not get high marks from historians, but who freedom-oriented historians have given high marks.

If centralizing Executive power is the matrix preferred by historians, then George W. Bush might be considered one of the best Presidents in this nation's history. After all, FDR makes Bush look like a piker as far as abrogating the Constitution is concerned, yet historians love him.

Ron Paul on PBS NewsHour

There is a video on youtube, an excellent interview, split into two parts.

This is, by far, the best interview I've yet seen, and I hope a lot of people saw it. However, one thing that should be noted is who broadcast this video (on the air, not online): PBS. That is the Public Broadcasting System. It is somewhat ironic that PBS is among the organizations that, under a Paul administration, could see its funding cut yet further.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am an enthusiastic supporter of Dr. Paul. I am quite grateful for the coverage-so grateful, in fact, that I am probably going to convert some of the money I currently have going toward Dr. Paul's campaign to NPR when this is all over. (I'd donate to PBS, but I don't watch TV.) I hope many other Paul supporters will do the same, and as a result, PBS and NPR (both of which have done some excellent interviews) won't need government support, or will at least be even more independent.

There's government owned media and there's corporate owned media, and neither of them are all that great, when it comes to doing more than playing the same songs over and over again and selling trinkets-and the political establishment. Listener supported media is, in my mind, a very good thing.

Paul Jacob Indicted

Free Liberal columnist Paul Jacob has been indicted by the state of Oklahoma for illegally petitioning to place a taxpayers bill of rights on the ballot. He has been threatened with 20 years in prison for this offense. I fully support Paul in his fight against this injustice. Paul has spent his life fighting for our freedom and right to check the power of the state. Now he needs our help. You can show your support by joining this facebook group: Free Paul Jacob -- 100,000 Strong for Constitutional Rights.

See also: FreePaulJacob.com.

Paul's statement follows here:

What Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson is trying to do to me is wrong.

In America, we cherish the right to engage in politics, to speak our minds, to promote our candidate, to work to pass a voter initiative, without fear of reprisal.

That is why today is such a sad day, not only for me, but for all of us who love the initiative process and the right of citizens to control their government.

This indictment unsealed today is not about the law, but rather 100 percent politically motivated. This is politics – very ugly politics.

The highest legal office in the state of Oklahoma seems bent on silencing citizens through harassment and intimidation, threats and coercion. The goal is to silence me, and to frighten you, from petitioning our government.

Those who attempt to put citizens in charge of government spending decisions, through initiatives like the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or any other issue that rankles the powerful political forces of a state, can expect to face an onslaught by the full powers of the government.This is yet another round in the age-old attempt to stop ideas by force, by harassment, by imprisonment, by anything except a better idea. Oklahomans, your attorney general is not practicing democracy. He is practicing the politics of destruction.

It won’t work.

This indictment will not stand. I will fight it with every fiber of my being. And I know that, in the end, those who misuse the power of their office for political advantage, employing ugly and un-democratic tactics, will ultimately face an indictment of their own.

My life, my family, my children are being threatened here…for what? For what?

I have committed no crime. Unless the heartfelt desire to place government under the control of its citizens is now illegal. But this cannot be so. There is much bluster in this indictment. Yet what is my actual offense but that of daring to help Oklahoma voters hold an election to decide an issue?

No, I don’t deserve to go to prison for being politically active. I know that. You know that. Mr. Edmondson should know that, too.

The State of Oklahoma threatens me and others with prison to prevent our involvement in political life and to chill the speech and assembly of others who might wish to become involved. Involved in working to hold an election. To give Oklahomans a vote on an issue.

One might expect this kind of repression in Egypt or Iran or China. But not Oklahoma.

We the People will not be intimidated. We will keep fighting to turn out-of-control government into government that is under citizen control. We will defeat this vicious attempt to criminalize honest political activity. And in the end, we will win.

Background

Let me address the so-called charge against me. I’m accused of violating the Oklahoma statute requiring petition circulators to be residents, a residency requirement currently being challenged in federal court. There seems little justification for this underlying law other than to restrict and hamper the petition process. I believe it will ultimately be struck down as unconstitutional.

Twice in the last quarter century—in Meyer v. Grant and in ACLF v. Buckley—the U.S. Supreme Court struck down similar restrictions, like regulating petitioners’ pay and requiring petitioners to be registered voters. As the High Court put it in Meyer, government cannot “reduce the available pool” of people to assist citizens in communicating with their fellow citizens and petitioning their government.

But regardless of how the courts ultimately rule on the constitutionality of the residency requirement, everyone I worked with on the TABOR petition sought to follow the statute as written. As an advisor to the petition drive, I worked to help Rick Carpenter and Oklahomans in Action obtain the best petition services at the best price, and then to monitor the drive’s progress.

Oklahomans in Action contracted with a petition company called National Voter Outreach, which had worked in Oklahoma on many successful petition drives before taking on the TABOR petition. That contract stipulated that the company was thoroughly familiar with the laws of Oklahoma regarding petitioning.

As the TABOR petition drive got underway, an aggressive campaign was launched to block and harass petition gatherers. Jeannie Berg, an expert in campaigns of harassment against petition drives, was brought in from Oregon to manage the multitude of blockers—many of them brought in from outside the state, and reportedly paid $100 a day.

These “blockers” used thuggish tactics, which have been documented. For example, gangs of them would stalk a petitioner, interrupting, yelling and creating a scene whenever a voter was being asked to sign the petition. There was an organized campaign of lying to store managers, alleging rude treatment from petitioners and asking that they be removed.

In response to all the harassment, many Oklahoma petitioners left the state to petition in other states. Given the difficult environment, not enough new circulators were being recruited and retained in Oklahoma to enable the petition to reach the ballot. Under such circumstances—and under the legislature’s (not the constitution’s) draconian 90-day petition window—I suggested to the petition company that the drive be scuttled.

I was then informed that under Oklahoma’s statutory residency requirement, people could move to Oklahoma and immediately declare residency, and thus be qualified to circulate the petition. The petition company felt enough people could be recruited to move to Oklahoma to gather enough signatures to bring the question to the ballot.

When I inquired as to whether the state officials had been asked for their guidelines on what constitutes residency, I was told that the petition company had indeed sought—and received—the advice and approval of officials in the Secretary of State’s office. Indeed, two separate individuals with National Voter Outreach spoke to government officials to determine the rules on residency. They were told that people could indeed come to Oklahoma, declare residency, and begin circulating a petition.

In good faith, the company acted on this information.

I also asked the folks at National Voter Outreach whether there had been any challenges of petition drives on the basis of residency, and whether any ruling on same had been issued by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. I received a copy of the court’s decision in a challenge to an initiative to ban cock-fighting. In that decision, circulators were challenged for being “out-of-state” circulators because they had moved to Oklahoma during the petition drive and because many lived in hotels during their residence in the state. According to the information I received, every circulator in the cock-fighting ban petition who declared him or herself a resident was ruled to be qualified to circulate the petition, regardless of how long he resided in the state or whether he lived in a hotel. The only circulator disqualified had listed an out-of-state address on the petition form.

In 1994 and 1996 I monitored ballot drives in Oklahoma for term limits. During those drives, circulators were required to be registered voters. Many people moved to Oklahoma, registered to vote, and circulated the petition. Often they would live with friends or at a hotel.

As long as it could be verified that a person was a registered voter in Oklahoma, a proponent could feel comfortable that that circ