Robert Ringer is the best-selling author of "Looking out for No. 1," and "Restoring the American Dream," both libertarian classics that espoused individualist values. He was also a regular on the Libertarian Party convention circuit throughout the late 1970s and '80s. Today he is a syndicated columnist and writes for World Net Daily. His regular column: "A Voice of Sanity."
In his Christmas Day column Ringer asks, "Can America be Saved?" Excerpt from WND:
America will go through a fundamental change in 2010 – guaranteed. Either it will be fundamentally transformed into a full-fledged socialist police state, then, ultimately, a communist police state, or those who still believe in freedom will do whatever it takes to overthrow the oligarchy that now rules over usRinger goes on to warn that the only way that America can be saved from Obama's "fundamental transformation," is if "Conservative Republicans sweep into power [in 2010]."
But, as I have so often pointed out, the caveat is that the fascist president and Congress may very well find a Chavezian reason to declare a state of emergency and "postpone" the 2012 presidential election. Regardless of whether that emergency is a total collapse of the U.S. economy or a terrorist attack, don't be fooled. If it happens, it will be a planned event by those who are now in power.
Via health care, cap and trade and other wildly unconstitutional measures, BHO and the criminal Congress will assure that the economy is many times worse off by next November's elections than it is now. The objective, of course, is to bring people to their knees so they will have "no other choice" but to look to benevolent government for help.
41 Bloviations:
What are you talking about? Every "real" libertarian knows we already live in a fascist police state. That's why its a waste of time to support Brakabama's opposition... because they are identical to him. In fact, all real libertarians know that following politics at all is a waste of time because every candidate with a chance in hell of winning a federal race for anything is perfectly identical to every other serious contender.
Might as well just watch wrestling instead.
Smart folks those "real" libertarians.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with watching wrestling.
Chuck. Don't give up hope. The fact that this country happened at all is a miracle. If this miracle happened once, then it follows it can happen again. I'm not saying I think the odds are good; at this point, I'm just saying they're above zero.
Don't think for a second, that Texas is going to allow this country to seek into a Fascist Police State.
All 49 other states could go in that direction, and Texas alone would fight back.
Something tells me we'd have the Okies, and some crazy-ass gun totin' Arizonans by our side, with a great many liberty outposts scatterd in the Prairie States and Rocky Mtn. West.
Eric, this is how things willl look in couple decades:
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/2124181-as-if-things-werent-bad-enough-russian-professor-predicts-end-of-us/image/25993939
I have suggested some of this already. FDR was a muchhausen by proxy president, and Obama learned that much from him: Make it look like you are doing your best to save the country, but make sure it never gets better. It's being in permanent rescue mode. FDR did it to maintain power, and the evidence suggests I am right: He was elected to 4 terms. I don't believe he has enough time to do something convincing by 2010, but I could be wrong. Even so, will the GOP take back the house and senate next year? That is our only hope.
What FDR didn't have against him was the speed, depth and amount of information that gets out to the public now. Obama will have a tough time pulling any stunts as their would be much more opposition now than when FDR was president. It would be my hope that some states would stand up to him, and people as well. Will it get to that? THat's up to Obama and what he does.
Think of it like this: Obama is a nerd (and I mean nerd, not geek, geeks get things done) and never had much personal power by himself to accomplish much of anything. It is when he married his ideas and persona with the Chicago machine that things got cooking. Emmanuel and Axelrod are the henchman behind the face. It's Ironic that it would be two Jews to be the progenitors of something like this.
Robert Ringer was probably the first libertarian who in my mind possessed good ol' common sense in a post 9/11 world. One good thing about the internet is that if you can't find anyone in your own community who shares your ideas, there are folks throughout the rest of the world who do. This phrase from Ringer is what kept me from being a full blown conservative after evil unleashed itself on our nation on September 11th, 2001: "Practical conservative-theoretical libertarian."
This from Ringer: "Where I believe theoretical libertarianism fails the real-world test is in coming to grips with the dangers posed by uncivilized people in every country of the world, and, in particular, uncivilized people who are in positions of absolute power. Because libertarians believe that there is only one true law-the natural law against aggression-a purist libertarian would wait until a crazed fanatic detonated a nuclear weapon in midtown Manhattan before taking action."
Ringer also had this to say: "Theoretical libertarianism relies on the voluntary goodwill of everyone. As a result, purist libertarianism is impractical in a world gone mad. Clearly, it needs a strong partner to help it enforce freedom.
Enter practical conservatism. My definition of practical conservatism is an ideology that believes in adherence to the tenets of pure libertarianism to the fullest practical extent, but also believes in the use of force, when and where it is absolutely necessary, to protect not only the lives and property of citizens, but to maintain society's generally accepted code of conduct."
Later, I discovered the Neolibertarians, Libertarian Republican blog, and Libertarian Defense Caucus which gave me a home with like-minded people.
Merry Christmas,
Will
I would also call you a classical liberal, like TJ and others like him of that era. Being too ideologically pure leads to some negative things: Inaction and death. It also means that others will not take you seriously, as they do anyone that is inflexible, unless we are talking about a cult, but then only true believers would follow. It's not a good idea to become a human maginot line.
We have two parties in America:
1) Right-wing Socialists (Mussolini style)
2) Left-wing Socialists (Lenin style)
Slice by slice our freedoms are being taken away by each side "for our own good." Obamacare, face recognition technology on public streets, No Child Left Behind, no knock warrants, cavity searches at airports. The list of 1984 Big Brother programs from both sides is endless.
But if you dare vote for the Libertarian Party the GOP labels you as "crazy" for taking away their votes. As if they are ENTITLED to your vote instead of having to EARN it.
Screw the Republicrats.
Eric forgot this part of the article because it does not fit in with his fantasy version of the GOP:
****"If the Republicans, after winning back the House and Senate – or even coming close – continue to act like a branch of the Demopublican Party and ignore the Constitution, it most likely will bring into existence a third party (How about the Tea Party?) that would be the first such animal of the modern era that would have a legitimate shot at of winning the presidency in 2012."****
It would be nice to have the GOP control the House in order to hamstring Obama. But I have no illusions that the GOP believes in anything like Classical Liberalism Freedom.
Will, you don't know much that all means to me. Thank you for that.
Considering I founded the Republican Liberty Caucus, Libertarian Republican blog, and the modern incarnation of the Libertarian Defense Caucus.
Let's hope I don't get hit by a bus walking across the street in downtown Houston. It could be an utter disaster for the entire Pro-Defense Libertarian community.
So Bart, am I to assume then you're calling Republicans like Jeff Flake, Tom McClintock, Ron Paul, Tom Coburn, and Jim DeMint "rightwing socialists"?
Which one of the five is "Mussolini-like"?
I really hope Tom Knapp is listening in on this thread. I would absolutely love him to see Will's comment on how Eric Dondero and the Pro-Defense LDC, RLC, and LR saved him from being a Conservative.
Knapp, see that??? Will would have turned Conservative if we Pro-Defense Libertarians hadn't existed.
You still wanna say that Pro-Defense Libertarians are harmful to the Libertarian movement???
How many others out there are just like Will?
Eric,
No, I don't think that we pro-defense libertarians are harmful to the libertarian movement. I've never thought we are.
You pro-aggression "libertarians," on the other hand, are very harmful to it.
Ringer gives himself away when he asserts that "[t]heoretical libertarianism relies on the voluntary goodwill of everyone."
In point of fact, theoretical libertarianism is the same as practical libertarianism, and both assert that the stump-stupidest thing in the world is to give "uncivilized people in every country of the world" (including Washington, DC) "positions of absolute power."
Ringer's about 70 years late to the party -- we've lived under one of the softer variants of fascism (actually, managerialism), screwing down on us a little at a time, since the 1930s. Obama's administration is (as McCain's would have been) a continuation of the trend, not a turning point.
Eric you are much, much more of a "Conservative" than a Classical Liberal believer in Freedom.
Rank and file Republicans in Congress eagerly backed Bush in:
----His Federal funding of Faith-Based organizations with tax dollars from all citizens.
----His No Child Left Behind Act which tossed in the camp fire the 10th Amendment (Remember the Bill of Rights?)
----He expanded Federal spending by 70%.
----His Medicare Act of 2003 which massively expanded spending, subsidized pharmaceutical corporations, and prohibited the Federal government from negotiating discounts with drug companies.
The Liberal Republican Party went on an orgy of spending and government expansion that would have shocked FDR.
But Tom, you are in fact a Pro-Surrender Libertarian. There's no Pro-Defense about you. I've never head a plan from you as to how you would fight Islamo-Fascism?
Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Fine. So then, we fight them on the border in between Brownsville and Matamoros, Nuevo Laredo and Laredo, El Paso and Juarez, Tucson and Nogales, and San Diego and Tijuana. Not to mention the other side, Windsor and Detroit.
Is that your big plan for fighting Radical Islam?
Yeah Bart, I'm a "Conservative" alright:
Legalize Drugs
Pro-Choice
Pro-Prostitution
Pro-Gambling
Pro-Swingers
Pro-Repeal of Seat Belt laws
Anti-Smoking Bans
Pro-Abolishing the IRS
Yupper, just call me a "Conservative," alright.
Hey Bart, does that "orgy of government spending," by Bush and Republicans include his proposals in 2005 to completely privatize Social Security?
If Bush was such a "Big Spender," as you propose, than why is it that then Baltimore Mayor, now Maryland Governor Martin O'Mally said the following:
"George Bush is cutting so much spending to state and local governments, he's like a 9/11 Terrorist..."
That's right Bart, a Democrat scumbag Mayor, now Governor, compared Bush to a "9/11 Terrorist," cause he thought he was such a fringe extremist government cutting libertarian.
So, don't give me any of this BULLSHIT about Bush and the GOP being Big Spenders.
Eric the party that you back should re-name itself the "Conservative Democrat Party" because it supports every possible Socialist Big Brother government program with my tax money.
In the 1840s Democrats and Whigs trashed those "crazy" fringe people for daring to form the Free Soil Party. How dare they challenge their betters or spilt the vote etc. But those pesky 3rd party minorities can force change. Change that would NEVER have come from the major parties.
". . . don't give me any of this BULLSHIT about Bush and the GOP being Big Spenders."
Wow.
You are in total denial. . . which makes you the prefect Republican.
@BArt:
While an argument could be made that Eric is a pro-agression libertarian, if such a thing exists, he is not a big government, big program GOP person. That's insane and it's rectal parlance.
You are what you vote. There is no greater statement of you as a person. It tells us everything about you.
The GOP never met a dime it did not want to spend, grows government and centralizes power in D.C. while campaigning as a "small government" party to get votes from the Sheeple.
If you are a true believer in small Jeffersonian government why are you voting to put a big government party in power? This act says you are delusional. It is like a Black American voting Dixiecrat in 1948.
Then I guess 70-75% of the population is nothing.
Martin O'Malley is like a wonderful Bush-bashing argument Destroyer.
It's hilarious. Any time at all I bring up O'Malley and his quote about Bush, the conversation either goes silent, or you get a bunch of deflection.
I CAN NEVER, EVER, EVER, FUCKING EVER get a partisan Libertarian Bush-basher to respond to O'Malley's quote.
They can't. You see, if a Democrat like O'Malley compares Bush to a "9/11 Terrorist," for his "massive" spending cuts, how can a partisan Libertarian respond to that?
I shut someone up like that when I said Cheney was too liberal.
RESPONSE
The Commie/Pinko/Socialist Governor of Maryland attacks the head of the Big Brother Corporatist Party.
It has no meaning to me because I reject BOTH of those parties and their programs.
Eric, every other democratic nation on the planet earth has multiple political parties represented in their legislatures. But in America the centralized D.C. political money machine and super-sized House districts crushes all dissenting opinion leaving us with a two liberal party dictatorship.
Well Gary, you are free to start your own party.
Right Guy, I have a party. I am running for the House in California in 2010 as a Libertarian.
What I try to get through to PARTISAN Republicans is they are being used for their votes. Billions and billions in special interest union and corporate money in poured into both liberal parties in order to loot the Treasury and control the people.
A Republican Congressman is like a wife beater. For 23 months he beats the living Hell out of you by growing government, and then one month before the election he wraps his arms around you saying "Honey I love you and small government. Please don't call the cops."
"I've never head a plan from you as to how you would fight Islamo-Fascism?"
You most manifestly have heard a plan from me on how we'd fight Islamist terrorism.* It's a matter we argued extensively over on the libertarianrepublicans Yahoo group.
Not listening is different from not hearing.
Regards,
Tom
* There's no such thing as "Islamo-Fascism," which is something we've also discussed, so much so that it was the first entry in my political mini-dictionary, "Definitions for Dondero."
There's no such thing as Islamo-Fascism in the world of Tom Knapp. He just chooses to not acknowledge it. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Two quick examples:
Young Saddam Hussein was brought up by his uncle in Tikrit. His mother and father had abandoned him. His uncle was a bit of a whack job. And he was a total Nazi. He made young Saddam kneel down to a citadel he had built to Adolf Hitler and pray to his portrait with lit candles all around 5 times a day.
Second example: The Grand Mufti during the 1930s and 40s was a close confidante of Adolf Hilter. The Mufti ruled over Pan-Arabia - Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Trans-Jordan, Egypt. He was one of Hitler's closest allies all the way up til the very end of the Third Reich.
Naziism + Radical Islam = Islamo-Fascism. There's no way of getting around it.
Gary, that was no answer. It was deflection yet again.
Answer the question. How do you explain Mayor O'Malley's categorizing of Bush as a "9/11 Terrorist," for his "massive" spending cuts to local and state governments?
"Young Saddam Hussein was brought up by his uncle in Tikrit. His mother and father had abandoned him. His uncle was a bit of a whack job. And he was a total Nazi. He made young Saddam kneel down to a citadel he had built to Adolf Hitler and pray to his portrait with lit candles all around 5 times a day."
True. Saddam was, and Ba'athism is, fascist.
So, you've got half of Islamo-fascism. What you're missing is the other half. Ba'athist Iraq was a SECULAR STATE -- freedom of religion (his second in command was a Christian), no sharia law.
"The Grand Mufti during the 1930s and 40s was a close confidante of Adolf Hilter. The Mufti ruled over Pan-Arabia - Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Trans-Jordan, Egypt."
"Close confidante" is an unusual description for a guy who met Hitler one time and didn't get what he asked for at that meeting.
Haj Amin al-Husayni may be the absolute best proof of the non-exstence of "Islamo-fascism."
Here's a guy who spent 27 years trying to create an Islamic fascist movement. He did so at the best possible time, when fascism was catching on all over the place. He did so from a position of religious authority. He did so in a part of the world where both fascism and Islam were enormously popular. And all he managed to cook up were a few desultory riots.
Fascists made a lot of headway in the Middle East -- Nasser, Assad, Hussein. Islamists made a lot of headway in the Middle East -- the ayatollahs in Iran, the Wahabes in Saudi Arabia. yet to this day, "Islamo-fascism" still exists only in the heads of nutjobs like Haj Amin al-Husayni and Eric Dondero. There's a reason for that, which I've explained over and over to you. You'll either get it, or you'll continue to look like an idiot. Your call.
@Tom:
I think what most people are trying to get at, but miss, is that Islam is more of a political movement at times than a religion. It's evangelical, and it infiltrates all level of politics and law. I would agree with Tom that Saddam was a poor example of a muslim, just as Hitler would have been a poor example of a christian or any other religion. Saddam liked power and control more than he did allah.
So I do think it's legitimate to have a fear of islam on some level. It's been beaten back out of Europe at least 2x now, and it's back again. To me it's amazing that Britain would allow any Sharia law, and other countries are bending backwards to accommodate these people at the peril and destruction of their own cultures. Is it fear or naive liberalism? By the time they realize (Sweden, Denmark, Holland and England) what is what, it will be too late.
The problem is, how do you limit such evangelical socio-polical religion in countries (like our own) that espouse the freedom to practice religious beliefs? These guys are the ultimate trojan horse in a free society. Of course some will counter that they don't want to islamify the rest of the world, or ask show them an example of islamification at large. I would reply that judge by actions. Look at Europe, Look at Iran and the middle east. There are fewer secular islamic democracies than there are not. Still, the question remains, how do you deal with this and remain a free libertarian society? What do think Tom et al?
The best answer I can come up with the early 20th century version of the melting pot. Unfortunately, the liberals have tried to kill it, and have in some places, basically because countries don't value their culture any more. Where there is a vacuum, there will something to fill it.
Right Guy,
Can't say that I disagree with anything you said.
Thing is, there are lots of bad things that aren't fascism, and misunderstanding Islamism as a form of fascism is dangerous to the extent that not understanding something makes it harder to fight that thing.
Fascism emphasizes the primacy and centrality of the state. The most dangerous Islamists are operating from "failed states" and as ad hoc networks.
Fascism emphasizes the "fuhrerprinzip" or "leader principle." That's a key weakness -- for example, when Saddam was captured, the Ba'athist movement in Iraq lost a lot of steam. The Islamists don't have that weakness. They have "rock stars" like Osama bin Laden, but they're not loyal to a person, and taking one "leader" out is as likely to strengthen the movement (it will be treated as "martyrdom") as to weaken it (it may weaken it to the extent that that leader's network at least temporarily falls apart).
Imagine if after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we'd started calling them "Lakotapanese" and tried to fight them the way Sherman and Custer fought the Sioux. We'd have got our asses kicked. Calling the Islamists "Islamo-Fascists" is the same kind of mistake -- trying to identify an existing enemy with a past one even though the facts just don't fit.
"George Bush is cutting so much spending to state and local governments, he's like a 9/11 Terrorist..."
Eric, I consider the source, a liberal Democrat. Under baseline budgeting, these people think a "cut" is when a program or department's growth is scaled back from 8% annual increases to 4% annual increases. Bush did this with some programs while dramatically growing others. And as for all of these Libertarian Party assholes who keep bitching let me say this: You don't have enough elected officials to judge any kind of track record. I know about a half a dozen who were city councilmen in metro detroit over the last decade who were elected Libertarians. And once they were in office long enough they became just about as bad as R's or D's. Martin Howrylak of Troy, MI voting against allowing a Hooter's franchise to transfer its liquor license from one location in town to a new building which at the time was abandoned near the downtown's redevelopment. Andy Lecureaux has been known for supporting a couple tax increases in Hazel Park. And no, they didn't "go galt" and repudiate zoning (which, if I were in their position, I honestly wouldn't be crazy enough to do either). The list goes on. The point is that just because you run for office under an arbitrary label such as "Libertarian," does not mean that you become all of a sudden immune to the same failings of all other "typical politicians."
"Eric, every other democratic nation on the planet earth has multiple political parties represented in their legislatures. But in America the centralized D.C. political money machine and super-sized House districts crushes all dissenting opinion leaving us with a two liberal party dictatorship."
Yeah, because emulating the rest of the world has worked so well for us! We're starting to adopt most of Europe's economic and welfare policies, so why not adopt an electoral system similar to most nations there as well!?!?
Dan Sheill said: "And as for all of these Libertarian Party assholes who keep bitching let me say this: You don't have enough elected officials to judge any kind of track record."
Dan, that is about the most simple, yet best retort I have heard to keep sanctimonious LP adherents from complaining about Republicans.
I truly hope Gary is elected as a member of the California House. Only then will he see first hand how Democrats couldn't give a hot night at the Bunny Ranch about his "Jeffersonian ideas." If he is elected, I hope he can make inroads to fiscal sanity in my home state. But he is dealing with left politicians who play hardball. Once he gets his, shall we say, nose bloodied, I suspect we will no longer hear him piss and moan about how Reagan expanded government and the deficit, and how Republicans are simply the other side of the statist coin.
All I can say is, I hope Gary is clean as the driven snow, because if he has one glitch in his life, the left will exploit him like a pimp exploits his new prospect, who is fresh off a Greyhound bus.
By the way, Dan, in case you missed my comment to you last week, regarding Michigan, here is the link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw&feature=player_embeddeda
William, thanks. As a matter of fact I did see that video. And yes, it was so hilarious that I posted a link on my facebook page.
If I was a woman,I'd want to be Dan Sheill's girlfriend. hoho
@Chcuk:
You scare me. I am glad you are straight. Gary reminds me of Barry O. He is mr opposite RE Bush and GOP. While I have complaints, the alternative is unpalatable. Things will take their course anyway. Buckle up.
No need to be frightened. Leftists are predictable.
So am I.
Post a Comment