11 August 2015

The ONE Issue Which Makes Rand Paul A Winner


Rand Paul can win the Republican nomination and the presidency by making only one offer. At the same time, there are seemingly endless offers that will not work.

Rand's early popularity came from his offer of a foreign policy of non-intervention. Such a policy was accepted by many Republicans and many non-Republicans who were tired of wars which boomerang on the United States.

Unfortunately it's too easy to view such a policy as unwillingness to help neighbors who are in trouble, or as weakness in national defense. Such an offer is too easy to reject, by too many.

Rand acted heroically in offering Americans loyal adherence to the Fourth Amendment in his fight against the Patriot Act's overreach. Again, as we saw, it was too easy for too many people to refuse Rand's offer, imagining home-grown terrorists will have smooth sailing if government agencies can't spy on U.S. citizens.

Let's suppose Rand Paul offered people marijuana. That wouldn't work either. There are too many people who have seen loved ones destroy lives with drugs. Rightly or wrongly these people say, "marijuana started it all." They would decline Rand's offer.

There must be something to offer which is so fundamentally necessary to the fullness of life that even if people reject it ... they could not really mean it. In other words, they could reject it on a surface ego level, but they would then be in conflict with their inner spirit.

There is only one such political offer: liberty, freedom.

People can say, "What in hell would I want to be free for!" But they cannot really mean it. Therein lies liberty's assurance of success.

Our spirit is free. Freedom is our inner state of being, our natural state of being. So if a man opts for something other than freedom, he is (probably unawares) in conflict with himself. Even if he loves dictatorship, he cannot love it 100%. Some percentage of himself deep inside wants freedom.

No one can fully, completely, 100% refuse his or her natural state of being. So all Rand has to do is offer freedom, and continue offering freedom, and never cease offering freedom.

It is the act of offering freedom which would really do the work of electing Rand Paul. Ronald Reagan offered freedom to the American public: "I want to give you back what America once had ... freedom!" Reagan said it loud and clear, and won elections by landslides.

Did people actually experience more freedom when Ronald Reagan was president? After all, the government continued to grow, taxes increased, and there was little perceptible movement toward more political freedom.

The answer is people did feel freer. They had voted for freedom. They had chosen the natural state of their spirit. Having so chosen, their predisposition was toward feeling more of their natural state regardless of conditions outside themselves. Whoever offers freedom, by virtue of the offer, ends up facilitating freedom. During the Reagan years many more people joined the liberty movement.

"That's all well and good," some will argue: "but candidates are expected to focus on more than one issue."

Okay ... so Rand Paul needs brutally honest self-evaluation, asking himself:

"What issues are my ego's favorites, and do my ego's favorite issues really awaken the desire for freedom in most other people?

"What am I offering? How clearly do my offers call upon people's natural desire for freedom? 

"What issues really do resonate with everyone's inner desire for freedom?"

To see the self-defeating effect of ego-issues one needs only look at the Libertarian Party.

During many recent elections, the Libertarian Party has clung to one of the weakest, most worthless self-defeating possible campaign themes. The one consistently publicized campaign issue favored by the party leadership was, "We offer an alternative to Republicans and Democrats."

Big deal! Joseph Stalin would be an alternative to Republicans and Democrats. Adolph Hitler would be an alternative to Republicans and Democrats. Not voting at all would be an alternative to Democrats and Republicans.

Yes, most Republicans and all Democrats truly have forgotten their source, but they too will someday remember that deep down below all the liberal-progressive ego insanity they are libertarians. To offer merely an alternative to Democrats and Republicans is to offer no clearly defined opening into people's deepest desires. Is it any wonder that most Libertarian candidates receive a very small percentage of the vote?

So elections are winnable for Rand Paul. But he does need to listen inside and allow his inner spiritual voice to tell him what he really needs to focus on, to give him a list of issues which just about everyone on a deep level will respond favorably to.

Rand needs to never forget that issues given by his inner voice are issues worth campaigning for because these are issues that are going to open people's inner desire for freedom.

Rand's inner voice has already told him: "Freedom cannot be learned by tyranny of ANY kind, and the perfect equality of all cannot be recognized through the dominion of one will over another."

Now Rand needs to never forget that by offering freedom he is making the only offer that cannot be totally 100% refused.



To understand the evil psychology of modern "liberal progressives," read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"





"God's laws will keep your minds at peace, because peace IS His Will, and His laws are established to uphold it. His are the laws of freedom, but yours are the laws of bondage. Since freedom and bondage are irreconcilable, their laws CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TOGETHER. The laws of God work only for your good, and there ARE no other laws beside His. Everything else is merely lawLESS, and therefore chaotic." -Jesus Christ in A Course in Miracles


15 July 2015

Coyote Campaigning Wakes People Up


Cartoonists have fun with the well-deserved reputation coyotes have for being tricky. When hunting, coyotes trick their prey. When being hunted, coyotes trick those who would dearly love to catch them. Coyote campaigning in politics "tricks" people into waking up. To illustrate, let's look at a possible coyote campaign to wake people up regarding taxation.

The truth that taxation (threatening your neighbor with a government whip and demanding money for your purposes) is immoral and criminal cannot be sold directly to the general public who have been carefully and thoroughly brainwashed to believe paying taxes is their "duty."

Only among people highly dedicated to reason can I even hope to be heard if I point out that taxation is extortion. If I campaign in public on the immorality of taxation, I will be crucified. Therefore, there has to be a winning indirect approach.

The answer is a coyote campaign: a campaign that causes the problem to be looked at without specifically attacking the problem. A coyote approach in this instance does not campaign against taxation, but campaigns against retaliation for taxation and in favor of forgiveness of tax advocates. "No retaliation for taxation!" "Forgive taxers, for they know not what they do!"

A coyote approach in this instance accomplishes the following:

(1) People would be at least subconsciously in rapport with the coyote campaign because their inner spirit responds positively to non-retaliation and forgiveness.

(2) Many people would suddenly ask themselves: "Why would taxers need forgiveness?" The answer awakens at least in some subconscious level of mind: "Because taxers must be hurting people, causing pain."

(3) Many people would suddenly give thought to the essence of taxation: extortion, threat of property confiscation, ultimately threat of force. The immorality of taxation would no longer be easy to hide.

(4) A possible future threat to freedom rising in the form of oppressive legislation and expansion of police-state power would be averted.

This fourth point needs explanation.

If liberal-progressives and their enablers have their way, taxes will continue to decimate paychecks, greater numbers of people will be impoverished or struggling financially, and more people than ever will be furious about taxes. A Robin Hood mindset might emerge. A charismatic leader might come along who says, "It's okay to coerce the coercers! Those who are taxed would be within their rights to tax the taxers! Politicians who steal from the people have no moral claim to immunity from theft of their own personal property!"

If such a leader were to convince even a few followers that it is heroic to become Robin Hoods, robbing from the taxers and giving to those taxed, it would not be long before we would see the spectacle of misguided vigilantes taking upon themselves a self-appointed mission of conducting midnight sneak attacks stealing the personal property of politicians who favor taxation and the personal property of those who call for assertive government programs requiring taxation.

Only a handful of such attacks would lead to the noisiest cry ever for more protection for politicians and those in cahoots with politicians. Such a resounding cry by politicians and their cohorts for protection would lead to more oppressive legislation and greater expansion of police-state powers than ever before.

The public already knows that pursuing "an eye for an eye" against politicians and others who vote for taxation (other than voting such politicians out of office) is not the way to go. Yet by noisily trumpeting the obvious, we stay in rapport with the public while yet inviting everyone to look deeper at the immorality of taxation itself. Which politicians would dare come after those campaigning long and loud against retaliation for taxation?

There are numerous aspects to conducting such a campaign.

Citizen's committees can be set up in cities all over the United States for the specific purpose of opposing retaliation for taxation. There can be thousands of letters to editors, and news media contacts, and social media expositions regarding "heading off at the pass" any tendency people have to begin retaliating against politicians who tax, or against people who favor taxation.

Freedom candidates themselves can campaign loudly and constantly against retaliation for taxation. No matter that it's never been an issue on anyone's mind. It gets people thinking.

Bumper stickers can be printed up stating: "No retaliation for taxation!" and "Forgive the taxers!"

Petitions can be circulated in shopping malls and outside libraries favoring: "Clemency for politicians and others who vote for taxes!"

Issue ads can be purchased with bold headlines stating: "Retaliation for taxation is not the answer!"

All tools of the trade of issue-oriented campaigning can and should be used.

If we think of politicians being the original tricksters by hoodwinking people into supporting their ways, coyote campaigning is seen as a fun can't-lose approach ... tricking the trickster.



To understand the evil psychology of modern "liberal progressives," read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"





"God's laws will keep your minds at peace, because peace IS His Will, and His laws are established to uphold it. His are the laws of freedom, but yours are the laws of bondage. Since freedom and bondage are irreconcilable, their laws CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TOGETHER. The laws of God work only for your good, and there ARE no other laws beside His. Everything else is merely lawLESS, and therefore chaotic." -Jesus Christ in A Course in Miracles


12 June 2015

Why Do Liberty Champions Like Ron Paul Lose Important Elections?

"Our spirit is free and wants for us outer conditions of freedom (political liberty) so it can guide us to unimaginable prosperity and well-being."

This is the liberty message that sells. This is the liberty message that resonates deep inside of people. This is the liberty message that wins the important elections.

But why would liberty lovers want to win important elections?

Because those who win elections have the power to either reduce people's political liberty [which liberty lovers don't want] or increase people's political liberty [which liberty lovers do want]. Majority rule is only tyranny of the majority if the majority votes to reduce freedom. If a majority votes to increase freedom ... that's not tyranny. If a majority of Republicans had voted for "the lesser evil" of Ron Paul in the 2008 or 2012 Republican primary elections, tyranny wouldn't have gained ground ... liberty would have gained.

But why are liberty champions always losing really meaningful elections? It cannot be because people want more tyranny. The vast majority of people are at least somewhat in touch with their spirit, which wants for them political liberty. The urge for political liberty is universal and forever rising to the surface.

The answer is, sorry to say, liberty champions do not take advantage of this natural urge in people. They do not spread a message that resonates with this urge. They do not proclaim really forcefully: "Your spirit is free and wants for you outer conditions of freedom so it can guide you to unimaginable prosperity and well-being."

Instead, liberty champions go on and on arguing about foreign wars, military bases in foreign countries, the need to legalize drugs, and a never-ending litany of other side-tracking issues. Never mind that such arguments are morally and logically correct. They are arguments which do not reach inside people and invite an experience of the fullness of their spirit. Such arguments stimulate the intellect, but do not awaken the depths of people's spirit.

Those who fought the American War for Independence were inspired. They would not have chosen to endure misery and suffering and even possibly death in order to assure that drugs would always be legal or that Americans would never have a military presence in a foreign land. But they did chose a path of suffering, of misery, of possible death because they felt as deeply as anyone the freedom of their spirit and their spirit's craving for political liberty.

Like the original Americans who favored secession from Britain, liberty lovers do feel their spirit ... otherwise they wouldn't be liberty lovers. They need only put on the back burner those arguments which don't really resonate with the vast majority of people, and start proclaiming very loud, very clear, and very often the truth which Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine helped American colonists hold in their constant awareness:

"Our spirit is free 
and wants for us
outer conditions of freedom 
so it can guide us
 to unimaginable prosperity 
and well-being."




To understand the evil psychology of modern "liberal progressives," read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"





"God's laws will keep your minds at peace, because peace IS His Will, and His laws are established to uphold it. His are the laws of freedom, but yours are the laws of bondage. Since freedom and bondage are irreconcilable, their laws CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TOGETHER. The laws of God work only for your good, and there ARE no other laws beside His. Everything else is merely lawLESS, and therefore chaotic." -Jesus Christ in A Course in Miracles


12 May 2015

Beyond Ted Cruz and Rand Paul Label Confusion

In his book, The Conservatarian Manifesto, Charles C. W. Cooke writes about people who are unhappy with out-of-control government overreach, discontented with Republican leaders of recent decades, and not able to find a comfortable political label for themselves. They say things like: "When I'm around conservatives, I feel like I'm a libertarian; but when I'm around libertarians I feel like a conservative."

We can imagine Cooke describing Rand Paul as a conservative-leaning libertarian, and characterizing Ted Cruz as a libertarian-leaning conservative. Both candidates champion liberty but (as with all of us) their vision of what liberty looks like and how to achieve it is colored by their personal past learning and current level of understanding.

Cook recognizes, "While conservatism and libertarianism share many of the same qualities (most importantly opposition to insane man-made laws), they are absolutely not the same thing." A conservative might ask: "How can I possibly honor tried and true values and yet support a candidate whose live and let live attitude might open the door to destructive behavior?" A libertarian could ask: "How can I be totally loyal to the principles of live and let live and yet help elect a candidate who might possibly restrict how I would live?"

While it is true that neither Ted Cruz nor Rand Paul is 100% conservative or 100% libertarian, both are logically consistent in their understanding that successful political steps to curb government insanity provides a much higher service to liberty than the politically self-destructive ego satisfaction of purity at all costs.

Although conservatives and libertarians love to satisfy their egos by focusing on and magnifying their differences, if you find a conservative and a libertarian who are not controlled by ego they will agree that if either Rand Paul or Ted Cruz were to win the presidency, American government would be far less insane than with Hillary Clinton blowing the job.

Americans don't need a new political category with a new label like conservatarian. Americans only need common sense.

Is there value in both Rand Paul and Ted Cruz competing for the Republican nomination? Oh, yes. But that might require some explanation.

If the liberal-progressive insanity which has permeated American society continues ... then libertarians, conservatives, and untold millions of non-political people are doomed to economic misery and enslavement to dictatorship by hopelessly misguided left-leaning politicians. Therefore, the first priority of both libertarians and conservatives must be to defeat liberal-progressives.

One obvious value of both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul running is they are both out there making waves in public, reaching people and influencing people to focus on this crucial first priority.

But there is a far more important value served by their candidacies. Neither conservatives nor libertarians are completely wrong (else their brand wouldn't be able to continue); nor is either group completely right (else they would have already experienced overwhelming political success). So in the evolution of mankind's political thinking, a winnowing process is taking place to separate the grains of truth from useless chaff.

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz vigorously launching their ideas up into the gusting political airwaves serves to winnow away whatever does not resonate deep inside of people, while exposing whatever truth they offer to be seen more easily by everyone. This enormously important process will eventually lead the majority of Americans to hold a clear vision of profoundly authentic political liberty and its value to them.

The ego's way to view Ted Cruz and Rand Paul would be to find fault with them. The ego says, "Here is where they are wrong." But remember, the ego's goal is sabotage of all that is truly valuable. Better to say to the ego: "Get thee behind me, Satan!" There is no profit in over-focusing on mistakes of those who might help our cause while overlooking their value.

There is profit in paying attention to what our deep inner being wants for us and recognizing how different it is from temptations slipped into our minds by the ego. We don't need the temptation of a new political label, and in fact we find freedom in the statement: "Labels be damned!"

Insisting on our right to individuality without labels, we can now appreciate Rand Paul and Ted Cruz tossing into the public winnowing basket not only their ideas but their entire lives in order to each in his own way aid the cause of liberty. Now our spirit is lifted out of the mire of ego-vested perceptions. Free of label enslavement, and riding a new wave of gratitude, our spirit ascends to new heights.

Now having freed our minds, we too are teaching freedom to the world.



(Thank you for serving liberty. To be alerted when these articles are published, please "like" the Facebook page Course in Political Miracles)



The device which even more deeply prepares freedom lovers for success, A Course in Miracles , talks about our ultimate need to free ourselves from every kind of slavery:

You have been told to bring the darkness to the light, and guilt to holiness. And you have also been told that error must be corrected at its source. Therefore, it is the tiny part of your self, the little thought that seems split off and separate, that the Holy Spirit needs. The rest is fully in God's keeping, and needs no guide. But this wild and delusional thought needs help, because, in its delusions, it thinks it is the Son of God, whole and omnipotent, sole ruler of the kingdom it set apart to tyrannize by madness into obedience and slavery.




Also available free of charge online:
Course in Relationship Miracles