The Democratic Convention: Boos, Boos, Beautiful Boos

It certainly was an elegiac ecstasy to hear those golden tones, as hundreds of disgruntled Democrats and Sanders supporters told the party establishment what they thought of them, as the Party robots praised Ms. Rodham. Choruses of boos greeted her every mention, and the next day, Panetta was met with such a tsunami of boos during his speech, that his forward progress was arrested, and he had to stand there grinning like a baboon as the wave of sound continued to drown him out.

Never had such things been seen at a political convention since 1968, and before that only rarely. The American Public was greeted to the spectacle of a major party self-immolating on national television, and it was a beauty to behold, as this rancid bunch of politically ignorant lemmings finally busted apart into their own narrow sectarian gangs. The Sanders Left will leave her in droves, and we will have an election where four candidates for President get over 5% of the vote.

Boos, boos, beautiful boos, the more they grow, the more she lose.

-Paul Grad

Brexit: Libertarianism Blows Up Keynesianism

I haven’t heard commentators say it, but the Brexit vote was actually a Libertarian assault on Keynesianism, that system of government graft which uses socialist giveaways to control and manipulate the populace, getting them to work and save for decades, and then inflating away the value of their savings in a few years. They boil the frog slowly, so that only the Ron Paul-types protest, and how many Ron Paul supporters or Libertarians have actually studied and understood Austrian School Free-Market Economics as presented by Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard?

That Brexit was carried out by the British People shows that the Liberty thread that ran all the way from Magna Carta through Henry VIII’s break with Rome to Cromwell’s Glorious Revolution, and onto Lord Acton and Lords John and Bertrand Russell, was no fluke, but something deeply ingrained in the British psyche. And this proclivity for Liberty is not something peculiar to the British people, but is a component of all the more reasonable forms of government, excluding of course dictatorships. The American and British forms of government, blemished as they may be, are far and away the best forms of government on the planet, and it is on this principle alone that a vote for Brexit was not only justified but absolutely necessary.

British Capitalism could not be conquered for centuries by foreign adventurers and monarchists, but now people are told that Federalism brings such economic benefit that it is alright, even beneficial, for them to give up their rights and self-government in order to have a higher material standard of living. Such “pragmatism” was soundly crushed by the Brexit vote.

What the European Nationalists had not been able to conquer in a thousand years with violence, they thought they could conquer in a few years through the nepenthe of Federalism and Socialism. But, in the first large manifestation against the Leviathan Socialist State since the Trump campaign, the voters of Great Britain gave ’em the V-sign in reverse.

Brexit gives us hope that Mankind will avoid the Big Motherism of Ms. Rodham, and turn once again to the uncomfortable Freedom of Liberty. There must be some element of deep sanity in Man that wants to turn him away from the great chaos of Socialism we see in America, Venezuela, and Europe, and turn him towards the sanity of an arduous Freedom. Enough of that sanity seeped through into the intelligence of the British voters to change the course of British history.

Ron Paul’s Presidential Campaign, begun in 2008 and continued in 2012, has finally born fruit in 2016, and Brexit is the child that he helped deliver. For the first time since the end of WW2, a people in the West have made a significant move towards Libertarianism, even if it is just the negation of a larger Socialism.

The politicians, bureaucrats, and corporate welfare-chiselers expected “Mrs.” Clinton’s Nehru jackets to be purfled with miniver after the Brexit vote, but now they see their ermine trampled with muddy boots by the masses.

To paraphrase a famous Englishman, Brexit may not be the end; it may not be the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

The beginning of a true Jeffersonian-Rothbardian Libertarianism.

—Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

Brexit, the Libertarian Devolution

It seems that, outta the blue, the Leave vote on Brexit has sprung into the lead in the polls, and a Brexit seems a real possibility.paul 19

Such a Brexit would clearly be to the benefit of the British peoples, but whether benefit or hinderance, it would mark a clear step backward from bureaucratic centralization, and against the concentration of democratic power in the hands of a handful of bureaucrats.

One of Libertarianism’s key concepts is that in bureaucracies, the worst rise to the top. Hayek and Mises both wrote extensively on the phenomenon. This is well illustrated the world over where government actions, on a daily basis, are performed incompetently, costing people their lives or much misery. There is always an “investigation”, and never an end to the errors. Nor does it matter in which country it occurs; we constantly hear appalling stories of government abuses carried out all over the globe, in first world as well as third world countries.

The peoples of Britain have been robbed of their sovereignty, as well as being looted of their treasure, by the EU, and they know it. “You can’t fool all the people all of the time” goes the old political saw.

So the move back from EU subservience to U.K. Parliamentary subservience is salubrious , but it is naive to think that such an action will bring a Libertarian Norther, coursing galeforce through the un-limed, mephitic outhouse of the UK Government. The British Bureaucracy is formidable in itself, and will leave plenty of shackles around the legs of Englishmen in their daily endeavor to survive. But it is less immune than the Brussels Sprouts, being subject to the power of the British voter, who has watched as Socialism has destroyed the Individual in Britain — an Individual who, had he been born in the 19th century, could have passed his whole life without contact with, or imposition from, the British Government, except for his birth and death certificates. No military draft, no income tax (or “statutory incomes policy” in the language of the bureaucrats and politicians), no mandatory insurances, were there to furrow his brow. The dissipation of energy engendered by western socialism in the U.S. and E.U. has destroyed Western man, and turned his mind from philosophy to survival, and thus materialism, whether that materialism be the food, clothes, shelter of survival, or the materialism of pleasure in various entertainments.

Nevertheless, the devolutionary crawl from more centralized bureaucracy to less is always to be welcomed in Libertarian theory, although there are some cases where Federalism, as in the case of the desegregation of the American South, seems necessary to overcome local injustices. But the violation of States Rights, all over America, has certainly had dire consequences when it comes to the criminalization of Cannabis by the Democratic Party Fascists, showing how a bunch of Fascists in Washington can terrorize an entire nation for decades, and get away with the Crime.

So the best of British luck to the Englishmen, Welsh and Scots, as they make ready to reestablish their national sovereignty over themselves.

“Britons never never never shall be slaves.”

— Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

 

.

On the Futility and Necessity of Politics and Political Parties

I just chanced to come upon the analysis of George Phillies concerning the National Libertarian Party’s platform, and his opinions regarding each measure and plank. and it reminded me of how futile political parties are, given the inevitable bureaucracies that arise, trying to seize power and influence within the party structure. There is no way that a political party of any size can ever exist without creating a bureaucracy that will take it over, and thenceforth direct the energies of a million good-faith citizens who truly believe in the few ideological slogans the party bandies about.paul 19

That the Libertarian Party, of all parties, should fall into the trap of Bureaucracy shows how the minds of people trick themselves. One of the key teachings of the Libertarian “Big Three” Economists, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard, was that bureaucracies arise in all organizations, from big government down to the local chess club, and that certain energetic individuals will take over that bureaucratic power, while Hayek’s rule that in bureaucracies the worst rise to the top has been well proven by a long parade of Federal Government departmental heads.

We see the same problem arising in progressive school’s bureaucracies. Bertrand Russell, A. S. Neill, and J. Krishnamurti all had problems with the school administrations of the schools they set up, and these were three very revolutionary thinkers when it came to the question of education.

So it would seem that in the realm of both politics and education, the bureaucracies should be abandoned, and only individual action should take place. This would mean, politically, coagulating around a few set principles, like the Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle, and the Inalienable Rights of the Individual over and above any false Collectivist claim to Rights. A large part of electing someone would then be: are they genuine or a carpet-bagging opportunist, repeating like a parrot the party’s mantra. That is where the insight of the voters comes into action. In the performance of the candidates lies the key to modern elections. This has been proven by both Trump and Sanders, who have ripped away the diaphanous skirts of both major parties, to reveal only fat cellulite legs, lined with the varicose veins of corporate corruption. The veins run dollar-bill green, and run from the bottom upwards.

And in education, it seems my view of educating children in small groups of 3-5, with a teacher and assistant, in combination with all the educational tools available over the internet, which have made the lecture hall and the library virtually obsolete, is the correct view. Schools serve as a collectivizing agent, getting the children ready, on a daily basis, for a collectivist action (going to the school where there is a huge crowd of people, sitting in the class in the midst of a large group.) These collectivist actions prepare the child for the corporate job and the political party, and the idea that they are part of a ‘society” when in actuality that “society” only exists in their daily contact with individuals. Educating children individually, or in tiny groups of 3-5, will remove this collectivizing brainwashing which both government and private schools can’t avoid because of their current structure. We should question whether schools are even necessary any more.

As far as politics go, it should be obvious that only through individual change within a huge number of people will it be possible to radically alter the rotten world society in which we now live. Without that inner change, merely changing the outer society will do very little. You only have to look at the percentage of people who eat meat (over 98%), and the realities of the factory farm and the slaughter house, to see how self-centered the mass of Humanity is. And creating a political party that is going to somehow magically change this situation is a pipe-dream. This is the trap into which the Communists and the Socialists fall. They falsely think that: merely change the outer economic circumstances and the laws, and everyone will become angelic and non-greedy. The cherishing of material possessions in Soviet society showed just the opposite. The Soviet Marxists were just as materialistic as the American Capitalists. Maybe even more so when you compare the amount of charitable giving which the American middle class has historically shown, due probably to the general level of prosperity in America (compared to most world historic societies). There were many wealthy Romans, but I don’t recall them being noted for their philanthropic works, unless it was passing out corn to quell a food-riot insurrection.

So, if societal change can only come about through individual change, and if all political parties are doomed to the disease of Bureaucracy if they achieve any notable size, then it should be clear that political action is pure folly and a waste of time.

But does that mean the Libertarian, the 18th Century Classical Liberal, and the Anarcho-Capitalist should abandon the field to the Fascists, the Socialists and Communists, the Nazis, the Racists, the Nationalists, the Theocrats, and even Monarchists?

Does not the outer society play a large part in conditioning the individual, when only a child, into the implicit values of the society? Little Johnny quickly catches on that doctors make a lot of money, and since Johnny notices that adults talk a lot about money, he decides to become a doctor. And since everyone wants to know what Johnny wants to do when he “grows up”, little Johnny gets the message that what you do in society is very important to these large apes he’s growing up amongst. The schools, both government and private, reinforce this when they tell the students how much more a college graduate earns over the course of his lifetime than a high school graduate or drop-out.

Therefore, if the outer society plays such a large part in conditioning the individual, then, even though politics is futile and a waste of time, it must be engaged in, at least at the minimal level of voting (and usually having to write in people for most positions since the usual party hacks are so bad). Even though change must be at the individual level, it makes a huge difference to individuals if they live in a free, free-market Capitalist society, with Classical Liberal Jeffersonian views when it comes to political issues and Rights. Historically, such Liberalism has only been found in the most Capitalistic societies — Great Britain, the Netherlands, and the U.S.A. All three have had a long tradition of both Capitalism, or the Free-Market, and a wide liberality of opinion, with significant minorities or majorities opposing censorship, the Draft, Capital Punishment, and supporting separation of church and state. All three of these countries also engaged in the most egregious outrages against Libertarianism in terms of their colonies, their wars, the American enslavement of the African and his descendants, and theft of the American Indians’ lands. But whether because of it, or in spite of it, Capitalism within these societies brought Classical Liberalism to heights it had never imagined in previous times. In earlier days, Bertrand Russell and Clarence Darrow would have been burned at the stake or lynched (Russell almost was once, when speaking at an anti-War rally in a church during World War One). Now, in the Liberal Capitalist 20th Century societies, people just grumbled about them. Everyone would rip the government by word, but assassinations of government officials by ordinary citizens were very rare.

So, if the outer society does have an impact on the conditioning of the individual, it is obvious that politics, and the society it breeds, are extremely important.

And thus we are left with the paradox that, while we can see clearly that politics is a waste of time and a great dissipation of energy, we can also see that it is vitally important to the bringing about of a Libertarian, Jeffersonian, Free-Market Capitalist, democratic-Republic Society, where dissident opinions are tolerated, and with a low, or non-existent level of violence.

— Paul Grad

Oregon Presidential Primary 2016: Write In Ron Paul

Given the mess in the Republican Presidential Primary, and the suspensions of the Cruz and Kasich campaigns, I am recommending writing in Ron Paul, since none of the listed candidates on the ballot fit the necessities of a fiscally-conservative and Constitutional President. Cruz came closest, but since he dropped out, and there were many flaws in his positions, and Trump is almost certain to get the nomination, one might as well make one’s vote count by writing in someone who is a fiscally-conservative Austrian School of Economics Libertarian like Ron Paul.

For one thing, voting write-in lets the winner, and the other mainstream politicians who lost, know that they don’t have your vote. Additionally, it lowers the percentage of the vote that the winner gets, making them look worse, if only minisculely. If enough people vote write-in, it can lop a few percentage points off the winner, making him look not so invincible. This is healthy for the body politic.

Since Dr. Paul is such an expert on Free-Market Capitalism, and has the correct economic views on almost every issue, and since America is primarily a capitalist country where almost everyone is obsessed, or at least heavily involved, with money or using money to get his daily needs, it makes great sense to put someone at the top of government who understands Economics. Dr. Paul is such an individual.

Therefore the choice is clear. Any Oregonian who really wants to turn government from a corrupt looting mechanism into its Jeffersonian Ideal should write in Ron Paul on the Republican, Libertarian, and Democratic Party ballots.

Vote Ron Paul for President on May 17, 2016!

— Paul Grad, Libertarian Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

 

Murray Rothbard on Donald Trump

In a speech given in 1989 at the Libertarian Party convention, Murray Rothbard, the founder of the modern American Libertarian Movement, in discussing reaction to the sentencing  and income of Michael Milken, made the following comment about Donald Trump.

Rothbard quotes the New York Times as discussing the reaction of three famous individuals to the sentencing of Milken, and his $550 million/yr income: John Kenneth Galbraith, Donald J. Trump, and David Rockefeller. Galbraith, who made millions criticizing Capitalism, thought it was outrageous. Rockefeller opined that anyone who could make such an income showed a serious imbalance in our financial system.

When it came to Trump, Rothbard said, “The other was Donald J. Trump, of all the nerve, saying ‘You can be happy on less money than that.’ What gall, what chutzpah!”

All three observations elicited intense laughter from the audience.

-Paul Grad

Donald Trump and the Myth of Inciting to Riot

I noticed tonight that the political websites are full of talk of Donald Trump inciting violence, and his opponents in the Republican and Democratic political ranks seem to be universally jumping on the bandwagon, blaming him for the violence carried out by some of his supporters and the demonstrators themselves. In my previous blog post, I went into the reasons why disrupting his rallies is a property rights crime against both Trump and his rally attendee supporters.paul 19

As I said in my last post, I would not vote for Trump and would write-in Ron Paul first or vote for any decent Libertarian if the National Party ran one. (It looks like the Libertarian Party of Oregon will be choosing their own candidate independent of the National LP.) But the attacks on Trump tonight that seem to be pervading the political websites are based on the erroneous phenomenon of “inciting to riot”.

Inciting to riot implies that the people aggressing against property rights of others have had their wills taken over by another and are not responsible for their violent actions (and a physical assault is a property rights assault in Libertarian theory since your body is part of your property). “I was calm and collected, but so-and-so’s rhetoric was so overwhelming that I got carried away, and committed this murder or assault which I swear I would never ever normally commit, but something came over me and I was no longer in control of my actions. Blame Trump or whomever, Your Honor, don’t blame me.”

This is the universal cop-out of violent demonstrators. Of course they were responsible for their actions of violence. Of course they are the guilty ones and not the rabble-rouser who worked them up into a mouth-foaming frenzy of violence. The rabble-rouser, the demogogue who preaches hatred, may have a moral culpability for attempting to incite them to violence, but under America’s very liberal freedom of speech laws, he is not legally guilty. It is the person who carries out the violence who is the guilty party, and to believe in the validity of “inciting to riot” is to say that people who carry out acts of violence are not morally responsible for their crimes. This is an extremely dangerous idea, far more dangerous than the words of any demagogue.

That said, if a demagogue stood up, tried to work a crowd up enough to riot and carry out a pogrom against, say, Hispanics or Armenians by saying “Kill the Hispanics” or “Kill the Armenians”, both unfortunately completely legal under our liberal Freedom of Speech laws, and a mob descended on a string of Hispanic-owned or Armenian-owned stores, assaulting and murdering the occupants, and a Hispanic or Armenian in the area being attacked shot to death the speaker attempting to incite violence because he felt his life was threatened, and I was on a jury trying the shooter for murder, I would vote to acquit him, and perhaps even contribute to his legal defense. (Note however that it is illegal  and not protected speech in America for a rabble-rouser to say to a mob “Kill Jorge Perez” or “Kill Arpad Avakian”.)

The best weapon against any demagogue who attempts “inciting to riot” is to economically boycott him and anyone who supports him for life. If he or she is a politician, vote against them. “Send them to Coventry”, as they say in England, forever.

-Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

Why Trump Rally Protesters Are Property Rights Criminals

Though I would not vote for Donald Trump, and will probably have to write-in Ron Paul if the Libertarians don’t run someone decent, I believe the protesters who interrupt his rallies are committing a crime against both him and his supporters who attend those rallies.paul 19

The reason this is a crime was brilliantly explained by the radical Libertarian and founder of the Libertarian Party in America, Professor Murray Rothbard.

In an insightful analysis of why shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, or interrupting a speech or lecture with heckling, is a crime, Rothbard points out the real reason this is a crime, in contrast to the incorrect analysis by the U.S. Supreme Court which is usually glibly quoted by those discussing the crime.

Interrupting a speech, lecture, or concert, Rothbard argues, is a property rights crime (as are all crimes). The Crime is Contractual Fraud. Those attending the lecture or concert, by purchasing a ticket or merely attending a free lecture, have implicitly agreed to let the concert or lecture take place without interruption. If someone yells, “To Hell with Beethoven” in the concert hall in the middle of a performance of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, or starts heckling a lecturer or politician during a previously scheduled and announced lecture, they have violated the property rights of the ticket holders or attendees, who had the right to the quiet enjoyment of what they paid for when purchasing a ticket, or agreeing to attend the lecture or speech by their presence. The crime of a heckler or demonstrator is contractual fraud against all the attendees, who could reasonably expect to hear the event uninterrupted, the speaker or performer, and against the sponsor or promoter of the event. If the promoter of the event caused the disruption, he would be the criminal in the case. If an attendee causes the disruption, his property crime is against the ticket holders, the performer or speaker, the attendees, and the promoter of the event.

Note that this would not be the case if someone got up on a soapbox in the middle of a public street or a public park. Then there would be no crime in heckling or interrupting him, because no listener had a reasonable expectation of enjoying the speech without interruption, nor were any funds expended to hear the speech.

So the people who are interrupting the Trump rallies are Criminals who are violating the property rights of the attendees, Donald Trump, and anyone else who promoted the event. In my view, their punishment should be a fine equal to the cost of putting on the event, the time spent by the non-heckling attendees at a rate of the current minimum wage in that State times the length of the event, plus the time spent and cost of transportation for all the non-interrupting attendees at the rate of the minimum wage. Trump should sue the protesters for that amount, and the courts would be justified in giving that amount to him and to the non-interrupting attendees.

These protests will merely gather more sympathy and support for Trump and his campaign. The protesters are free to stage their own rallies, and vote for whomever they wish. Those protestors should not violate the property rights of Trump and his attendee supporters by assaulting the attendee’s implicit property rights in their courteous attendance at his rallies.

Note that the same reasoning applies to the Black Lives Matter interruption of Bernie Sanders, when he just folded, let them take over the stage and harangue the crowd, shamefully permitting them to violate the property rights of his attendees at that rally. But Senator Sanders obviously does not understand property rights the way Professor Rothbard did.

So whether you agree or disagree with Donald Trump, protesters should not make him a martyr by interrupting his speeches and aggressing against his property rights. If Americans correctly understood Property Rights Crimes, they would know why interrupting one of his rallies is a Crime.

-Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

Six Political Types Who Should Not Be President

In 1992 the late Senator Eugene McCarthy listed five types of politicians who should not be President. In the light of the current administration and Presidential candidates, it is obvious a sixth type also needs to be shunned.paul 19

The five types of politicians McCarthy listed were governors, generals and admirals, Vice-Presidents, religious ministers and their sons, and the CEOs of major corporations.

Governors, for example, if successful, feel they can run the country. They think, if they’ve balanced the budget, and called out the National Guard to quell the student uprisings, that that qualifies them to balance the Federal budget and control the military-industrial complex, which invariably ends up controlling them.

Generals and Admirals are also on the list. It’s obvious, with the intelligence community and the military running the country, that electing a general or admiral will only be more of the same.

As to why Vice-Presidents should not be President, we only have to look at “potatoe”-head Dan Quayle, and prohibitionist Joseph Biden to see why they shouldn’t be in power.

Ministers and their sons would obviously be a major disaster, given the Jeffersonian battle for separation of church and state, something that still is unaccomplished as we put the Diety’s name on the currency, and dragoon school children into saying “one nation under God”, which is an insult to Pantheists. Imagine John Ashcroft or Mike the Huckster-to-be as President. Heaven forfend!

Lastly on Senator McCarthy’s list we come to the CEO heads of major corporations, those vast socialist behemoths subsidized over and over again by the Federal Government Democrats and Republicans. Fortunately we’ll be spared Carly Fiorina this time round.

In the light of recent history, I would definitely add junior Senators to McCarthy’s list of diseased candidates. The Obama catastrophe for America and the world will hopefully not be repeated in the form of Senator Rubio.

Yes, it’s patently obvious that governors, generals, vice-presidents, ministers and their sons, CEOs of major corporations, and first-term Senators should definitely not be the President of these dis-United States.

— Paul Grad, Libertarian Nominee for Oregon Governor 2014

The Libertarian Party of Oregon Should Nominate Ron Paul for President

When one looks at the horrendous field of candidates being shoved in the face of the American People to serve as their next President, one can only shake ones head and wonder how we came down from Jefferson to this.paul 19

Given the dismal choice, “a choice of cancer or polio” in the words of Sir Mick, and the news today that Donald Trump may go back on his pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee and run as an independent, and given the unique situation of the Libertarian Party of Oregon in relation to the national LP, it seems possible, and actually advisable, for the Libertarian Party of Oregon (LPO) to nominate Ron Paul as their nominee for President of the United States.

Now, there is a long and complex issue between the LPO and the national LP of which the reader might not be aware. In brief, a self-proclaimed rival group calling itself the Libertarian Party of Oregon, with a largely Republican agenda, sought twice to have itself legitimized as the LPO recognized by the Oregon Secretary of State (SOS). After two lengthy legal proceedings and in both cases, the courts ruled in favor of the true LPO, chaired by Wes Wagner, and ruled against the usurpers, led by Richard Burke. The Oregon SOS only recognized and currently recognizes the Wagner faction as the true LPO. The Wagner faction is far more democratic and egalitarian, requiring no dues, and sending ballots to every registered Libertarian in the State. The Burke faction wanted to require dues, and hold a State convention to select candidates.

However, despite the rulings of the Oregon Courts and the Oregon SOS, the national LP Judicial Committee recognized the Burke faction as an affiliate faction, and gave them access to the national convention on an equal footing with the Wagner faction. At the same time, the national LP executive branch continued to recognize the Wagner faction as the legitimate Oregon Party, making for a confusing situation. This is roughly my understanding of the spat between the Oregon LPO and the national LP.

And what this means is that the legitimate Wagner LPO will probably not be attending the national convention because they probably won’t be seated, or will be seated as equals with the Burke faction usurpers.

However, this also means that the LPO has the possibility to choose its own Presidential Nominee, independent of the national party, and would present a situation where a different candidate from the National nominee could be put forth.

Now, after today’s Trump statement that he might run as an Independent, we have the possibility of three major-party candidates running: the Democrat, a non-Trump Republican, and Trump. Given this three-way splitting of the vote, it might be possible for a well-known fourth candidate, with a very radical Libertarian free-market outlook and understanding, to break through and capture the Presidency. And given that the national LP might nominate again Governor Gary Johnson, who failed to ignite much fire in his two previous Presidential campaigns, or the unknown Dr. Mark Feldman, or one of the other unknowns, it seems to me there is a great opportunity for the Libertarian Party of Oregon to make history.

That would be done in a way similar to the Dixiecrat Southern segregationist parties, who ran their own candidates several times in the face of a national candidate who wasn’t racist enough for them.

I would suggest that members of the LPO, upon receiving their nominating ballots, should write in former Congressman and three-time Presidential Candidate Ron Paul for President.

Such an action would bring a ray of hope into a dismal field of candidates that will probably look like: Sanders-or-Clinton, Cruz-or-Rubio, Trump, and Johnson — four candidates splitting the national vote. Under such a fragmentation of the tally, it might be possible for a well-known outside maverick, with a national following that reached over 20% of the vote in several Western States, to gain national media attention by getting on the ballot in just one State, and nominated by a Libertarian Party that was so independent, it was even independent of its national organization (an example of States Rights).

Such an action would not only propel Ron Paul into the national spotlight as an instant candidate, roiling the muddy political waters, but would also propel the Libertarian Party of Oregon into national (and international) prominence as an independent state party, nominating its own candidate, and giving the finger to the national bureaucracy, in classical Libertarian mode.

I realize that many in the Libertarian Party would disagree with many of Ron Paul’s political positions. I do myself. But as far as understanding the economic underpinnings of Capitalism, and its relation to the Jeffersonian Rights adumbrated in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, and as far as understanding Libertarianism, Ron Paul has no equal amongst any politician in America now serving, or serving in the last few decades.

Compared to the garbage being offered the American Public by the major parties, Ron Paul would make a great nominee for President, and a great Libertarian President. I urge all current LPO members to write him in on their nominating ballots, and I urge the Oregon public to register with the Libertarian Party of Oregon, so they can write in Ron Paul.

When it comes to choosing the next President, let Jefferson’s children have a choice, not an echo.

— Paul Grad, LPO Gubernatorial Nominee 2014