You Need an "Extremist" in Washington D.C.
Politics is a "tug-of-war." On one side of the rope are politicians who want to win re-election by promising gullible, ignorant voters that they can have some of your money: either money withheld from your next pay check, or purchasing
power taken from the money you have saved for your retirement.
The overwhelming majority of Representatives in Congress are pulling America toward socialism, fascism, and Obamunism.
Pulling on the other side of the rope, pulling toward smaller government, lower taxes, less debt, fewer promises that can't be paid, returning to the Constitution, restoring "Liberty Under God," is . . . who?
Who is on the other side of your rope?
More important, who is strong enough to pull against 400 other Representatives who are pulling to give your money to special interests and ignorant voters?
You need an "extremist" pulling the rope in your direction. You need a fanatic who will pull harder than all the other members of Congress. Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican Nominee for President, responded
to repeated accusations of "extremism" as follows:
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
When Democrats accuse Republicans of wanting to "cut spending," all the Republicans are really proposing is to cut the rate of increase of spending. Instead of spending increasing by 10% a year, Republicans want spending to increase only
7% a year! This only postpones the Day
of Reckoning
.
You need someone who, like America's Founding Fathers, would "alter or abolish" unconstitutional spending. You need someone with strength of conviction who is passionately opposed to
unconstitutional debt and reckless spending.
You may not agree with Kevin Craig's radical views. You may think he distrusts government too much. You may think he goes "overboard." But if your representative in
Congress is only hoping to "hold the line," he's going to be out-pulled by hundreds of representatives who are trying to increase spending.
You need someone who's actually trying to "go too far" in order to balance out those who have already gone too far.
Only a radical libertarian can be trusted to pull against extraordinary corruption and dangerous spending from an entire Congress.
Just as the world gasped in horror when America's Founding Fathers created a nation with no king at all, so you may be shocked at the radical libertarian ideas of Kevin Craig. He believes that future generations will have no government at all.
The only reason "the government" exists is to permit the governors to do things against the governed that would otherwise be immoral and unethical:
You don't do these things in the ordinary conduct of your business, as you better the lives of your customers and clients. All these things are unapproved in polite society, unrewarded by the Free Market, but they are legal and taxpayer-financed in the world of
"the government."
We cannot eliminate "government corruption" without eliminating the entire concept of "the government." It is an out-dated idea. It was never a good idea.
If you disagree with this, but do indeed want less "corruption," less debt, less unconstitutional spending, your best bet is to vote for a candidate that believes all government debt and spending is
corrupt and immoral. If you vote for someone who believes some government confiscation of the life, liberty or property of others is morally and ethically legitimate, you vote for someone who has no ultimate restraints on his corruption.
America's Founding Fathers crafted what they believed was the greatest political charter in the history of the human race. It was designed as carefully as they knew how to prevent the rise of the very government we have today. Obviously the Constitution is
a failure. The promises of today's politicians are worth even less than the Constitution. Everything the greatest sages of the ages have discerned about human nature warns us that a license to steal (taxation)
will never atrophy, but will always be used with increasing frequency.
Computers, automobiles, medical supplies, air conditioners, telephones, refrigerators, and everything else that raises our standard of living, can be produced better, more efficiently, more inexpensively, with higher quality, by the Free Market
than by "the government." There is nothing that human beings need that can be produced with higher quality and a lower price for more people by "the government" than by the Free Market.
Our system of government is supposedly based on "the consent of the governed." "We the People" don't need to consent to anything anymore. History has taught us that socialism always fails, and
capitalism triumphs. Government lowers our standard of living, capitalism raises it.
We didn't need London in 1776, and we don't need Washington D.C. today.
You might think I'm trying to pull the rope too far. If I make so much progress shrinking government in the next two years that you're worried too much government spending will be cut, you can vote me out in 2028 and elect someone who will stop pulling in the
direction of pure capitalism.
But in the next two years, I could influence Congress in the following ways:
-
Vote NO on every appropriations bill. I will not vote to authorize the taking and spending of your money.
-
Vote YES on every genuine spending cut. I can vote to reduce government without voting to fund the government that remains.
-
Offer amendments to cut spending. When Congress proposes $100 billion, I can propose $90 billion, $50 billion—or zero.
-
Offer amendments to eliminate programs and agencies. Put Congress on record: Who actually wants to abolish unnecessary government?
-
Offer amendments prohibiting particular expenditures. Congress can be asked not merely to spend less, but to forbid taxpayer money from being used for particular purposes.
-
Force the debate toward zero. Even when my amendments lose, they put an alternative on the table that almost nobody in Washington is willing to propose. ("Almost?" Name one.)
-
Never call a smaller increase a “spending cut.” If spending goes up, government has grown. I will tell voters plainly what Congress actually did. A "smaller increase" is not a "cut."
-
Give fiscal conservatives someone pulling in their direction. You don't have to be an anarchist to vote for one. Your vote can simply say: Washington is spending too much. Start
pulling the other way.
