Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Tom McClintock fails to endorse Ron Paul

Having first ingested copious amounts of boggle gum, a strain as sticky as it sounds, I discovered from a confidential source that Congressman Tom McClintock held a town-hall meeting tonight. My source attended and reports that the atmosphere was confused and muddled, though he was clear-headed himself.

Angry over massive debt, the strangling tentacles of federal control and the debasement of their dollars, the public was lucid enough to strongly applaud one local who suggested the Department of Education should be scrapped. McClintock soundly endorsed this idea, agreeing that control of education should revert not just to the states but to local districts. That remark drew applause, though no one clapped when he responded to a question about his favorite presidential candidate by waxing lyrical about Chris Christie. This was not officially an endorsement, as McClintock deftly avoided commitment by noting: "The candidates who are running 17 months before the election are often not those who will be running 17 days before the election."

These United States desperately need a man who can teach the nation how to live through thin times. Chris Christie may have the bellicosity of a New Jersey bull and may deserve some credit for his refusal to go quietly into the good night, yet it seems to me that a gentleman who has mastered the art of blunt graciousness might be a superior choice. Apparently someone at the event had some sense as one man asked: "Chris Christie is not yet a declared candidate, as you said, but there is one candidate who is actually running who has been warning for decades about the debt, the coming collapse of the dollar and America's over-expansion overseas, so will you consider endorsing Congressman Ron Paul for president in 2012?"

McClintock acknowledged that Ron Paul is a worthy man for whom he holds affection, saying: "I have lunch with him weekly in his office and he is high on the list of candidates I am considering. I supported Fred Thompson in 2008, but he was not running by the time of the California primaries, so I voted for Ron Paul."

What is left to consider? Ron Paul is the most consistent person in the American Congress. He's proclaimed the exact same ideology of liberty for over 30 years. His book, Liberty Defined, paints a stark picture of what that ideology really means as it explicitly answers for liberty on 50 major issues. Whatever issues he might not have mentioned would be given an identical answer, as summed up in the introduction to his book: "Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others." Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes this. Either you agree with him or you don't, McClintock.

Several people also complained about the weakness of the dollar, with one man noting that the Canadian dollar was "doing well," which he attributed to the Canadian government's supposed policy of tax and spend. Of course, since all national currencies are issued by fiat and their values measured against each other rather than an objective standard, the weakness of one in no way indicates the strength of another. Anyways, McClintock refuted this idea, pointing out that Canada is actually taking a hard fiscal right. In fact, as reported by Business Week on May 3:
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper won a majority of seats in Parliament for the first time, giving his Conservative Party a mandate to bolster the economic recovery with additional tax cuts and erase the country’s deficit with curbs on government spending…. Canada reduced the federal rate by 1.5 percentage points to 16.5 percent on Jan. 1, and it will fall to 15 percent in 2012 under legislation passed in 2007.
People at the town-hall event were obviously ready for change, though they were puzzled as to what form that change must take. While appearing to largely concede the need for austerity measures and a return to decentralized, local control, they lacked a comprehensive ideology of liberty. More than that, they lacked a leader who can firmly and unfailingly preach the truth of freedom through peace and love. McClintock is fond of quoting the founders and shows flashes of a deeper understanding of liberty. So far, however, he inexplicably fails to support the one man who knows how to cinch the belt tight so that we might live. Chris Christie envisions a stream-lined government reduced for the sake of efficiency, yet  Ron Paul grasps that the real problem is not lack of efficiency but rather a dire threat to our basic human rights.

At its core, the real danger of an unrestrained state is not that it believes 1 dollar plus 1 more dollar equals 10 dollars available to expend but rather that oligarchs in Washington think they can plan the futures of 300 million people. The total violation of individual sovereignty which has occurred is not surprising considering the central government has reconciled itself to the moral obscenity of imperialism. Such an ideology can only be spread through bloodshed, will invariably infect even its most liberty-minded advocate and will inevitably cause a police state in the empire's home country.

Clearly, McClintock does not fully comprehend this. He ended the town-hall with a jingoistic quote from that great American dictator, Abraham Lincoln, about the staggering power and wisdom of the American people, but neglected to clarify that Lincoln voiced his view long before government school became mind control, a reality which severely impairs the ability of Americans to think independently. Regardless, if there is a single comment from the man whose hands are stained with the blood of hundreds of thousands that deserves repetition, it is one Lincoln made in defense of self-determination when he rose in opposition to the Mexican-American War. On January 21, 1848, during a speech in the U.S. House of Representatives which was boldly titled "Arraignment of President Polk for War Against Mexico," he stated:
Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with or near about them, who may oppose this movement. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.