It took four months for Senator Scott Brown to be transformed by the Washington establishment, but it has finally happened. No longer the 41st vote against far-reaching government takeovers, yesterday Brown availed himself as the 60th vote in favor of the Dodd financial takeover bill. This came only a day after he had voted no on the very same legislation.

–Getliberty.org

So much for the Massachusetts “revolution.” What a joke. This just re-affirms the fact that politics is not a solution to our problems. It’s the cause.

It’s obvious what’s going on. The old guard Republican establishment is terrified of the Tea Partiers and anybody that smacks of libertarianism. That’s why Dick Cheney and Mitch Mconnell came out in support of Rand Paul’s primary opponent, Trey Grayson. Mconnell even went so far as to privately mislead James Dobson about Rand Paul’s views on abortion. Dobson later came out and switched his vote from Grayson to Paul after he learned that he had been mislead. Obviously the GOP elitists hate Rand Paul with a passion. And then, out of nowhere comes this big hubbub about his criticisms of the Civil Rights Act, originating from the neo-con blogosphere.

The dirty little secret of historical fact that they leave out of every story is that the Civil Rights Act was soundly criticized by many people at the time it was being debated, especially libertarians. Their criticism had nothing to do with race. Instead, they were thoroughly disgusted with the amount of power that the legislation gave to the federal government. Even though most of the CRA was justified(specifically titles I and III were long overdue), there were real causes for concern in other parts of the bill when it came to civil liberties of blacks and whites.

Most criticism of the CRA was focused on Title II, which attempted to outlaw discrimination in businesses. I say “attempted” because, as we recently explored, laws can never properly fulfill their stated goals. No law can outlaw racial discrimination. It can ban certain behaviour under threat of punishment, but it can’t ban discrimination itself. That’s impossible. So, what title II did was force people to behave in ways that they weren’t comfortable with. This may have helped blacks get a better table in a restaurant, but I can guarantee you that the cook spit in their food. Why? Because the CRA didn’t change what he actually thought about race. It just told whites and blacks that they had to play ball or else they would be punished. That’s not a solution to racism. It’s a recipe for exacerbating racial hatred.

Title IV was also a focus of criticism by many. The fear was that it would lead to quotas and forced busing. Although the CRA’s proponents routinely denied this, it nevertheless happened:

One of the most “damaging” arguments by the bill’s opponents was that once passed, the bill would require forced busing to achieve certain racial quotas in schools. Proponents of the bill, such as Emanuel Celler and Jacob Javits, said that the bill would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Hubert Humphrey wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing. Humphrey said “if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation [of the Constitution], because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race and we would be transporting children because of race.” While Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes “would be making a fool of himself,” two years later the Department of Health, Education and Welfare said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing.

–Civil Rights Act of 1964, Wikipedia

This forced desegregation by forcibly transporting black children across town to white schools was a clear violation of black people’s civil liberties. It opened up black school children to being beaten by white kids and being shunned by white teachers who were being forced out of their comfort zone too fast. That’s the danger of omnipotent legislation. The natural flow of society is jolted. Racism is a mental scar that needs a lot of time to correct itself in the hearts of men. Rushing the process by threat of force might speed it up, but at the cost of large short-term harm to the very people it’s aimed at helping.

One of the persistent critics of forced school desegregation was black author Zora Neal Hurston – author of Their Eyes Were Watching God. Although she totally opposed segregation on moral grounds, she feared that such things as the court’s decision in Brown vs. Board of Education set a dangerous precedent of encroaching on civil liberties. Although she died in 1960, it’s clear that the portions of the CRA that expanded the size and power of the federal state would have troubled her greatly. Her famous letter to the Orlando Sentinel is a fantastic read. Please go read it before it goes down the collective memory hole.

On a personal note, I find racism abhorrent, as I’ve posted before. But, what I find equally abhorrent are demigod politicians and black robed dieties forcing society to conform to their image by threat of physical and financial harm. Racism itself is idiotic. It makes no financial sense to restrict trade because of the color of a man’s skin. As people come to realize this, racism naturally falls by the wayside as an artifact of history. A black man’s money is the same as a white’s. A black man’s labour is the same as a white’s. This fact alone would have driven racism out of our culture as people began to see, more and more that racism itself is foolishness. Opposition to title II and title IV of the CRA isn’t an endorsement of racism. It’s a principled opposition to a piece of far-reaching legislation motivated by an equally strong commitment to the preservation of personal liberty.

Sometimes a love of liberty and a love for people come down on different sides of an issue and it’s hard to make a decision between the two. If I saw a restaurant owner turn away a black man for being black I would probably go over and punch him in the nose. But, that doesn’t mean that I think title II of the CRA was appropriate. Personal liberty is too fragile and too easily discarded. It must be protected. Maybe I’m naive, but I think racism in the U.S. was destined to be eradicated by society itself, without the help of legislation; except such legislation that was necessary to correct racist laws that our government had already passed.

He gets absolutely no play from the main conservative news outlets. The only time Rush Limbaugh even mentions him is when he refers to the rest of the Republican presidential nominee candidates as a bunch of “kooks.” That means that the 41% number is coming entirely from a grass roots surge from independents. People are talking, and they are sick of the same old crap coming out of the Repulican establishment. Romney is just a mini-Obama and Sarah Palin was campaigning for John McCain last month. Same ol’, same ol’.

It’s going to be interesting to see how the conservative talking heads respond to Dr. Paul’s popularity over the coming months. Will they embrace him as the man who can take down Obama? Unfortunately, I doubt it. More likely, they will probably just continue to ignore him or call him an isolationist and dismiss him like always. But, this poll gives me lots of hope, regardless.

Just to clarify for those who still don’t know much about Ron Paul’s positions. Here is a quick summary of his platform:

• Sound money – He wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve and return us to some form of gold standard in order to save the dollar from collapsing.
• Eliminate the income tax – He gives the statistic that we could eliminate the income tax altogether if we would just reduce the size of the Federal budget back to 2001 levels.
• Reduce the power of the Executive branch – He would return the presidency back to what it’s supposed to be constitutionally by eliminating most all of the executive branch departments like the Dept. of Energy, the Dept. of Education, etc.
• Bringing the troops home – He is a staunch advocate of a non-interventionist foreign policy, so that we would stop being the world’s police force.
• Free trade with all – He would push for unrestricted free trade with all nations, in the spirit of Jefferson’s mandate of “commerce with all countries, entangling alliances with none.”
• Liberty and private property – You can be sure that he would veto any bill that infringes upon our liberties or encroaches upon private property.

Obviously there is more, but those are the main points.  If you read Hot Air, you will come away thinking that he is a lunatic 9/11 truther that believes in UFO’s.  That’s complete nonsense.  I’ve listened to probably 30 different lectures/speeches by the man, and read two of his books, End the Fed and Revolution.  He is man that we should all want in the White House.  Don’t take my word for it though.  Do your research.  Read his books.  Listen to his lectures and speeches at Mises.org and decide for yourself.

I’ve been telling people for months that Republicans have no interest in stopping health care legislation. People like Rush Limbaugh have marveled out loud about why Congressional Republicans aren’t being more vocal and active in opposing it. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for that. Because they don’t oppose it, as is evidenced in the above video. The only reason they have given passive resistance to it for the last few months is that it’s good positioning for campaign donations and re-election.

You have to begin looking at all politics from the angle of “who wins? who loses?” So let’s do that. If health care passed right now, would the Republicans lose? No. They’ll just claim that they tried hard to fight it, but didn’t have enough numbers on their side. They will still be re-elected and Democrats will get hammered in November. Plus, now they can enjoy the same benefits the Democrats wanted. Namely, large new campaign contributions from the healthcare lobby. That’s a win for them.

So, what if health care doesn’t pass. Do Republicans lose? No. They still get re-elected in November on the idea that they defeated the bill, and Democrats get hammered. They also still get massive campaign contributions from an energized base. That’s a win for them also.

See what I mean? That’s how politics works. Smart politicians always set themselves up to win on both sides of potential legislation. Values and ideology in Washington are like unicorns and fairies. They don’t exist.

–Dave Jones, SouthernBread.org

And so, today, we have this little nugget of a story from AP:

GOP Sees Risks in Push to Repeal Health Law

Republican leaders are stepping cautiously, wary of angering staunchly conservative voters bent on repealing the new law. In recent public comments, they have quietly played down the notion of repealing the law while emphasizing claims that it will hurt jobs, the economy and the deficit.

Asked if he advises Republican Senate candidates to call for repealing the law, Cornyn said: “Candidates are going to test the winds in their own states. … In some places, the health care bill is more popular than others.”

On Tuesday, Cornyn issued a 1,280-word campaign memo that mentioned “repeal” only once. It did not advocate repeal but noted that in a recent poll, “46 percent of respondents support a full repeal” of the health law.

Three weeks ago, Cornyn told reporters he thought GOP Senate candidates would and should run on a platform of repealing the legislation.

–AP, via Fox News

Ah. So the Republicans are cool with the bill after all? Surprise, surprise. Fire up the base for the fight and then cool ‘em down when it’s over. It’s all clockwork. It’s almost as if it was planned that way.

In Roe at 37, Daniel McCarthy, of The American Conservative looks at the pro-life movement in the aftermath of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and nails one of the main reasons the pro-life cause has gained so little ground since that horrible decision:

“If you want to be politically effective, you will probably have to use a major party — but you have to use it, not let it use you. Unfortunately, the people who have the purest motives, who are most habitually inclined to trust the honorable intentions of others, wind up as fodder for the likes of Scott Brown once they get involved in the bloodletting that is politics.”

And commenter Thomas goes even further and takes the position (with which I agree) that the pro-life cause will continue to make little progress as long as it’s political fortunes are tied to the GOP:

“Publius Cato has a point about the GOP on abortion. I will take this further: if the Republicans DID do anything about abortion, they would lose their #1 political issue in the depressed parts of the South and Midwest where they win by gathering 80% or so of white working class votes which don’t agree with their globalist, oligarchic (and liberal-inegalitarian) economics. They need the abortion issue to persist indefinitely or else they are done.”

While I’m not sure of his demographics, the point is that the GOP is so dependent on the pro-life vote that it can’t afford for the abortion issue to go away. Maybe that’s why there are so few cosponsors for HR 2533 – Sanctity of Life Act of 2009, authored by Ron Paul. Pro life lobby where are you?

–Rowman, Liberty vs. Leviathan

4. Political party differentiation is a myth

There is also an impression that if actual recessions do not come about by themselves, they may be brought about by the expedient of voting one party out and another one in. This idea rests upon certain assumptions that experience has shown to be unsound; the first one being that the power of the ballot is what republican political theory makes it out to be, and that therefore the electorate has an effective choice in the matter. It is a matter of open and notorious fact that nothing like this is true.

Our nominally republican system is actually built on an imperial model, with our professional politicians standing in the place of the praetorian guards; they meet from time to time, decide what can be “got away with,” and how, and who is to do it; and the electorate votes according to their prescriptions. Under these conditions it is easy to provide the appearance of any desired concession of State power, without the reality; our history shows innumerable instances of
very easy dealing with problems in practical politics much more difficult than that. One may remark that in this connexion also the notoriously baseless assumption that party-designations connote principles, and that party-pledges imply performance. Moreover, underlying these assumptions and all others that faith in “political action” contemplates, is the assumption that the interests of the State and the interests of society are, at least theoretically, identical; whereas in theory they are directly opposed, and this opposition invariably declares itself in practice to the precise extent that
circumstances permit.

However, without pursuing these matters further at the moment, it is probably enough to observe here that in the nature of things the exercise of personal government, the control of a huge and growing bureaucracy, and the management of an enormous mass of subsidized voting-power, are as agreeable to one stripe of politician as they are to another. Presumably they interest a Republican or a Progressive as much as they do a Democrat, Communist, Farmer- Labourite, Socialist, or whatever a politician may, for electioneering purposes, see fit to call himself.

One may well be inattentive to their words; their actions, however, mean simply that the recent accretions of State ower are here to stay, and that they are aware of it; and that, such being the case, they are preparing to dispose themselves most advantageously in a contest for their control and management. This is all that “reorganization” of the Republican party means, and all it is meant to mean; and this is, in itself, quite enough to show that any expectation of an essential change of regime through a change of party-administration is illusory. On the contrary, it is clear that whatever party-competition we shall see hereafter will be on the same terms as heretofore. It will be a competition for control and management, and it would naturally issue in still closer centralization, still further extension of the bureaucratic principle, and still larger concessions to subsidized voting-power. This course would be strictly historical, and is furthermore to be expected as lying in the nature of things, as it so obviously does.

–Nock, Our Enemy, The State

I know that was a long excerpt, but I thought it was necessary since he packed so much in. He is getting here, to the heart of what I’ve tried to explain before, but have done such a lousy job of. He’s explaining that the espoused differences between the two parties are actually just different ways to obtain the same end: more state power and less social power. I think where people fall for the trick, is in the creative employment of moral language used by the candidates. So, when Mike Huckabee stands up and says that he thinks Roe vs. Wade should be repealed, it’s not that what he says is “meaningless.” It’s that, he’s just not that concerned with actually doing anything about it.

Political footballs are footballs for a reason. Because they stay in play at all times. If somebody takes all the balls and throws them out of the stadium, you can’t play any more. The main concern of politicians is the management and structuring of their own position within the power structure of centralized control. This is what Nock refers to as “reorganization.” And, after that point is settled, the politician moves on to the accumulation of more control and influence inside their now established realm of influence. The morality, or lack thereof, of a certain political football such as abortion, taxes, social services, etc. is no more meaningful to the politician than what breakfast he will eat.

WASHINGTON—Freshman Republican Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.) is to vote with the Democratic majority and support a crucial procedural motion on a $15 billion piece of legislation aimed at spurring job creation, an aide to the senator said Monday.

The move by Mr. Brown to break with most of his party’s members in his first ever vote in the Senate is a significant development.

–WSJ

THE discovery of three American soldiers among the dead in a suicide bombing at the opening of a girls’ school in the northwestern Pakistan town of Dir last week reignited the fears of many Pakistanis that Washington was set on invading their country.

US airstrikes in Pakistan, launched from unmanned drones, are now averaging three a week, triple the number last year. “We’re quietly seeing a geographical shift,” an intelligence officer said.

For the past month drones have pounded the tribal region of North Waziristan in apparent retaliation for the murder of seven CIA officers in Afghanistan by a Jordanian suicide bomber working with the Pakistani Taliban.

Last week America launched its first multiple drone attack, according to Pakistani security officials. Eighteen missiles were fired from eight unmanned aircraft in Dattakhel village, killing 16 people.

The discovery of the dead US soldiers revealed that America’s shadowy war in Pakistan not only involves drones but also small cadres of special operations soldiers.

When are the Democrat rank and file going to wake up and understand that the guys they put in office are just as pro-war as the Republicans. Indeed, of the major wars fought in the 20th century, only one was waged under a Republican president – the first gulf war under Daddy Bush. All the biggies were Democrat-led. Woodrow Wilson(D) got us into WWI, Franklin Roosevelt(D) got us into WWII, Harry Truman(D) nuked Japan and got us into Korea, John F. Kennedy(D) got us into Vietnam and Lyndon Johnson(D) finished the job, with a brief cameo by Richard Nixon(R). As I’ve said time and time again, there is no difference between the two parties when it comes to anything of major importance. And when it comes to America policing the world, there is absolutely no difference between a Republican president and a Democrat one. They both love the thrill of killing in the name of freedom.

On a final note, Pakistan is going just as Iraq did. We’re now seeing things like suicide bombings begin to happen. Isn’t it odd that we didn’t see any suicide bombings before the U.S. began it’s military operations there. Why do we find it odd that people would be willing to give their lives to defend their land? If some other country invaded the U.S. or began secret missions here wouldn’t we do the same?

This guy voted for state-run healthcare in Mass. and Mitt Romney (another Republican) signed it into law. I’ve been telling people for months that Republicans have no interest in stopping health care legislation. People like Rush Limbaugh have marveled out loud about why Congressional Republicans aren’t being more vocal and active in opposing it. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for that. Because they don’t oppose it, as is evidenced in the above video. The only reason they have given passive resistance to it for the last few months is that it’s good positioning for campaign donations and re-election.

You have to begin looking at all politics from the angle of “who wins? who loses?” So let’s do that. If health care passed right now, would the Republicans lose? No. They’ll just claim that they tried hard to fight it, but didn’t have enough numbers on their side. They will still be re-elected and Democrats will get hammered in November. Plus, now they can enjoy the same benefits the Democrats wanted. Namely, large new campaign contributions from the healthcare lobby. That’s a win for them.

So, what if health care doesn’t pass. Do Republicans lose? No. They still get re-elected in November on the idea that they defeated the bill, and Democrats get hammered. They also still get massive campaign contributions from an energized base. That’s a win for them also.

See what I mean? That’s how politics works. Smart politicians always set themselves up to win on both sides of potential legislation. Values and ideology in Washington are like unicorns and fairies. They don’t exist.

Watch what happens here. Ron Paul is asked a question about the war in Iraq and our foreign policy. He gives a well reasoned answer from history in response. The moderator then fires back with a challenge question about 9/11. What? What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? We were bombing Iraq all through the Clinton presidency. And to this day there has yet to be any evidence to tie Iraq to 9/11. They are completely un-related, except for the fact that Bush wanted to put a base there to keep our American interests in the middle east.

But, what really fires me up is Rudi Guiliani coming back with some tripe about how Ron Paul should rescind his statements because “I lived through 9/11.” So what? I watched it on T.V. If we take Guiliani’s statements as a syllogism it would look like this:

1. I was present at the 9/11 attacks.
2. I’ve never heard anyone claim blowback was what caused 9/11.
3. Therefore, we shouldn’t have a non-interventionist foreign policy.

What?  And, he gets raucous applause for that asinine argument?  I swear, sometimes it’s all just too much. And we wonder why we ended up with a fascist in the White House.