The ‘rule of law’ still is on the side of those who aspire for a constitutional government in the United States. It is no wonder since the Constitution is the rule of law.

This is the unbroken circle that is at the heart of the revolution spearheaded by the Campaign For Liberty. This is the unbroken circle that the unConstitutional coup is trying to break.

This unbroken circle will be the noose around the neck of the unConstitutional coup that will squeeze and snap its wretched neck. All of its limbs that have reached out gluttonously all over the world to bribe and desecrate will go limp after a brief tremor.

Now all we have to do is round up the members of the inner circle of the unConstitutional coup. Peel away the veneer of ‘the new administration’ and find these termites, these economic terrorists!

Amen. I’ve been beating this drum lately, with an emphasis on government, which is where the primary leverage lies. There will always be those who seek and receive favor when favor can be purchased,

regards peter helbich

I will admit I do not have near the intellectual capacity of someone like Rothbard, Mises or Isabel Paterson but I can tell from the above statement that the only recourse for social engineer’s to this predicament is to destroy those who do not need socialistic type support in order to exist.

Class warfare under the guise of humanitarianism.

“Johnson ‘quieted his inner economist’ and did not fixate on how much the new programs would cost. Although this will be much harder for Obama given the realities he’s working under, Blumenthal and Morone say he will have to find a way to be successful since ‘accurate cost estimates might have sunk Medicare.’ ”

Oh, hell, who cares about cost? or thinking like an economist? I know professors like their wine- but in this case these authors are drinking Kool-Aid, Ivy League flavor.

sidenote: I guess there really is a connection between education and economic success, sadly.

In his essay BIG-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS, Rothbard says that “In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be – and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, (…) one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way.” He also scorns libertarians who “join the ACLU (an organization to protect the First Amendment *) in protecting the alleged “right of free expression” of bums and beggars on the streets of our big cities, no matter how annoying or intimidating…” (*) note added by me.

In the same vein, Rothbard could haved added that in strict logic the libertarian position is to support open borders, but that “in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way.” And in fact his alliance with paleo-conservatives in the 90s (such as Samuel Francis), not only implies his criticisms of the “lumpen”-libertarians who didn’t want to work and only wanted to take drugs and have sex, but also implies his opposition for open borders – as is evident from his statement in which he deplores the left-libertarians’ “uncritical and unlimited devotion to open borders” and, he continues: “as in the case of most left liberals and all neocons, any proposal for any reason to restrict immigration or even to curb the flow of illegals, is automatically and hysterically denounced as racist, fascist, sexist, heterosexist, xenophobic, and the rest of the panoply of smear terms that lie close to hand.”

He also criticizes what he calls “high libertarian theory” (*), in which it is claimed that “only the individual is sovereign and not the nation.”

As a matter of fact Rothbard views populism with great sympathy (cf. an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992 Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement.) and condemns the “libertarian anxiety never to be connected with or labeled as a conservative or a right-wing movement.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch16.html

(*) an example of this, is a recent statement by Frank van Dun:
“Ten years ago, John Hospers (“A Libertarian Argument Against Open Borders”, p.153-165 in the JLS symposium referred to in note 2) challenged opponents with the question “What are we supposed to do in the meantime [before we have got rid of the welfare state]?”—as if “In the meantime, stick to your principles!” could not be considered a sensible answer.”

-http://users.ugent.be/~frvandun/Texts/Articles/LibertarianCaseAgainstImmigration.pdf