GMOs are Safer Than “Natural” Hybrids


Peppermint, a hybrid of Spearmint and WatermintPeople try to claim that Genetically Modified Organisms, for example corn with a gene spliced in that helps it resist a disease, are somehow more dangerous, because we don’t know what other changes the splicing may have wrought.

The claim is made that that they are somehow “unproven” and could contain some surprise risk, but this is the opposite of the truth. Whenever you pollinate a plant normally, the seeds you get have hundreds, or thousands, of unknown factors in them, as they’re a random mix of two parent plants. Hybrids, for example, are an extreme case of this.

But a GMO is a known cultivar with a SINGLE gene moved. Not tens of thousands of genes moved at random, just a single one (or set of similarly chosen ones). It is the most KNOWN kind of modified plant, with the fewest surprise protein combinations possible.

Now if you have some spearmint, and some watermint, you might cross-pollinate them, and then who knows…some people might be specifically allergic to the resulting, unique cultivar (which we call peppermint). But if you move ONE gene from the watermint to the spearmint, you can know exactly what the results will be.

Advertisements

Ron Paul is Right: Don’t Abandon What We’ve Achieved


“The truth is, if I would have tried, in the last several years, to do exactly what I have done, in a third party, I probably wouldn’t have gotten to your show.”

In his recent appearance on Jay Leno, Ron Paul made it clear that we should continue the fight to reclaim the Republican party from the socialist RiNOs…not abandon it for the ever-failed Libertarian party, right when we’ve achieved so much.

After the fiasco of blatant rule-violation and corruption at the Republican national convention, some Libertarian party members tried to convince us to abandon our efforts of six years, and join the LP.

In a bizarre parody of gradeschool rumor-mongering, they even created the impression that Paul was planning to announce a run third party run, or endorse the latest Libertarian candidate-of-convenience, Gary Johnson, in his coming appearance on The Tonight Show.

Many Paul supporters, myself included, pointed out that Ron had known what we faced from the start, and wouldn’t waste all we’d gained at the last minute.

Well, last night he did indeed appear on Jay Leno. Sure enough, he did NOT endorse (and even avoided mentioning) the LP, and specifically dismissed a third party run for legal/logistical reasons…

…and, most importantly, he pointed out:

“The truth is, if I would have tried, in the last several years, to do exactly what I have done, in a third party, I probably wouldn’t have gotten to your show.”

Paul understands this, because he did run third party, as a Libertarian in 1988, and got (literally) one tenth of the votes he did this year.

The Libertarian party candidates, in fact, never significantly increase their vote tally, from one election to the next. Part of this is because the system is rigged against them, but part of it is also because of the incompetence and corruption of the party, itself…note that the Green and Reform parties have gotten as much as 100 times as many votes as the LP.

We advocates of liberty have achieved more in the GOP, in just a handful of years, than the Libertarian Party did in four decades, by a factor of ten. We need to continue building on what we’ve accomplished, not abandon it for a tactic with a two generation history of failure.

“But the Republican party just proved itself so corrupt, at the convention”, one might object.

Yes, but we knew that going in…and, anyway, I experienced the exact same suppression of delegates, candidates, and floor efforts when I was a delegate to the 1996 Libertarian National Convention…so if you don’t like that kind of corruption, the LP is not an option.

Yes, the leadership is corrupt; but they’re also old. While they may not be as pure as Ron, there is a new generation of open Paul-supporters who are clearly the next generation of leadership, including Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, and Mike Lee, all of whom have expressed outrage at the anti-Paul tactics at the convention.

And don’t forget that Ron Paul’s goal, in running this time and in staying in to accumulate delegates, was always to change the party’s platform and attitude, and he accomplished this, despite the corrupt leadership.

For example, the platform has now been changed to include the gold standard, and auditing the Fed, two of the issues Paul considers most important.

Ron Paul never seriously expected to get nominated. He explicitly explained, all along, that he had changed his mind and entered the race because he realized how much good he could do by influencing the political debate and the party…and he, with our help, has succeeded.

I have warned, all along, that obsessing over somehow seizing the nomination was going to give people the impression — when it inevitably did not happen — that we lost, right when we have won exactly what Paul aimed for.

Don’t let that be what happens. Don’t throw away six years of enormous progress in taking back the party, because the RiNO leadership turned out to be exactly as disgusting as we always knew they were.

Ron Paul in the General Election


When have the RiNOs not tended to blow Presidential elections?

There is this common myth that a “moderate” Republican — a big government interventionist — is the best choice for a general election. They are called the most “electable”…by the Big Government advocates in the media.

As proof of this, we can look to how well Bob Dole and John McCain did. Conservatives compromised their principles, and nominated a Liberal Republican, and then won the general election…

Oh…wait…they lost. In fact, “moderates” almost always do.

Yes, as FDR once pointed out, “me-too Republicans” like Dole, McCain, and Romney almost always lose, because you might as well vote for a Democrat as for someone who is imitating one. He used this argument against John Dewey, with great success.

In fact, the last three decisive turnouts for Republicans were all for “extremist Conservative” positions: 2010 with the TEA Party, 1994 for the Contract with America, and 1980 with the “unelectable” Ronald Reagan.

In fact, in 1980, the “moderate” Republicans ran a spoiler Republican in the general election, as an “Independent”. John Anderson, whom they would have preferred be nominated because he was an “electable moderate”, was supposed to split the vote, giving Carter the win.

Yes, the RiNOs actually preferred Carter over Reagan.

But what actually happened, of course, is that Reagan won in a landslide, even with a “moderate” Republican trying to steal his votes in the general election.

That shows just how much more electable a real Conservative is, than a “moderate”.

Americans still believe in the American principles that a Reagan/Goldwater sort of Conservative espouses, and will turn out in record numbers to support that, when it’s actually available in our false dichotomy of a two-party system.

And the only major candidate running for President today who has that form of American Conservatism — conserving the principles of liberty of the Founding Fathers — is Ron Paul. As Reagan put it:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue" ~Barry Goldwater

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories.

The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
— Ronald Reagan, interview with Reason Magazine (1975)

The claim is that Romney would win with independents (who are a plurality of the population, more numerous than Republicans or Democrats) and Democrats. But in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Ron Paul won among independents, and beat Romney among Democrats who crossed over to vote.

Paul would win a in landslide akin to the TEA Party, the Contract with America, and Ronald Reagan.

Romney will lose in a landslide akin to John McCain, and Bob Dole.

Uther Pendragon is a Neocon


Uther would have been right on board with the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, as long as you told him that Hussein was developing chemical, nuclear, and magical WMD

There’s this show on BBC called Merlin. It covers the story of Camelot, of Arthur and Merlin, when they’re teenagers.

Prince Arthur’s father is, of course, King Uther Pendragon. In this version, Uther’s son is learning to become the good ruler his father is not.

In watching the show, Uther is presented ambiguously, as one of the protagonists, but I find myself force to take a stance (in my head, or to friends) against him, because he is constantly doing things that, were he not one of the “good guys”, would be instantly recognized as evil.

In fact, I’ve come to the conclusion that he is actually the most evil part of the show, the actual antagonist without whom none of the greatest wrongs or conflict would occur.

What’s most interesting, though, is that every single aspect of his role in the show is identical to that of the violent, authoritarian interventionists in the American and British political class (sadly, this turns out to include Obama), in real life.

Although it’s a specific movement of Trotskyites, I’m using the term “neocon” for this movement, because it’s familiar and its evils are widely recognized across most of the political spectrum.

Uther Pendragon / A Neocon:

  • Claims to defend the people’s rights, but governs as an authoritarian, using safety as their excuse
  • Once quietly supported a movement for their own gain, but then decided it was their enemy
  • Has since imposed a police state, along with supportING violence, war, and tyranny elsewhere, in the name of stamping out that movement
  • Will unhesitatingly torture, imprison, or kill in pursuit of the war against the movement, including using proxies in order to be able to claim clean hands for themselves
  • Will threaten, imprison, and worse anyone who might reveal their involvement in some of these evils
  • With their brutality and wrongdoing in the name of crushing the movement and any other opposition, has created their own enemies
  • Those enemies included good people, driven bad by desperation under the evils of the abusive government
  • And actual evil men, criminals, et cetera, who would have been nothing more than part of a fringe underworld end up able to ally with and manipulate the desperate good people, gaining far more power and influence than they would without the evil of the abusive government
  • The people of the nation end up being subjected to retribution and violence driven purely as blowback against the previous evils of their government
  • That government lacks credibility in the struggles for justice of many other lands, despite a long-past history of being a beacon of justice

Frankly, I could have written an article about either the violent interventionists of the American political class, or Uther Pendragon, and then just did a search and replace for words like Bush/Uther, Camelot/America, and magic/Muslims, Gaius/Assange, and published the new version credibly, without any other modification.

Whose evils does this article really reveal most clearly…the fictional Uther or the real Neocons? Sadly, I think it’s hard to say.

Egypt: Told You So


The people of Egypt are revolting against their brutal, repressive dictator, Hosni Mubarak. We Americans are glad. We hate tyranny, and oppose it whenever we can.

If only the political class of the Federal government felt the same.

This dictator is same one in the five photographs at the right…one of each president since 1980.

The one that the US has helped keep in power for over thirty years, handing out $2,000,000,000 to their tyrant each year. If you adjust for inflation, this feeble country’s tiny economy has benefited from over one hundred billion dollars in American taxpayer dollars, plus military aid, technology, et cetera. How much interest in the National Debt has accumulated because of this?

Each time I’m listing the evil tyrannies the Federal government has supported in our name abroad, I mention Hosni Mubarak. And the neocon types carefully ignore it. But now we see why.

When Mubarak is, hopefully, overthrown by the people of Egypt, will they forget that we’re one of the main reasons they suffered under this evil regime for all these years?

The Iranians didn’t forget. They were forced to turn to the Soviet-funded Islamic Revolution, because we supported the Shah of Iran, their own tyrant. They then, rightfully, saw the US government as having made itself their enemy, by having supported their dictator.

Now the Egyptians may well turn to Islamic Fundamentalist movements of their own, against their own US Government-supported tyrant.  Should the next Egyptian government feel any different than the Iranians?

Sure, real Americans have never actually supported this kind of promotion of tyranny…but we’ve stood by and allowed our government to do it in our name, in violation of everything American.

How long are corrupt Federal bureaucrats going to keep supporting evil around the world, while we real Americans reap the blowback when people finally find a way to strike back against it?

We just gave more military aid to the tyrants ruling Saudi Arabia, for example. They are hated not only by their own people, but by almost all Muslims around the world, who see them (correctly) as a foreign-supported monstrosity, occupying their holiest city. How long before this chain reaction of revolution against American-supported dictators reaches Saudi Arabia? If their next regime hates us, who could blame them?

We need, as an increasing number of Americans are beginning to say aloud, to stop violating other countries in ways that we would not want other countries to do to us, like supporting tyranny abroad.

Corporations are Socialism



It's amazing how many things government intervention causes, and then blames on economic freedom

When people discover Stop Blaming Capitalism for Socialism’s Failures, or its Facebook Group, some are astonished at the list of problems government intervention has caused, them blamed on freedom of choice.

What often surprises them the most is that it includes the modern corporation.

We’re taught, in socialized education anyway, that corporations are an icon of everything wrong with capitalism.

The problem is that everything that makes a modern corporation has been imposed on us by government laws and force…and that’s socialism.

In fact, you can’t anything like the modern “public corporation”, in a free market.

Why could British Petroleum take risks that no privately owned company would dare? Because it’s effectively nationalized, as a Public Corporation. No owners or managers will be held accountable for the oil spill, not even under Obama’s abrogation of Rule of Law. Likewise any managers or owners in a company selling products it secretly knows are harmful, or fraudulent.

This is why you hear ads on the radio, by The Company Corporation, saying that you should incorporate your business, or to avoid liability for any harm you cause.

In a free market, there would be no way to simply renounce your liability for actions you take, or a company you own.

This can only be done by government fiat.

The very reason that Liberal Democrats pushed for the creation of corporate law, in the US, was to nationalize industries that they could not openly take over.

Since they couldn’t get people to accept an unaccountable People’s Automaking Bureau like you could in China, they simply ensured that existing automakers would become unaccountable bureaucracies owned by People.

In order to get the special treatment of a public corporation, a company must become OWNED by “the public”:

It is not allowed to simply write a custom document of ownership and sell stock to the public, to raise millions in capital. Instead, the company must follow a massive set of regulations, becoming in effect a mini-government.  In return for selling out their property rights, its owners and management become exempt from the consequences and liability for their actions, just like government bureaucrats.

Companies that do this, of course, have an unfair edge over companies that do not…so they come to dominate an industry, for example automaking.

And thus, the automaking industry comes to be owned by The People, through a quasi-governmental agency.

Impure, adulterated socialism, called Market Socialism…but socialism nonetheless.

%d bloggers like this: