Peter Schiff for Senate

Economist Peter Schiff, one of the few people who saw this current recession coming long before it happened, is considering running for the Senate from the state of Connecticut. Be sure to check out his site at www.SchiffForSenate.com.

The Audacity of Hype

Gary North nails it:

Optimism regarding Obama's Administration, as with every new administration, rests on a presupposition: politics trumps economics. This is another way of saying that legalized coercion trumps voluntarism.

Faith in the means of this triumph is lodged in three institutions: the national government, the Federal Reserve System, and foreign central banks. No matter how bad things get economically, voters believe in these three institutions, if they actually have heard of central banking, which few have and fewer remember.

Today, the national government is running at least a $1.2 trillion annual deficit. To this will be added whatever the proposed stimulus law will cost. Estimates run in the range of $400 billion a year for two years. Obama has said that annual deficits in the trillion-dollar range will go on for years. He has not been specific, rather like his date for a pullout from Afghanistan.

The public does not care. Optimism is still widespread. Like a spouse in a second or third marriage, who does not yet know of her partner's snoring, the voters expect smooth sailing through treacherous financial waters.

The Bush Administration established the precedents: a $700 billion bailout (plus $150 billion in Congressional pork), the various bank bailouts, and the nationalization of the mortgage market. Whatever President Obama proposes will be an extension of existing policies. There will be no successful opposition. There will be no turning back.

Change? What Change?

Chuck Baldwin talks about the kind of "change" we can expect from the new administration. (Hint: Those who really thought Obama would change things are going to be disappointed.)

Obama Supporters Now Without Direction or Purpose

Obama Already Covering His Tracks

From the Washington Times:

Over the weekend President-elect Barack Obama scrubbed Change.gov, his transition Web site, deleting most of what had been a massive agenda copied directly from his campaign Web site.

Gone are the promises on how an Obama administration would handle 25 different agenda items -- everything from Iraq and immigration to taxes and urban policy -- all items laid out on his campaign Web site, www.BarackObama.com.

Instead, the official agenda on Change.gov has been boiled down to one vague paragraph proclaiming a plan "to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives."

The president-elect is already looking forward to 2012. It's much easier to claim to have "changed" something when people forget what your promises were in the first place.

The Real Story of This Election...

...according to Chuck Baldwin, "is not how Barack Obama defeated John McCain. The real story is how John McCain defeated America's conservatives." The question is, will they learn from this experience? If history is any indication, no, they won't.

Ron Paul on What to Expect from an Obama Presidency

Please, Mr. Grenell...

...tell us again why Obama will lose the election?

You Had Your Chance, Republicans

Republicans, you had your chance to nominate a man who truly stood for change. But you decided, as you did in 1996, that an aging "war hero" was the winning ticket against a young, dynamic liberal.

Seriously? You honestly thought this guy...



...had a better chance of beating Obama than this guy?



Well, now you have four years to think about the mess you created.

John McCain Loves Hillary Clinton

The McCain/Palin campaign brochure I received in Saturday's mail had this to say:

As the father of three daughters, I owe Senator Clinton a debt for inspiring them and millions of other women to believe nothing in this great country is beyond their reach.

Everywhere I go, I see that Senator Clinton inspired a whole generation of young Americans in this country. With my running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, I will make sure that Hillary's efforts are not forgotten.

As if I really needed another reason to not vote for McCain.

McCain's "Pro-Life" Position

You have to hand it to John McCain. He knows exactly what to say to his conservative constituents to convince them that he is pro-life. The facts, however, speak for themselves:

Source: Vision Forum Ministries

Another thing to remember is that John McCain has received the enthusiastic endorsement of Republicans for Choice, a political action committee which praised McCain for inserting language into the GOP platform "that talked about the need to work with those in the Party who disagree on this issue to find common ground." According to RFC, "This is the first time ever that any Presidential contender tried to tinker with that plank to add in language that recognized us."

The Legend of Creepy Hollow

Almost as hollow as the real thing.

Ignoring the Constitution

Barack Obama and John McCain have no respect for the Constitution. While they may claim to recognize its importance, they refuse to honor it as the supreme law of the land.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, in a column for the Wall Street Journal, writes:

Unfortunately, these presidential attitudes about the Constitution are par for the course. Beginning with John Adams, and proceeding to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, Congress has enacted and the president has signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for war, forbade freedom of contract, allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, and used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks.

All of this legislation -- merely tips of an unconstitutional Big Government iceberg -- is so obviously in conflict with the plain words of the Constitution that one wonders how Congress gets away with it.

In virtually every generation and during virtually every presidency (Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland are exceptions that come to mind) the popular branches of government have expanded their power. The air you breathe, the water you drink, the size of your toilet tank, the water pressure in your shower, the words you can speak under oath and in private, how your physician treats your illness, what your children study in grade school, how fast you can drive your car, and what you can drink before you drive it are all regulated by federal law. Congress has enacted over 4,000 federal crimes and written or authorized over one million pages of laws and regulations. Worse, we are expected by law to understand all of it.

The truth is that the Constitution grants Congress 17 specific (or "delegated") powers. And it commands in the Ninth and 10th Amendments that the powers not articulated and thus not delegated by the Constitution to Congress be reserved to the states and the people.

What's more, Congress can only use its delegated powers to legislate for the general welfare, meaning it cannot spend tax dollars on individuals or selected entities, but only for all of us. That is, it must spend in such a manner -- a post office, a military installation, a courthouse, for example -- that directly enhances everyone's welfare within the 17 delegated areas of congressional authority.

And Congress cannot deny the equal protection of the laws. Thus, it must treat similarly situated persons or entities in a similar manner. It cannot write laws that favor its political friends and burden its political enemies.

Unfortunately, "we, the people," aren't much better. After all, we're the ones sending these criminals to Washington. Napolitano sums up:

Perhaps the only public agreement that Jefferson and Hamilton had about the Constitution was that the federal Treasury would be raided and the free market would expire if the Treasury became a public trough. If it does, the voters will send to Congress those whom they expect will fleece the Treasury for them. That's why the Founders wrote such strict legislating and spending limitations into the Constitution.

Everyone in government takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. But few do so. Do the people we send to the federal government recognize any limits today on Congress's power to legislate? The answer is: Yes, their own perception of whatever they can get away with.

Albert Einstein once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If we really want change, we need to quit supporting the status quo.

Will I Vote for McCain?

No. And neither will my friend Dave Black: "Only if I believed in the myth of the Redeemer Nation -- the fusion of political and religious missions into a vision that America is the last and best chance offered by God to a fallen world -- would I vote for John McCain on Nov. 4."

The Torch Has Been Passed

Barack Obama Supports Black Genocide

Sound outrageous? Well, considering his strong support for Planned Parenthood, and the fact that Planned Parenthood hasn't deviated one bit from its racist roots, I think the charge is quite fitting:

Genocide, infanticide, call it what you will. It's still evil.

The Lesser of Two Goods

Laurence Vance on Chuck Baldwin:

I can say without exaggeration that Baldwin is miles ahead of Obama, McCain, McKinney, and Nader when it comes to practically any issue, and especially when it comes to foreign policy. He is close to Barr on most issues, but trumps him when it comes to integrity. Does he have the slightest chance of winning? Unfortunately not, but if someone wanted to vote for the lesser of two goods instead of wasting his vote on the lesser of two evils, then Baldwin would certainly fit into that category.

A Vote for John McCain a Wasted Vote?

As one who has voted for the Constitution Party candidate in the last two presidential elections, I have been told countless times that I was just wasting my vote: "A vote for anyone other than George W. bush is just a vote for the Democrats." Well, Bush won in 2000 and again in 2004. He didn't need my vote. The Republicans prevailed -- and we still ended up losing.

Under the leadership of the GOP, government has only grown bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive. If I had voted for Bush, I would have only become part of the problem. So, why should I listen to anyone saying that a vote for a third party candidate this time around is wasted?

I was (and still am) a big supporter of Ron Paul, but since he has officially dropped out of the presidential race, I plan on casting my vote for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. I tend to agree with libertarian Karl Hess, who said, "Your vote isn't a bet on who's going to win the election. It's a statement of who you are."

Besides, one could argue that a vote for a major party candidate who has no chance of winning is just as wasted as any other. Chuck Baldwin writes:

With only three weeks before the election, Barack Obama is pulling away. McCain has already pulled his campaign out of Michigan. In other key battleground states, McCain is slipping fast. He was ahead in Missouri; now it is a toss-up or leaning to Obama. A couple of weeks ago, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were all leaning towards McCain, or at least toss-up states. Now, they are all leaning to Obama. Even the longtime GOP bellwether state of Indiana is moving toward Obama. In addition, new voter registrations are at an all-time high, and few of them are registering as Republicans. In fact, the Republican Party now claims only around 25% of the electorate, and Independents are increasingly leaning toward Obama.

Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.

I ask, therefore, are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!

A vote for a third party candidate will at least send the message that we are fed up with the status quo. We simply cannot continue doing the same thing we've always done and expect a different result. That really is the definition of insanity.

The GOP Is Not the "Lesser of Two Evils"

This bailout could not have passed without the enthusiastic support of Republicans in Congress. Anyone who still thinks there is a difference between the two major parties is living in a fantasy world. I agree wholeheartedly with Vox Day's conclusion: "One benefit of this bailout is that it has ended 'the lesser evil' argument once and for all."

He expounds on that thought in today's WND column:

It would be a massive mistake for conservatives, libertarians and capitalists to continue supporting Republicans when there is clearly nothing conservative, libertarian or capitalist about the Republican Party. The Republican Party does not value freedom, it does not value capitalism, it does not abide by its republican principles and it does not honor the Constitution. Regardless of whether you vote Libertarian, Constitution Party or do not vote at all, you can be sure that your vote will not be wasted -- because, as events have proven time and time again over the last eight years, the only wasted vote is the vote that is cast for a Republican politician.

Chuck Baldwin Thanks Ron Paul

Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin thanks Ron Paul for his endorsement:

I was happy to support Ron Paul during the Republican primaries, because I believe in the same principles. I personally campaigned for him in several states and in this column. And I asked (or expected) nothing in return. In fact, I have stated this publicly, time and again: if Ron Paul had won the Republican nomination for President, I would not be running. I would still be supporting Ron Paul.

I am running for President because the Republican Party rejected Ron's Paul's message of constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and non-interventionism. Therefore, someone had to pick up the mantle and carry this message into the general election. The Constitution Party asked me to be their standard-bearer in order to bring this message to the American people in November. So, here I am. And now, Ron Paul's endorsement is further substantiation that the message of constitutional government will not die in 2008. The American people still have a real choice instead of the big-government, globalist, interventionist, "big box" party candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama. ...

... Needless to say, I am both humbled and honored that Ron Paul would place enough faith in me that he would endorse me for President. I can think of no higher compliment to my candidacy. I here and now publicly thank him for this vote of confidence. I know my Vice Presidential running mate, Darrell Castle (a former Marine Corps officer and Vietnam veteran), joins me in inviting all of Dr. Paul's supporters to help us take the message of constitutional government into the general election on November 4. Thank you.