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

12 April 2015

Why Rand Paul Cannot Lose


On February 28, 1854, 30 individuals who opposed any further compromise on slavery met in a little white schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin and vowed to influence the American political climate. They didn't yet have a name for their group, but they had a burning issue. In June, 1854, Horace Greeley editorialized that the people behind this cause should call themselves the "Republican Party," and the name took hold.

Four months after the little Wisconsin meeting, on July 6, 1854, nearly 10,000 people attended a mass rally in Jackson, Michigan, to further the cause, and the Republican Party became an official party. Four months later, 13 members had been newly elected to the U.S. House of Representatives as Republicans.

The rest is well-known history. Republicans won the U.S. Presidency 6 years later in 1860 and determined political policy in the U.S. for many years thereafter.

How could such a profound change in the American political scene happen so quickly? It had to be a miracle, right?

The miracle was Republicans had a single burning issue that resonated deep in the majority's heart and soul, and it was an issue not being satisfactorily addressed by anyone else.

Fast forward to 2015 and the campaign to nominate Rand Paul. Pundits say it would take a miracle. We ask: Is there a single burning issue which tugs on the depths of people's souls, and is yet an issue not being addressed by opponents?

In his candidacy announcement speech, Rand talked about not a single burning issue, but several issues. Please take a moment to honestly grade these several issues against our question.

(1) Cutting spending and debt/fixing crony system of government. All voters feel wrenched deep in their soul about this, true or false? No other candidate is addressing this issue, true or false?

(2) Freeing America's capitalism/prosperity for inner cities and everyone. All voters feel wrenched deep in their soul about this, true or false? No other candidate is addressing this issue, true or false?

(3) Freeing education/school choice. All voters feel wrenched deep in their soul about this, true or false? No other candidate is addressing this issue, true or false?

(4) Rational foreign policy/willingness to recognize and defend against true enemies. All voters feel wrenched deep in their soul about this, true or false? No other candidate is addressing this issue, true or false?

(5) Insuring citizen privacy from government spying. All voters feel wrenched deep in their soul about this, true or false? No other candidate is addressing this issue, true or false?

If you've graded the above honestly, you will know whether millions of people are likely to suddenly feel a gut level urgent calling to jump on Rand Paul's bandwagon. You will know if Rand Paul's approach is good enough to create a political miracle.

Strangely, there is a burning issue which Rand Paul did not mention and which would create the needed miracle. And strangely, it's the same issue that originally gave rise to the Republican Party.

No compromise on slavery.

Show a man that he is being enslaved, and his entire soul will cringe deep inside. Tell a woman that for her own good she needs to agree to be a slave, and her entire being will rebel. Slavery is a deeply wrenching burning issue.

Liberal-progressive Democrats and machine Republican enablers have been increasingly asking the American people to accept slavery "for their own good," and in many instances simply enslaving people against their will. Not everyone recognizes this because of the illusion of "government by the people." But what happens if a candidate starts pointing out that the emperor has no clothes? What happens if a candidate starts calling a spade a spade?

Unfortunately, Rand Paul will not come right out and declare: "It's not about this surface issue, or that surface issue, or any surface issue. It's about slavery!" clearly stating the one burning issue that no one else is addressing. So the miracle will not be created this time around.

Yet most of the issues mentioned by Rand Paul imply he would end today's form of slavery. In their intellects, people may not take the hint and may not make the connection. But inside themselves implications are felt, each a little soul-impregnation. So Rand Paul continues planting seeds, like Barry Goldwater or Ron Paul before him.

Will Rand Paul win the Republican Party nomination? Probably not, unless he shifts from hinting and implying to specifically pointing out that slavery by any other form is still slavery.

But he is sowing seeds far and wide. Even atheists can understand the following teaching of Jesus:

And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them up. Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth, and when the sun was up, they were scorched and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprung up, and choked them. But others fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

Assuming Rand Paul fails to win the nomination of the anti-slavery party, his campaign is nonetheless a winning campaign. Why? Because there are always some seeds that fall on good ground and bring forth fruit.






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

12 March 2015

Rand Paul's Secret Mission?



No two lovers of liberty view every political issue and strategy in the same way. But there does seem to be emerging these days among libertarians two broad general ways of seeing the world. Both start with the same libertarian axiom and corollary, but human beings choose what they want to perceive and axiom-focused libertarians see a different world than corollary-focused libertarians.

All libertarians want to "live and let live," with "living life to the fullest" being the axiomatic principle and "letting live" (the Non-Aggression Principle) being an important corollary. But what happens if the corollary gains more importance in one's mind than the axiom? In other words, what if someone measures everything by "letting live," neglecting to first measure by "living life to the fullest?"

It's tempting to say, "Nothing happens because the two are so interdependent. One cannot live life to the fullest without letting live, and one cannot let live without...." Oops! It doesn't work in reverse, does it? One can indeed let live and yet not live life to the fullest. So the question still waits an answer. What happens if one tries to reverse the corollary and the axiom?

If your answer is, "Well, it's kind of like burying your head in the sand. Self-imposed blindness starts occurring" ... then you might be one whose head is not in the sand.

Another answer might be something like, "Well, if you reverse the two you start seeing a fantasy world of your own making instead of the real world." And therein lies the difference between these two libertarian world views: the real world libertarians, and the make believe world libertarians; which in the current election cycle might have some libertarians arguing, "Better sand than Rand!" while others counter with, "Better Rand than sand!"

The most obvious difference occurs in the area of foreign policy. How many times have you heard friends or neighbors say something like, "Libertarians have a lot of good ideas and I would support them ... except they have their heads in the sand when it comes to foreign policy!" These friends and neighbors are not blind.

Libertarians who place "let live" on a pedestal in their minds above "live" have a vested interest in looking at belligerents in foreign countries and saying something like, "Let them fight it out. They are no threat to us." 99% of the time this is probably good policy. But what about the other 1%? Corollary-focused libertarians blind themselves to real world threats in order to remain loyal to their pedestal god of "let live."

Rand Paul doesn't blind himself in this respect. Although he would surely honor the corollary "let live" in 99 out of 100 foreign policy circumstances, he is open-eyed enough to recognize real threats in the real world. It might be said that Rand is 99% a non-interventionist, yet he is willing to rationally weigh the clearly stated threats of the most ideological insane foreign aggressors ... and willing to take reasonable action accordingly. He doesn't say, "What are they to us? They haven't attacked us yet."

To see this difference in a hypothetical illustration from history, imagine Rand Paul had been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 1938 instead of Neville Chamberlain. Rand would have recognized Hitler's intentions for what they were and taken appropriate action so that World War II might well have been averted, or if not prevented altogether at least its horrible effects of pain, suffering, death and destruction vastly reduced. On the other hand, if a head-in-the-sand libertarian had been Prime Minister, Hitler would have been allowed to build strength and take over weaker countries as he pleased. After all, "let them fight it out."

De facto appeasement in the guise of honoring the corollary "let live" leads to horrible sabotage of the much more fundamental axiom "live."

But then worsening the damage ... habits, once formed in mind in one area of thought tend to expand to other areas of thought. The habit of refusing to see real foreign threats can easily morph into a habit of refusing to see reality in domestic affairs.

Recently there has been an argument circulating which goes something like this: "Rand Paul tries to win support of Republican establishment types! Therefore, using the finest guilt by association reasoning, he is one of them!" Or the lazy man's generic version: "All Republicans are alike!" Do you see the self-induced blindness required to make such arguments?

Wouldn't it be amazing if Rand Paul's calling on earth was far beyond winning a presidential nomination or influencing the the overall mind-set of the public? Wouldn't it be amazing if Rand Paul also had a secret mission: help libertarians pull their heads out of the sand.

What if head-in-sand libertarians, sensing the value of Rand's efforts, decide they have had enough of their uncomfortable stiff-neck posture? We can imagine Rand lending them a hand to help them straighten into an upright bearing. We can envision them stretching happily with newly felt freedom, inhaling a deep breath of healthy fresh air, and then suddenly blurting out with a laugh as it dawns on them:

"Out of the sand,
With Rand I stand!"





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