Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Trump’s Libel Law Enlargement is Unlibertarian

Without going into the specifics of the President’s desire to “toughen” Libel laws, we should point out that any toughening is a move away from the Libertarian realities of America’s original political philosophy, and a move away from the Bill of Rights.

The reason is that all Libel and Slander Laws are un-Libertarian, as Professor Murray Rothbard pointed out in his discussion of this issue. This is because, to Libertarians, only assaults on people’s property Rights, including their body, can be considered Crimes or Aggression.

Now the key point is that your “reputation”, which is what the plaintiff in a Libel suit is claiming was damaged, is not your personal property. Your reputation is a thought or thought pattern in the mind and brain of another person, and so your reputation is actually their property and not your own. Thus damage to your reputation is brought about in the minds and opinions of others, which is their personal property and not yours, and thus you have no just claim to damages of that reputation. You have no Property Right in your reputation.

Professor Rothbard also pointed out that currently if someone libels or slanders someone, especially someone famous, and they do not respond with a Libel suit, then many people will start to believe the validity of the wild claim. But if Libel and Slander laws were abolished, the public wouldn’t take too seriously the claims of the wild-eyed fanatic who says he has irrefutable proof that the President has sex with goats in the Oval Office closet.

The President doesn’t have to toughen Libel laws to protect himself against the rotten propaganda machine of the media; his supporters in the public can see their incredible animus against the President very clearly.

The President was elected, and has received a bashing like no President ever did in modern history. The Democrats, 95% of the media, and apparently the intelligence community in alliance with many Republicans, all seem to just pummel the man mercilessly, despite the fact that he was elected by the People according to the Constitution. While I don’t agree with many of his positions, I do at least agree with quite a few, and much more some of his rhetoric during the campaign that he seems to be backing off on. But the bottom line is: He wasn’t Mrs. Clinton, and he wasn’t a long-term politician, and he really was just a mescolanza of Democratic and Republican programs based at core on a dollar bill.

So quash the Libel Law legislation, Mr. President. You don’t need it.

—Paul Grad, Vegan Non-Affiliated Libertarian

Trump Should Nominate Ron Paul for Federal Reserve Chairman

President-elect Trump now has the opportunity to change the economic course of Mankind radically for the better, in a way that has never before been possible in Human history. He has merely to nominate Ron Paul for the Chairmanship of the Federal Reserve and with this one action he would inject a dose of pure Capitalism into a sick Socialist world, and inject Austrian School Economics, which really is the only truthful view of economics, into the world discussions on economics.

The reason that Ron Paul is the logical pick is because has been studying Austrian Economics for decades, served on the government’s Gold Commission, and was for many years a friend of Professor Murray Rothbard, the last in the modern Austrian triumvirate of Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard.  Ron Paul clearly understands Austrian Economics, and has written several books on it — the economics of pure Capitalism and also the Economics that naturally comes to all Mankind through his native intelligence and logical thought. Marginal utility theory, for example, should be self-evident to anyone who has ever had a surfeit of something which is valuable to all, and valuable to the individual who owns it, but not in the quantities that he possesses. The corn farmer may be pleased with the fact that he has 100 lbs. of good corn for his own use, but he does not need, and could not use, the next 5,000 bushels of corn he has harvested. Before it rots, he’d rather trade that marginal surplus of corn for cash or other commodities that he needs, like the part for his car without which he would have to hike five miles to town for his other commodities, and carry them on his back.

Austrian Economics reflects the psychology of economic relations between Human Beings which has existed since time immemorial. You might even call it “The Universal Psychology of Human Economic Interactions”. The great delight of the London wealthy in the 1500’s under Elizabeth and Henry Tudor was — shopping, and when the Royal Exchange opened up, with its two floors of kiosks selling every consumer staple, and where the wealthy could walk out of the mud and rain, and keep their shopping more private, those aristocrats and wealthy merchants went wild. Not much different than Black Friday in its psychology, with nowadays consumers clamoring for iphones and xboxes instead of wigs, gloves, and shoes. The economic psychology of the Human Being is universal for both time and place, and cuts across all cultures and ethnic groups, positing another refutation of racist theory.

With this one action of nominating Ron Paul, President Trump can double the impact of this revolutionary turn of government which the voters have initiated, if indeed it turns out to be revolutionary. We remain skeptical, but we would believe far more that a revolutionary or radical change has been brought into office with the election of Trump if he were to put the icing on the cake by nominating Ron Paul. This would clearly indicate Trump’s bona fides far more than his words.

I would urge my readers to contact the President-elect and urge him to nominate Ron Paul for Fed Chief, which would go much farther in restoring the Republic than even the election of Mr. Trump may do. America needs to have intelligent Libertarians at the head of the Fed, instead of confused Keynesians, whose economic theories have failed again and again.

Ron Paul for Fed Chief!

—Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

Trump’s Election: America Escapes the Guillotine

Whew! that was a close one. Jefferson just managed to avoid a haircut from Madame Guillotine, America still has its Republic, and Madame Robespierre is in retirement for good.

And thank goodness for the Electoral College!

Not that this is manna from heaven, or even the start of something positive, but it is at least a possible ending to the Corporatist Fascism that Clinton, Obama, and the Democrats have been pushing on the country for eight years. I wouldn’t hold out great hope for Trump to avoid this style of Corporatism that was so championed by Mussolini (which is why we accurately label it Fascism). That is still to be seen in the future. I think the chances are 30% that Trump will be a huge change in government function, along the lines of reform that Ron Paul has long called for, and a 70% that his administration will be a lukewarm form of Bush-ism, with some minor or major changes.

But the important point about the election was that it was not Clinton who got elected — the candidate who had been pushed by the Party, the media, and the Liberals who conveniently overlooked the entire Fascist stink of her activities with Islamo-Fascist countries in the Middle East, as well as the piles and piles of other conflicts of interest, and her enabling of Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual predatoriness. The fact that Democrats ignored all that, along with their ignoring of Obama’s Fascist proposals, like Indefinite Detention without Trial, and the TSA nude photographing of all our citizens, along with the Obamacare forcing of people to do business with private corporations — all these show how rotten and corrupt are the Liberal Democrats of the Democratic Party.

If America had elected someone as corrupt as Clinton, almost in the style of the old Latin American Dictators, then it would have been a very sad commentary on the level of Libertarian understanding of the American People. The fact that they rejected both her and all the propaganda flak that was thrown up by her surrogates to shoot down the Trump plane shows that the American Public was much smarter than the media and the Party Politicians thought. They couldn’t fool all the people all of the time.

The Liberals are crying because we may have avoided a nuclear war with Russia. They are crying because they may not get their destruction of Israel by an Iranian nuclear weapon in the hands of a fanatical Theocracy, and they are crying because the people have rejected the call to sell their fellow citizens into poverty through forcing them to pay Obamacare premiums to corporations.

The People grew sick of the inflation and poverty through which the Democrats were destroying the Middle Class, and entrenching the Lower Class into a poverty they will never get out of, no matter how many jobs they work.

And the People saw how bigoted and biased were the mainstream media, as unified and uncritical in their comments as was Pravda and the “free press” of the Soviet Union. They saw how the polls were designed to depress them, and keep turnout down for Trump. And they chose to give the finger to those mainstream media, and listen to the alternative media who were exactly correct. The only polls to get it right or close were Investors Business Daily, the LA Times/USC, and Rasmussen Reports. All the Liberal media were way wrong in their polls, and dead sure they were right. Go back and watch Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report on the PBS Newshour to see how certain all the “experts” were that Hillary Clinton was just going to waltz into office. Or watch the constant PBS Trump-bashing sessions of Mark Shields and David Brooks. Or the constant bringing on of New York Times and Washington Post reporters, posing as experts, to brainwash the public into their government-directed opinions. PBS Newshour was disgraceful in the slanted way it constantly attacked and focused on Trump, showing why government-funded news stations, like PBS or the BBC, should never be tolerated by the public. They can never be objective. They are worthless.

Let us hope that Donald Trump will goad government more in the direction of Ron Paul than any President in recent memory. While it is unlikely, it seems like it just might be possible under an unpredictable Capitalist like Donald Trump.

—Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

Trump’s Term Limit Proposal Would Have Shut Up Ron Paul

Today, in Gettysburg, Donald Trump proposed term limits on Congressmen. This anti-democratic proposal, which denies to voters the right to choose whomever they want for Congressmen in the House of Representatives, is obviously an anti-Libertarian proposal, although many so-called Libertarians seem to advocate it.paul 19

Term limits clearly violate the Right to choose our Congressmen. But more damningly, term limits mean that if any very effective or wildly popular Libertarian Congressman were to arise, they’d quickly be thrown out of the political arena, probably to be replaced by one of the hundreds of mediocre bipartisan Congressmen who infest the halls of Congress.

A clear example of the damage that could be done by Congressional Term Limits is that of Congressman Ron Paul, who served 12 terms in the House of Representatives, where his Libertarian voice was heard for many years speaking sanely on many of the important political issues of those times. Term limits, such as Trump is proposing, would have gagged Ron Paul, and had a severely deleterious influence on the propagation of Libertarian-Jeffersonian principles of government to the People. Ron Paul is a clear example of that rare Congressman whose ideas have an influence far beyond that on their local electors. In Dr. Paul’s case, his experience in Congress was a springboard for his three Presidential runs, which inserted Libertarian ideas and arguments into the American body politic in a way that no Congressman limited to two terms could have ever done. Indeed, Dr. Paul is still regularly sought out on major media sites for his opinions, as anyone searching his name on Youtube will see instantly. This very original and iconoclastic thinker would have been shut up if Donald Trump’s term limit proposal were the law of the land.

Ironically, Ron Paul has also advocated for Congressional term limits. Apparently he himself does not see the danger such an anti-democratic proposal would have on the Republic.

In my view, there should not be term limits on any elected political offices in America, save for the Presidency. And the Presidency is too powerful an office not to apply a term limit to. Unfortunately it seems that Presidential term limits have been overridden by Presidents having their children or spouses run for office, creating family dynasties which Jefferson railed against when he spoke about the landed gentry ruling the country through dynasties (and restricting voting to only those who had a large amount of property). America has had the Bush dynasty, and now, tragically, we may have a Clinton dynasty, Heaven forfend, or, if Trump  is elected, a future Trump dynasty. The idea that only certain families are competent to serve in the White House should be voted against, and this is a very strong argument for voting against Hillary Clinton, just as it would have been if Jeb Bush had been nominated.

If a majority of voters in a Congressional district vote to elect the same person over and over, that is their Inalienable Right. The solution of term limits, because almost all the members of the House of Representatives as mediocre bipartisans, should not be resorted to out of practicality because it precludes the possibility that some really radical, revolutionary Congressman like Ron Paul could ever have a huge impact on national political thought, while at the same time it violates the Right of the voters to choose whomever they please.

So, as Libertarians, let us vigorously oppose term limits for Congressmen, but retain them for the Presidency.

— Paul Grad, 2014 Libertarian Party of Oregon Nominee for Governor

Trump vs. Clinton: The Capitalist vs. The Corporate Socialist

Though I originally planned to vote for Gary Johnson, and said I wouldn’t vote for Trump, I’ve come to the conclusion that a vote for Trump is an existential necessity, given the war-mongering  Corporate Socialist Clinton, and the way her brand of Fascism is destroying the country.

paul 19If you wanted one good reason to vote for Trump over Clinton, it would be the avoidance of nuclear war with Russia, and the probable tearing up of the Iran Deal, a deal which guarantees a nuclear weapon within a few years to a war-mongering, belligerent Theocracy. It’s basically a choice of Peace over War, and War is the great enemy of Free-Market Capitalism.

But beyond those reasons, we are really being given a choice between a Capitalist and a Corporate Socialist, who embraces all the free perks that Socialism can send her way, a choice between a man who has made his own money in a heavily socialist society, and a woman who has made her money by kowtowing to the largest corporate interests in America, and the most despotic Christian-hating, Jew-hating, woman-oppressing, totalitarian regimes in the Middle East.

I thought, about five years back, after rooting for Ron Paul, and seeing his campaign run up against the Republican establishment, that the only hope for America was an independent billionaire, who did not have to spend his time fundraising, or pleasing the main elements in his party, but who could speak his mind and finance his own campaign. That billionaire turns out to be Donald Trump.

The “campaign finance reform” laws have made it virtually impossible for anyone in America to get elected to office unless they are an independent billionaire, or able to raise millions of individual donations. Since donations to political candidates are now limited to $2,700, it would have been virtually impossible for me to raise enough money to run an effective campaign when I was the Libertarian Nominee for Oregon Governor in 2014. If a millionaire, or a billionaire had wanted to give me a million dollars for my campaign, it would have been “illegal”, a clear violation of the Right to do what you want with your money as long as it doesn’t violate the Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle. The Democrats and do-gooders, in their unthinking rush to do something sounding good like keeping “big money” out of politics, have virtually guaranteed that no poor person could ever attain major political office, and that those that can will always be the willing stooges of the two major parties. The fact that so-called “campaign finance reform” violates the Right to use your money to pursue your happiness (by donating it to a worthy, revolutionary candidate) is quickly thrown under the bus.

We should be grateful to Donald Trump for destroying the pathetic Republican Party, and for wiping out all the candidates in that Party who were ready to go fisticuffs with the Russians, with the exception of Senator Rand Paul. Good riddance to that bunch of nothings.

There are other virtues to the Trump candidacy. Here is an amazingly energetic man at 70, who can hold two or three campaign rallies in a day. Trump is also very bright (he graduated at the top of his class at Wharton), and you will notice that he never flubs a line in his speeches, or uses vocal “ahh, umm” pauses like the President does. Unlike Jill Stein, he doesn’t have to say “you know” seven times in every sentence. Moreover, to run a huge business, and make constant decisions that cost millions of dollars, require a brain that can function efficiently and rationally. Apparently Trump has such a brain, and that’s the kind of brain you’d want in a President.

Additionally, you have to admire the fact that Trump has never used a drug, not even caffeine, although one should keep in mind Norman Mailer’s observation that small town wisdom distrusts the man who never takes a drink or who has never been drunk because they know that “devils are inside in that man, waiting to bust out”. That certainly seems the case with Trump, when he lets his mouth run ahead of his mind. And though he doesn’t use drugs, it is obvious that he uses food as a substitute.

Now, there are many things I don’t like about Trump’s platform and manner. His bashing of Mexicans, where he actually called them rapists if you listen closely to the speech, and his juvenile making-fun of a severely disabled reporter, are disgusting. His plan to build a fence along the Mexican border (although he makes no mention of the Canadian border, where many Middle Eastern refugees and immigrants have settled) seems unrealistic. His Tariff policy is certainly anti-Capitalist and shows he hasn’t read or understood Professor Murray Rothbard, since the money saved on cheaper, tariff-free foreign-made goods ends up in the bank balances of US Citizens, which strengthens the country more than foreign tariffs on US-made goods hurt it. Still, he has a point that foreign tariffs hurt our trade deficit, and he’s probably right that foreign countries will have to lower or end their anti-Capitalist tariffs if he threatens them with retaliatory tariffs. His absurd notion that our military is falling apart, and we need to beef-up our conventional weapons, must have the arms manufacturers salivating. He seems to have forgotten our fleet of nuclear weapons.

But you can’t have it all in one candidate (except for me — go read my platform).

But at a more fundamental level, a vote for Trump is a vote for Capitalism over and against the Corporate Socialism of Clinton (which is actually Fascism if you read its founder Mussolini’s definition of it). And Free-Market Capitalism is an essential element of Classical Liberalism, the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the Libertarians. While there has never been a purely Capitalist society, except among so-called primitive tribes who use shells or cattle as currency to trade with other tribes, and never a society that has existed with the amazing modern technology, which has the capacity to end human drudgery, it is also true that the most Capitalistic, Free-Market societies like the old U.S., Great Britain, and the Netherlands, have been the freest and most tolerant societies in history. Capitalism promotes human dignity and economic prosperity; Socialism always destroys it, as it is destroying modern America. Under Capitalism, the Consumer is King and votes in the market place with his money; under Socialism, the central planner, politician or Fuhrer is king. In that sense Capitalism is democratic and Socialism is authoritarian. Every Socialist society that has existed has economically and socially fallen apart, as currently the US and Europe are falling apart.

Finally, let me add that voting for Gary Johnson is not going to prevent a nuclear war with the Russkies, and many of Johnson’s policies, like mandatory vaccinations and his support of the TPP, are anti-Libertarian. He also has virtually no charisma, which is important in a political candidate. The last straw for me was when he called Clinton a “dedicated public servant” which is unbelievable coming from a candidate who purports to be a Libertarian, and in light of Clinton’s behavior. Where were all the trenchant criticisms of the Democrats, and their whole corrupt system, that used to come from the lips of Ron Paul?

So whether its with enthusiasm, or by default, the causes of World Peace and Capitalism necessitate a vote for Donald Trump for President.

— Paul Grad, Libertarian Nominee for Oregon Governor in 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

Ron Paul and Donald Trump Destroy the Republican Party

paul 19Ron Paul and Donald Trump have destroyed the Republican Party — and good riddance to it.

Ron Paul really laid the groundwork for this overthrow of the GOP with his revolutionary ideas about government, harking back to the Jeffersonian tradition, and its logical economic sequitor, the Austrian School of Economics (i.e. pure free-market capitalism). The 20%plus he was getting in the early 2008 campaign showed that a considerable tranche of the Republicans and Libertarians were fed up with the constant collectivist actions of the mainstream Republicans. The recent budget giveaway under Paul Ryan shows that the Republican Party has not changed, and is still the right wing of the Democratic Party.

So Ron Paul laid and wired the dynamite to blow-up the stinking edifice. All Trump did was press the detonator.

Ron Paul’s gentle, gentlemanly approach to his campaigns was not the vehicle that an angry public could drive off the ranch of Fascism. It would take another eight years of poverty, inflation, social degeneration in American society, soaring crime, and Obamacare taking the last discretionary dollars every month from millions of middle-class Americans, to push enough millions over the cliff that they would turn to a brusque, direct-speaking, abrasive Donald Trump. No matter that he has proposed horrendous socialist programs in the past like single-payer government medical insurance, and supported the income tax, Trump’s new supporters don’t care, because he is advocating 60% of the positions that Ron Paul articulated. Trump has formed a new party that grabs favorite positions from the left (affirmative action and single-payer medical) and the right (huge military increases while somehow cutting income taxes on everybody while somehow dealing with the deficit). Ron Paul’s Austrian Economics proposals make logical and obvious sense; Donald Trump’s don’t. But that will not stop Trump’s supporters from voting for him.

However, there is another reason why Trump may well win, and that is his conciliatory attitude, at least recently, towards Putin and Russia. With the sole exceptions of Rand Paul, Trump, and Sanders, all the other candidates are ready to go fisticuffs with the Rooskies, which is a near sure prescription for World War III. Ironically, it will be Trump’s peace LBJ vs. Clinton’s warmonger Goldwater (and recall she was a Goldwater Girl at the 1964 Republican Convention).

Personally, I could not and would not vote for Trump, based not only on his stereotyping Mexicans, and ridiculing disabled people, but also based on his ridiculous economic proposals (eliminate the deficit while greatly expanding the military, and cutting taxes on almost everybody and huge corporations). His proposals to “bring jobs home” would be highly inflationary for hundreds of millions of American consumers, while just helping a few thousand workers and stockholders in those companies. Trump doesn’t seem to grasp the economic principle that what is best for America is to have the highest cash balances possible in the savings accounts of consumers, and when he slaps huge tariffs on foreign goods, he helps impoverish those consumers while subsidizing American stock holders in the protected companies, and the Federal spendthrifts. That said, it probably would help the U.S. trade deficit slightly.

However, if Trump ran against Clinton, while I would not vote for him, and vote Libertarian if they ran somebody decent, or write in someone, I would be routing for Trump to beat Clinton, not only because of Clinton’s warmongering with Russia, but also for her support for the terrorism-promoting Iran Deal, and her long history of political actions and proposals (remember when she proposed lowering the estate tax to $250k). We definitely do not need “dynasties” in American politics, and the history of the Kennedys, the Bushes, and the Clintons illustrate why. Family dynasties ruling America smacks of Monarchy. The idea that only a relative or spouse of a powerful politician is competent to take over governance is an insult to a country of 310 million people, and an affront to Jeffersonian Republicanism.

The dissolution of a political party by one candidate, Trump, was foreshadowed earlier this year by an event which I have seen no American commentators mention. That event was the U.K. General Election of 2015, which saw the Labour and Conservative Parties wiped out in Scotland by the SNP (Scottish National Party), and saw UKIP, the UK Independent Party, gain almost 13% of the vote, though they garnered only one seat in Parliament. This broke a stranglehold on British politics by the Tories and Labour that has existed since 1900. Prior to 2015, people didn’t vote for candidates, they voted for party manifestos. But those days are thankfully gone. Masses of people, on both sides of the Pond, are starting to see that the economic policies of the Left consistently fail, and that the Right is not so far from the Left in its collectivist thinking.

The Democratic and Republican Parties, the Conservative and Labour Parties — these are the megatheria of the past, dinosaurs sinking into the La Brea Tarpits of History. In a decade they will be extinct, or starved and voted into marginality. So, whatever you may think of them, we owe a debt to Ron Paul and Trump for blowing up the Republican Party — that putrid and mephitic edifice of Collectivism and Fascism, masquerading as Free-Market Capitalism. The Western world’s politics will never be the same again.

-Paul Grad, Libertarian Party of Oregon Gubernatorial Nominee 2014

America’s Five Political Parties, and the Need of a Sixth

Watching the amazing and beautiful disintegration of America’s major political parties, and experiencing the ecstatic shadenfreude of seeing major politicians being rhetorically ripped apart and sinking in the polls, it struck this writer that America now has five, distinct, political parties, and that, over the last month, alignments have changed drastically in the American Political Colosseum.paul 19

The first thing to occur was the Republican Party handing the election back to the Democrats by having Trump deliver his xenophobic and racist remarks, in my opinion, on Mexicans. You can only imagine the Furore, and the tsunami of justified abuse he would have received if he had substituted for “Mexicans” the words “Blacks, Jews, Asians, Muslims, American Indians, paraplegics”, etc. The other Republican politician’s tepid, feckless criticisms on this Outrage will have cost the Party the Latino vote, I’d guess, as well as a major tranche of voters who share the general repugnance with racism in America, one of the few healthy signs in this society.

But for the Democrats, as in a chess game where two supposed masters continually leave their pieces en pris, no sooner has a week of sure-victory for them gone by, when Obama hands the election right back to the Republicans with his Iran “deal”. Only this dope deal went sour for the Democrats, even if it passes Congress. The Democrats have permanently lost the Jewish-American vote, which was the margin for victory for Obama in the last two elections, the Bible-belt Evangelical vote, and any Independents who like the Republican’s drum-rolling on the military, or who fear terrorism. Add to this the rise of the lovable Socialist, Senator Sanders, who is so bright he comes out for a “deal” guaranteeing nuclear proliferation. He seems to have forgotten the words and the work of that great Civil Rights Libertarian Socialist (yes, there are such creatures), Lord Bertrand Russell, who fought so valiantly to “ban the bomb”.

Indeed, it is now President Obama vs. Lord Russell, and I’ll take the Genius any day.

So, within a fortnight,  the Republicans throw the medicine ball of electoral victory to the Democrats, and the Democrats throw it right back.

That said, we can now commence to discern five major parties in America. These being:

The Democrats-Conventional. The tired old wing of the Democratic Party, as tired as the bags on Ms. Rodham’s face. Her conventional politics, her aversion to debate and be cross-examined, and now her support of the horrendous Iran “deal”, have killed her chances for any national consensus of support. An old hag hazbin.

The Sanders Socialists. A new wave of the tired Old Left laps its putrid waters against the bonnie, bonnie banks of the Love Canal of American Politics. Outside of a few enclaves of Leftism on the West Coast, some of the University towns, and New York, there’s probably very few Leftists left in America who would be moved to tears by hearing the Internationale, or who chirp “Hail Moscow” as they down their Coors. One reason I ran as a pro-Free Marketeer was that I felt that was the core philosophy of America, and had been for a couple of hundred years, and any politician or reformer who wanted to get anything done would have to genuinely share that philosophy, which I do. And, currently, the only Party extant that is truly for the Radical Free-Market is the Libertarian Party, so I ran as a Libertarian with environmental and animal welfare planks appended to the standard Libertarian positions on economic issues.

Additionally, I’d bet dollars to drachmas that the Green Parties, like the Pacific Greens, will probably endorse Sanders. He shares their Socialist views, and perhaps some of their environmental concerns.

Sanders and his socialists will never go anywhere, until their philosophy of looting those who save and invest becomes dominant in America, which it might do when hyperinflation finally hits. Until then, their State-coercion schemes will only make conditions worse, and be laughed at outside of Portland, Seattle, and the SF Bay. But he should do well in Oregon.

Moving from the Democrats to the Republicans, we can now discern two, or even three, distinct parties forming.

First the Trump slap-in-the-face Party. While I find his attacks on Mexicans so repugnant that I could never vote for, endorse, or praise this candidate, I can see why perhaps 20% of the country would like him. The Establishment of both parties are so cowardly and fawning in their sycophantic courting of the public that one feel nausea when they appear on the screen, and Trump’s attacks exploit that discomfiture. I think Ron Paul’s analysis of his character, and his opinion that he was “dangerous”, were fairly accurate.

America’s fourth political Party is the Republican-Conventional Party. This consists of that sorry sad-sack bunch of losers we saw at the Republican “debate” the other night, excluding Trump.

‘Twere obvious from the respectful way they addressed the Nation, that not one of them had ever committed a sin; a sterling group. They’re as irrelevant as Ms. Rodham, but one of them might win, heaven forfend!

The fifth Party in America are the Libertarians, who used to garner 1-2% consistently, but have now scored 8-10% in some States. Their philosophy is based on minimal (or no) government whose sole function is the defense of “personal property rights including your body”, and on the protection of the Individual against Rogue Government (the Bill of Rights), while forbidding aggression against anyone else’s Property Rights. Having run as a Libertarian, read widely on the Philosophy, and being familiar with its major tenents, I can enthusiastically endorse it as the correct Political Philosophy for all mankind, at all times on Earth.

However, on a pragmatic level, I feel the Libertarian’s do not exploit the validity of their Philosophy to its fullness. For example, they seem much more concerned with some minor gun restrictions, like background checks, than they do with major thefts of their wealthy, like the income tax, estate tax, and compulsory social security deductions. I’m the only campaigning Libertarian I ever heard bring up the topic of Jury Duty Slavery, or its violation of the 14th Amendment. And I was rather put off by their failing, in many cases, to understand that second-hand tobacco smoke is a serious assault on our Individual Property Right in our Persons, or than noise pollution from non-survival activities, like boom boxes, is a similar assault. Pitbulls running off-leash in public is a reckless endangerment issue, like drunk driving, but that also didn’t seem to be important to them. And there seemed a great lack of Environmental concerns among many, as Mankind destroys Life on Earth, although about 40% of the Party voting in the Oregon party primary wanted a ban on GMO-crops, which usually indicates a high level of Environmental awareness. But West Coast Libertarians probably differ from the National norm.

So those are the Five Current Political Parties: The Democrats-Main, the Democrats-Socialist, The Republicans-Main, The Trump Republicans or 3rd Party, and the Libertarians. And, outside of these delineations, are also a massive number of “Independents” who could flock to any of these parties.

In my next post, I will give my views on the necessity of a new, major political party in America, and what it’s general platform should be.

-Paul Grad, Vegan Libertarian, 2014 Libertarian Party of Oregon Nominee for Governor