We Should Never Despair

“We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth New Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times.” –GEORGE WASHINGTON

I know there are a lot of you that are disappointed, even angry, that we were unable to secure the nomination for Dr. Paul. I, myself, have been deeply disturbed by the RNC’s actions against us and have been kicked in the gut time and time again. There are moments I feel hopelessness overtake me and I start to believe that we will never restore freedom to this great nation of ours. This hopelessness reminds me of what Washington and his troops must have felt on the Delaware. His men were tired and badly wounded. Many of them had to suitor their own wounds with threads from their tattered uniforms. They had been through fight after fight with the Hessians and the British Red Coats and were freezing to death in the December winter.  As they looked over the river, they could see that it was coated with a 2-inch sheet of ice. They would have to chisel their way through. One can only imagine the hopelessness that our forefathers were feeling at that moment. But Washington and his men knew what was at stake, and knew the potential of having a free society. And through courage they pounded the ice, inched there way across the river, fought valiantly and won their freedom…

Nobody told you this movement would be easy. We have seen what we are up against. There was no dissenting voice at the RNC. We have seen how both the GOP and the Democrats refuse to play by the rules in which were defined for them to govern under. They set the rules, rig the games, cheat the voters and grow in power. The cycle between the Democrats and Republicans seems unbreakable and it looks like we’ve just given ourselves two more poor choices for President and another four years of tyranny. It is easy for many of you to feel discouraged and decide to abandon politics all together. I urge you to stay. It is now, more than ever, we need you. The establishment likes to claim that the cost of Freedom is blood. This is what we’ve been told to justify our wars. The true cost of Freedom is courage (blood is sometimes a by-product).

In Liberty,
Jake

I'm Not Done Yet (RNC Part 2)

I wanted to make sure that this incident that happened at the RNC got specific attention, mainly, because it hit me hard on a very personal level. Many know that the military are supposed to keep a tidy separation between our military service and our political beliefs (especially when those political beliefs differ with the Commander-in-Chief). Many of us go years without being able to adequately express our disdain for government decisions. You don’t know what kind of freedoms you have until you lose them…

Ron Paul supporter speaks out in uniform while on Active Duty. We in the military knew his next stop would be NJP.

Enter the Maine delegation. 7 of the 10 delegates that were unseated from the Maine delegation were military veterans. I don’t care if they were supporting Gingrich, Santorum, Palin, whatever. They had earned the right to sit as a voting member of that RNC and have their voice heard. They were elected out of the largest State convention in the history of Maine. They went through the entire process of going to caucus, and moving up through the convention system to have their voice heard at the RNC. Not good enough apparently. The saddest part of this story, to me, is the parading around of service members under the banner “Support our Troops.” Have you ever heard a politician say they don’t support the troops? Of course not.

But do they support us? Maybe financially. They talk about military benefits, and what they are willing to pay the men and women that have suffered tragic injuries and disabilities. All financial incentives… but they don’t stand with us. Standing with us means giving us a Congressional Declaration of War. In 10 years, the Congress has passed tons of legislation, but not a War Declaration. This is important because it outlines where a Congressional Rep/ Senator stands on the issue of war. We keep being told that this war must be fought and that everything is at stake…. So why not declare it? Right now only one man is accountable in terms of the war overseas. The President. I can’t even begin to tell you how dangerous giving that kind of accountability and responsibility to one man is… besides the founders already did it. Declaring war at the congressional level makes them accountable to their War vote and to the people. What is happening now is a single-man is bearing the judgment for his decisions. The congress has washed its hands of this bloody mess. It was never meant to be that way. Sure, the President’s opinion matters when it comes to acts of war. But the power to make that determination resides in the Congress.

So when I see fellow vets being ousted by the RNC. It hits me. You won’t allow us to speak out while active duty, you don’t stand behind us and declare wars, and when we get out and participate in politics to have our voices heard. You ignore us. And for what? So you didn't have to call out Ron Paul's vote count? You say you support our troops? That starts with listening to them. The Maine delegation had it right, “SHAME ON THEM!”

Maine Delegation in solidarity after 10 of them were unseated by the RNC

What I Saw at the RNC 2012

Most of you have seen the RNC Powergrab. If not there are plenty of videos of the “Tampa Screwjob” (http://youtu.be/obz1OeUMdqU) that outlines the corruption that I witnessed.

The aftermath of the Screwjob led someone from that national committee to ask a group of us, “How can we fix this? How can we have party unity?”

It starts with listening. Like any group of people that are agreeing to work together, one has to listen to the other. Have the confidence in your argument that you are willing to listen to opposition to it. When you refuse to listen to the other side of an argument, how can you expect them to listen to your argument? Listening is a two-way street.

This is what listening looks like:

 A group of Ron Paul supporters listen to Dr. Paul. We were discussing currency problems, debt problems, indefinite detention, loss of free speech, and yet you couldn’t leave that building without feeling inspired that there is an option out there. Liberty.

NOT THIS:

Discussion was ignored, despite heavy opposition to both the Credentials and the Rules that were passed. Here is how they handled the dissenting opinions.

OR This:

Of all the Republican's talk about President Obama's teleprompter. They used theirs to railraod rules through without having to deal with a dissenting opinion. There was never a real VOTE (which I believe we had), it was a scripted shot to the face of the Grassroots within the GOP.

I have heard (from listening) time and time again that it is the Grassroots that win elections. A candidate can be short on cash if they have the volunteer support to pound signs, make phone calls, and get out the vote. It is a litmus test for energy, whether or not the voting block is voting FOR somebody or AGAINST somebody else. The differences are clear. What was made clear at the RNC, to me, was that Grassroots are no longer welcome or needed. We were replaced…

This is not “Grassroots”:

Delegates struggle to walk through all of the PRINTED “Pro-Romney” signs that were designed to give the appearance of handcrafted signs that were being handed out to the audience.

This is what Grassroots really looks like:

Handmade signs were all over the USF Sundome for the "We are the future rally". I made the comment that some of these signs must've taken hours to make and were very well detailed. I made the comment during the Paul Rally, "The GOP needs this energy if it's to move forward from the Bush years."

 

The day the rules were passed. Both the Tea Party and the "Paulers" met at Whiskey Joe's to discuss our options. We decided there that speaking out was the best course of action and that we needed to organize a press conference. Grassroots made this happen in under 24-hours.

Listening is what needs to happen for there to ever be unity. The second element to unity within the GOP is trust. We have to trust the GOP not to screw us over, and the GOP has to trust the “Grassroots” to be there.

In other words…. We have a lot of work to do if we want Unity.

In Liberty,

Jake Severance

Why I Support Gay Rights.... as a Christian

I am a Christian (not always the best) but a devout Christian.... I believe that Gay's should have the right to get married because I don't believe that we, as Christians, want the Federal Government in control of marriage. Imagine if a religion considered interracial couples to be a sin and advocated to the Government to make it illegal for interracial couples to get married. Would that seem right to you? God gave us free will to better glorify him. Somewhere along the lines I think this Gay marriage battle became more about politics than it did about God. I don't recall a time where Jesus told legislators to make it illegal to sin. In fact Jesus often times criticized the Pharisees for judging without the right. We are a better example of our Christian values by living them, not legislating them. God loves sinners… otherwise he wouldn't love you.

A true leader does not get behind people and push them in the direction he/she wants them to go. A leader walks with integrity and inspires by the way he/she lives. Jesus didn’t go to the legislators of his time and demand that religious doctrine be pressed upon the people. He inspired people by treating everyone humanely and reached out a hand of love. If this attitude was reflected in Christians of today, I don’t think there would be such a negative attitude coming from “non-believers”.

Speaking of that negative attitude towards Christianity. Have we stopped to think of the reasons why there is hostility towards Christianity? How would we like it if Muslims were the majority in this country and implemented Sharia law? Would we be welcoming towards their doctrine? Or would we "defend" our rights and beliefs. Would we be angry at the Muslims for forcing their beliefs onto us?  It all ties into a single point. If you believe that this is a “Christian Nation” then you don’t believe in freedom of religion. It is as simple as that. Making the claim that this is a Christian nation and then using Christian doctrine to support legislation is the road to a theocracy and theocracy has represented some of the most evil times of our faith. (Or do we turn a blind eye to the crusades because it’s convenient to do so).

When you give the power of Government to define marriage, Government may define marriage in a way you find distasteful. What do you do then?

In Liberty,

Jake Severance

The Politics of Audit the Fed

Why now Republicans? After 30 years of ignoring Ron Paul, you suddenly pass Audit the Fed. Four years ago he was, “Crazy Uncle Ron” “kook” “idiot” “dangerous”. Now this?
There are two main reasons that I can think of as to why the Republicans would suddenly be touting this legislation.

1. The Ron Paul Crowd: Like it or not, we have a strong showing in Tampa. The Republicans don’t want Romney to be embarrassed at “his” endorsing convention. Romney realizes he needs the Ron Paul supporters to help push his cart over the finish line, and he realizes that they are not carrying his water right now. This is largely due to a lack of trust in Romney's platform. I don't see Ron Paul supporters moving this regard.

2. Yes, to stick it to Democrats. This bill not only passed, it was a landslide. It required a 2/3rds majority to suspend the rules and pass (it got 70%). A Democrat caucus that couldn't get a budget passed, all of a sudden is seeing a major bill being passed with large bi-partisan support (89 Democrats). So absolutely there was political motivation to stick it to the Democrats in an election year, that can't be denied.

With that said, like everything else in politics, the Democrats have made this political as well. Senate Majority Leader Reid, despite his past history of supporting a full audit of the fed, has stated that he opposes the legislation and will block it from being voted on in the Senate. This is after he submitted the legislation numerous times.

“I have sponsored legislation every year that would call for an audit of the Federal Reserve system. I offer that amendment every year, every year it gets nowhere.” - Harry Reid, Senate Floor 1995

I don’t understand the argument, “We want to reign in big banks, but we don’t want to have oversight of the people creating their wealth.” If you can’t see the conflict of interest that exists at the Federal Reserve, then I’m not sure you understand the argument for tougher bank regulations.

Ring-Around-The-Rosie Politics

It’s stupid season and the political game has been churning at full speed. The conversation has already degraded to “Who Moved My Cheese?”

The political pundits are holding hands as they go full circle from “Obama’s stimulus outsourced jobs.” To “Mitt Romney won’t release his tax returns.” They will undoubtedly continue to go around their political circle until the election arrives. What a disservice to the American people. I have joked on Twitter and Facebook that “As long as the electorate cares more about Snooki than they do about politics, they will continue to get the watered down candidates that we are so used to seeing.” If America did care more about politics than they did about reality TV, they would realize that the two-party system may be different in rhetoric, but their actions are very similar. The social right of the Republican Party WANTS more government to facilitate “ethical behavior”. Democrats want more government to control businesses and the work force. They keep handing the ball to each other and each side does their part to expand the role of the Federal Government. It’s almost as if they are saying, “Ok, the people are sick of the fight for abortion, so lets expand medicare.” Or “We need to build defense to fight terrorists.” The common theme between the two sides is that nothing of any significance is being cut. Each side expands their own programs without cutting the oppositions. It’s a hand-off that’s been occurring since before the “New Deal”. Conservatives will never get smaller government if they never see the hypocrisy of their arguments.

So lately I’ve been recruiting Democrats instead of the Republicans to the cause of liberty. Yes, many of them are so far away from our platform that they will never be swayed by the liberty argument. They seem content with Government being involved in every facet of their lives; they see a comfort in knowing that “someone else is responsible” instead of themselves. But after listening to their rebuttals to my arguments, I’ve come to another conclusion about Democrats. They don’t have any idea as to what the Libertarian argument is. This one question has drawn a lot of blank faces on Democrats…

“If you are against big banks, why won’t you audit the entity that feeds them?”

Try it. Some will even concede the argument; others will say they don’t know enough about the Federal Reserve to have an opinion and some will choose not to answer. So Ben Bernanke comes out today and says that auditing the fed will "create a political influence". Wow. I had to listen to it twice because I couldn’t believe he would tell a blatant lie like that. Any person who believes that the Federal Reserve is a fully private institution doesn’t know how the board gets put into power and how the chairman is picked. It is highly political, and those that are chosen usually come from deep political ties. So the influence is already there. The top contributors to both Obama and Romney are large banks. In regards to monetary policy, the ring-around-the-rosie will continue (unless Ron Paul shocks the world and wins the nomination in Tampa). Stop seeing political opponents as enemies and see them for what they are, people who think differently. Fair and open debate is the only way liberty will prevail.

Here are 5 ways I believe we can stop (or at least mitigate) ring-around-the-rosie politics:

-We inspire nobody with disrespect, and resorting to disrespect defeats the argument before it is made. Call out fellow supporters for being disrespectful. We rely on sound arguments and let the opposition rely on “business as usual”.

-SOME liberty people have a superiority complex (don’t lie, you’ve seen it too) because they believe they have figured out what others haven’t and grow frustrated when the others can’t see it.

-Do not engage in the “he said” “she said”. Too many times we hear the back and forth “You outsourced jobs!” “So did you!” blah blah blah. Realize when an attack is meritless and don’t engage back. Simply correct the falsehoods being spread about you and continue to make YOUR argument for leading this country. Not why your opponent is incapable of it.

-It’s ok to admit when one of your representatives messed up. Just because you belong to a “party” doesn’t alleviate you the responsibility of holding your representative accountable. There are a lot of blind defenders out there. I heard a lot of tunes change once those people were convinced Romney was going to be the nominee.

-It’s ok to admit when you’re wrong. If you make a false claim, admit it. There is nothing wrong with saying I was wrong on this issue. Being able to be wrong about an issue gives others the ok to admit when they are wrong about an issue. But it takes courage.

In Liberty…

Jake Severance

A Double Dip Recession may be the least of our concerns...

There are a number of factors that signal that a “double-dip recession” maybe on the horizon. This is not paranoid dribble; this is a straight look at the markets and determining what they are trying to tell us. I am not, by a long shot, the first to claim that a double dip recession is on the horizon. This has been said by some of the sharpest economic minds in the country, including those that predicted the housing crisis (Peter Schiff, Ron Paul). But more than double-dip recession fears, I believe there is a bigger problem on the horizon, Stagflation. There are three reasons why I believe this country is in danger of going through a Stagflation period.

1               1)   Growth of the current economy

2               2)   The power of centralized banks

3               3)   Our Debt.

There is little growth as an economy in its entirety. The last report that came out of the Commerce Department shows that the national economy only grew at a 1.9% annual rate. This does not keep consistent with the rate of inflation, which will obviously draw the ire of political talking heads on the right. The ire is deserved, as a slow growth rate after billions in stimulus programs, tax cuts and 2 rounds of quantitative easing tells us that employment may suffer further. There is also a low national savings rate (leading to a large percentage of private debt). When private debt gets to be this high, consumers are less likely to spend and when this happens the economy slows further. There is virtually no incentive for Americans to save as the bond market is abysmal and interest rates are at all time lows. When a government works in a Keynesian fashion to try and stimulate an economy and is met with lagging growth numbers, Stagflation becomes an immediate concern. The 2 rounds of quantitative easing brought on by the Fed only produced gains in the equities market, this is not the answer going forward and actually brings me to my second point. We need to reign in the Central Banking system.

This is what I find most surprising about the current progressive argument. They claim to blame big banks for the failure in the housing market, yet they don’t want to audit the very entity that allows them to control loans and apparently the American people. What rubs people the wrong way about TARP, should rub them the wrong way in regards to the Federal Reserve. The biggest political blunder, to me, in regards to TARP was the fact that the oversight committee that was tasked with keeping accountability of TARP has no idea where all of the money went. This is obviously frustrating as the American taxpayers see it as the Government losing track of 900 Billion dollars of their hard earned money. Who could blame them?  The Federal Reserve has initiated two rounds of quantitative easing while keeping interest rates low, virtually giving away free capital. This is the reason I believe that we’ve seen growth in the equities market but not anywhere else. If progressives are so angry at big banks, they should be willing to audit the Federal Reserve. If they are angered by the lack of transparency coming from big banks, they should be more concerned with the hand that feeds. It is absolutely baffling to me that the Democrats would stand against auditing the fed on partisan grounds. When we give an institution to control our currency and then not have any oversight of that institution, we are asking for corruption. The Congress has a blank check at the Federal Reserve to appropriate funds, and they have had little to no hesitation to do so.

The third reason why Stagflation could be on the horizon is our rising debt. Rising debt is not only a sign of poor financial policy, it is also a metric as to how big the government has gotten. A government that spends more money has more reach. A government that spends in agricultural subsidies ends up controlling the agricultural industry.  “We want you to do this, this and this or else we will cut your subsidy”.  This is controlling an industry. We keep hearing terms like “stimulus” and “enabling the private sector”. The problem with these strategies are that neither one details how our elected officials plan on reducing the size of the national debt. Taxing the 1% is not going to do enough to tackle our current Trillion dollar plus deficits and cutting taxes without cutting spending will only make the debt issue a bigger deal. Both sides have played ring-around-the-rosie and have grown our national debt at an unsustainable trajectory. The debt has already had its toll on the global economy. Treasuries and bonds are getting killed in this market. China is reevaluating its financial outlook and India is also following suit. The problems in the EU have been well documented (and even have been used to foreshadow what maybe to come for the US). History has shown us that cutting spending usually leads to a political candidate suffering in the demographic that was hurt most by the cut in the following election. Our Congress has very little to gain politically by actually making real cuts in the budget. Whenever a cut is brought up, the government reacts with fear mongering. They tell you what disasters will occur if “program x” is scrapped, but take little time to explain what disasters are pending if we don’t cut “program x”.  The growth of the economy isn’t keeping up with the rate of inflation, interest rates are bottomed out, and we keep spending money, A formula for Japanese style stagflation.

It’s a tax, it’s not a tax…..whatever.

It all amounts to the same thing. It is a mandate to trade with private organizations that currently make up an Oligopoly. This particular Oligopoly was created BECAUSE of government regulations in the first place. So first, they deny us the right to buy health insurance across state lines; and now they are forcing trade with those same health insurance companies…. I smell a rat. But beyond healthcare, we need to take a close look at what just happened at the Supreme Court. Here are a couple of thoughts I had regarding their precedent.

The first thought I had is that we no longer have the right to choose who we do business with. If the government deems the industry important in the scope of the American economy, Congress will use their new found power. When Congress is granted power, they use it. I am forced to think back to the auto bailouts, TARP and other extensive overreaches by the government designed to “stimulate” a failing industry in the name of “a sound American economy”.  What should happen if these industries start failing again? What happens if demand for American cars dries up? Under the new Supreme Court precedence it is theoretically possible that Congress can demand that the American people buy American cars or else pay a “tax/fine/whatever”. I can hear the spin now, “We need to support these American companies to help the American economy. If you are buying foreign automobiles, you are killing the American auto industry and should be fined/taxed/whatever….” This is simply not American and is certainly not free market capitalism. The only question is, “Do the people in power realize it?” My guess is yes.

The second thought is in regards to the reactions from my fellow “Liberty Minded” individuals. Many of them brought up the possibility of nullification. While I would support such an attempt, it is almost certain to fail. Every time nullification has been on the table it has been stricken down with the
Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. We would have to convince the Supreme Court that the 10^th amendment trumps the Supremacy Clause in regards to participation in a federally mandated program. This isn’t likely. The only way any the legislative branch of government can “overturn” or “nullify” a Supreme Court decision is through a Constitutional Amendment and given the current nature of politics, I don’t see that happening either. The Supreme Court has been known to give contradictory opinions on cases, but that can only happen if the case reaches the Supreme Court. The politicization of the Supreme Court is just another step on the road to Totalitarianism.

My third and final thought on the Supreme Court precedent is this. In NO, way, shape or form is this decision “good” for the Republican party. $4 mil to the Romney campaign doesn’t change this drastic change to our market. Even IF Romney repeals ObamaCare the precedent has already been set. Similar legislation will be up again, and we will not be able to rely on the Judiciary Branch of government to protect us from Constitutional violations from the Congress. One of the scariest points that Chief Justice Roberts made in his opinion is that he believes it’s not the job of the Supreme Court to protect the American people from Congress. He needs to understand that in the system of Checks and Balances it IS his duty to keep congress in line with the Constitution regardless of how many votes the representatives that created the bill received from the America electorate. If congress wants to change fundamental principles in the Constitution, they must do so with a Constitutional Amendment. The idea of Constitutional Amendments being so difficult to pass is to ensure that the American people are not divided on an amendment to the root law of this country. It is not right for Congress to use the powers of the judicial branch to change the principles in the constitution because it’s expedient to do so. Many pundits have missed this point.

“A republic, as long as you can keep it.” - Franklin

In Liberty,

Jake Severance