Frankincense and Myrrh /p>

National Independent Party Launched (for Tea Party Patriots in 2016)

     Anybody with half a brain these days knows America is no longer the country of her Founders’ intent. But the question plaguing us all is: How do we stop the destruction taking place? What can we do to regain the limited government propriety we once enjoyed? Is there a means to regain our sanity, or is it all hopeless?
     Our perspective at AFR has been clear from the beginning. America’s troubles stem from disastrous ideology being taught in the schools and implemented in Washington. Such ideology has created a one-party state to govern us, a Demopublican monopoly that has grown into a Godzilla to dominate our lives more dreadfully with each passing decade.
     Despite the domination, however, all is not lost. There is a way to slay this beast. Americans for a Free Republic has just published a Special Report, “How Tea Party Patriots Can Break the Demopublican Monopoly and Win in 2016” (
linked at the end of this article). It explains the essence of our strategy to break the stranglehold that the Democrat-Republican monolith has over American politics. 

     This doesn’t mean creating a three-party political system. America needs a two-party system, but we no longer have two parties. We have, in America, only the Demopublican Party comprised of a Democrat wing and a Republican wing. As Patrick Buchanan says, “Two wings of the same bird of prey.” Both wings preach and implement big, monstrous government. Thus our goal is to establish a second party and break the Demopublican monopoly that dominates American politics today. 

The Four Pillars of Reform 

     This, our National Independent Party will do with its “Four Pillars of Reform” for the country’s tax, monetary, immigration, and foreign policy systems. Our goal is to recruit Senator Ted Cruz and Congressman Tom Tancredo to run an Independent campaign on the four reforms in 2016 (like Ross Perot in 1992). There can be no salvation of America without these reforms. But Democrats and Republicans refuse to promote them, much less fight for their genuine implementation. The Four Pillars are explained in detail in our Special Report. They are briefly:  

     Pillar #1: Enactment of a simplified 15 percent flat tax. All special privileges in the tax code will be eliminated. Everyone above the poverty level of $22,000 for a family of four will pay a simple 15 percent equal-rate tax of their income that can be figured in 10 minutes every April 15th. Such a tax is not the ultimate reform, which is abolishment of the income tax totally. But abolition will take time; we discuss this in our Special Report.

     Pillar #2: Enactment of Milton Friedman’s 4 percent auto-expansion plan for the Fed. This means that the FOMC will no longer be able to expand the money supply arbitrarily every year at 9 percent, 12 percent, 15 percent, etc., which is what causes the relentless price inflation that plagues us. Expanding the monetary base at the same rate as goods and services growth will reduce price inflation to zero. The 4 percent auto-expansion rate will be phased into so as to avoid crashing into a depression. If the economy has already crashed by the time of enactment, then the 4 percent plan will be employed thereafter to climb out of the depression responsibly and avoid igniting a boom-bust economy again. 

     [Such an auto-expansion plan is, like the flat tax, not the ultimate reform. The ultimate reform is to end the Fed totally. But that will take several decades to bring about, which we discuss in our report. In the interim, the Fed needs to be brought under control. Friedman’s plan is the way to do it.]

     Pillar #3: A vigorous crackdown on illegal immigration. This will be done through a three-point plan that will bring about “self-deportation” of the great bulk of illegal immigrants in America today. There will be no amnesty granted. In addition the country must return to the pre-1965 Immigration Accords, which will restore the sanity of a small annual stream of “legal” immigrants (approximately 250,000) who wish to become Americanized, learn our language, and respect our Constitution. Immigration is not a “natural right.” It is a “privilege” granted by the citizens of the country involved. This was the view of Washington, Jefferson, and the Founders in 1787 (Edward J. Erler, The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration, 2007, pp. 19-22). It was the view of the Supreme Court in 1892 (Nishimura Ekiu v. U.S., 142 U.S. 651, 659). And it must become our view again.

     Pillar #4: A return to a “mind-our-own-business” foreign policy. We must end our obsession with nation building and the role of policeman for the world. Such policies are bankrupting us both financially and morally. We need to carry a big stick, yes, but walk softly. America first and the “defense of our borders” must become our benchmarks. 

     A very important point to grasp here: We are not advocating a three-party system; America needs a two-party system. Our problem is that we no longer have two parties. We have a Demopublican monopoly. And unfortunately all challengers to this monopoly, such as the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party, marginalize themselves with “utopian policy proposals” that scare the daylights out of the voters and attract no prominent candidates to represent them on the campaign trail. This dooms such challengers to only 1 percent of the vote on Election Day. 

     What is necessary is a more common sense approach. This is what our Four Pillars of Reform offer. They are powerful, substantive reforms that will stop the growth of the Leviathan, yet they will not scare the electorate and thus will be attractive to nationally known candidates. This will make a profound difference in voter acceptance.

     We believe a prominent free-market conservative ticket such as Ted Cruz and Tom Tancredo, running an Independent campaign on the above four reforms, would get 45 to 50 percent of the vote. The country is ready for these reforms. As Victor Hugo said, “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” 

     Moreover, by getting 45 to 50 percent of the vote, Cruz and Tancredo will launch the National Independent Party as a credible political power with permanency, which will force the Democrats and Republicans to have to merge in order to remain viable at the polls. The Demopublican monopoly will be broken. We will then have two parties: the National Independent “freedom” Party and the Democrat-Republican “statist” Party.   

Forming the National Independent Party

     How do we bring the NIP about?

     First, we build a grassroots base via Meetup Groups and Internet promotions. To build the base, we recruit Bob Basso to cut one of his inspirational videos to promote the Four Pillars of Reform. He is the brilliant patriot orator who plays Thomas Paine on YouTube. His famous 6-minute video, “We the People,” went viral and has been viewed by 11 million Americans. To see him in action, CLICK HERE. A promotional video by him will put a million patriots into a grassroots base for the National Independent Party. 

     Second, we enlist big league pundits such as Pat Buchanan, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, etc. to endorse the National Independent Party. They wish very much to challenge the Demopublican monopoly. They know progressive taxation and fiat money inflation are dangerous threats to freedom. They understand the perils of open borders and militaristic global hegemony. They will readily support the Four Pillars of Reform.  

     Third, we gather such big league pundits into a group and sit down with several of the  billionaire conservative “anti-amnesty” supporters, combined with groups such as the Colcom Foundation, and commit them to putting up the necessary pac advertising money to build the base into 3 million supporters.   

     Fourth, with a base of 3 million supporters, we recruit Ted Cruz to run as an Independent candidate for President on the Four Pillars of Reform in 2016 (with Tom Tancredo as his VP), and do what Ross Perot tried to do in 1992. Three million supporters gives us the clout to put Cruz and Tancredo on the ballot in 6 months in all 50 states as an Independent ticket. Only this time we stand clearly for “freedom” rather than a “vague reformism” as Perot did. This time we will get 50 percent of the vote. This time we will win! 

Convincing the Candidates 

     Would Ted Cruz and Tom Tancredo really wish to leave the Republican Party and run as an Independent team, and in the process launch the National Independent Party? Here is what we at AFR (accompanied by Buchanan, Beck, Dobbs, and millions of supporters) would say to each of them: 

     Consider these two choices: Do you wish to be just another Republican President and Vice President who end up sitting in the White House for eight gridlocked years, or would you rather be heroic statesmen who ride a white horse into history as the revolutionary leaders who realigned the American political paradigm? What we have in mind is restoring the Republic to what it was meant to be. What our country needs are political visionaries, not political Demopublicans.  

     Let us put it another way. Do you wish to get bogged down in the black hole of impotency that dominates both Democratic and Republican administrations today, or would you rather forge a dramatic new direction by establishing a genuine “two-party” system for America and giving the country back to the people? Which way do you think you could best serve your country and the concept of freedom? Which way could you best pursue the cause of justice?  

     The “Four Pillars of Reform” are absolutely crucial to the salvation of America! Without them enacted, the American ideal is headed for the dust bin of history. Our children will be living in a centralized dictatorship. But if you try to run as Republicans on the Four Pillars, the neocon power elites who control the GOP will adamantly reject you. 

     Why? Because enactment of the Four Pillars will end their drive for an all-powerful centralized government in Washington (based on progressive tax rates, monetary inflation, and hordes of illegal immigrants) that runs the world via “militarized global hegemony.” The heads of the GOP are eager statists in all their policy visions. You will not save America with their quisling Republican Party. You will be held captive to its neocon ideology. 

Toward Real Freedom 

     We offer you a chance to do what all great leaders throughout history do – lead their countrymen toward real freedom and the light of justice. If you choose to stay with the GOP, you will achieve nothing more than orchestrating the collapse of America, for that is what the black hole of Republican impotency is ushering in. 

     You may think you can defy the neocon elites and still gain the GOP nomination, but their intellectual support, which is critical to any Republican nominee, is tied to the Wall Street-Washington axis of Big Banking / Big Government. This neocon hierarchy has the intellectual influence to control the massive donations needed to be a Republican Party nominee. It is the ideological gatekeeper of the GOP.

     This hierarchy consists of powerful intellects such as William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle – organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, Hudson Institute, and the Foreign Policy Initiative – magazines such as Foreign Affairs, Commentary, Public Interest, and The Weekly Standard. This vast network of prominent scholars and bureaucrats dominates the Republican Party. They are not “true conservatives” because they don’t believe in the fundamental base of conservatism, which is the Founders’ spirit of free enterprise and limited government. They are statist wolves clothed in conservative garb – promoting a blend of Fabian socialism and Wall Street-Washington corporatism.

     What this means is that if you favor the Four Pillars of Reform, the neocon hierarchy will scurry away from you like roaches from a kitchen light. They will never accept the Four Pillars even though they are the only policies that can save America. Thus if you campaign on the Four Pillars, the neocons will abandon you for a puppet candidate like McCain, Romney, or Christie to implement their work of centralization and usurpation. 

     If, however, you run an Independent campaign (like Ross Perot did), the American people will give you their allegiance and their hearts. You need only to show them sincerely why the “Four Pillars of Reform” are crucial to America’s salvation, and they will support you unequivocably. And what’s most important, your campaign will launch the National Independent Party as a genuine second party. You will have broken the Demopublican monopoly that is destroying us. You will have given the American people a real choice between political visions: the limited government of the Founders versus the authoritarian government of the one-worlders.  

     The choice is yours gentlemen. Rearrange the deck chairs on the Demopublican Titanic for eight years, or march into history as the saviour of the American Republic.

     That is what we would say to Ted Cruz and Tom Tancredo. Will you be the revolutionary leaders who seek something more than riding around in black limousines for eight years, then retiring to build a Presidential Library to chronicle your two terms in the black hole of Demopublican impotency?

The Pros and Cons of Cruz-Tancredo

     Ted Cruz is a free-market conservative and a brilliant political-legal mind. But will he be tough enough on the issue of immigration. He is “anti-amnesty” and has rightly rejected creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but he still offers them legal status. This is not an acceptable solution to the immigration crisis. Legal status cannot be granted to those who have entered our country illegally. All this will do is perpetuate illegal crossings forever. The only solution is to enact policies that induce self-deportation of illegals (e.g., mandating English as the official language, denial of welfare services, instituting E-Verify, etc.). In addition the pre-1965 Immigration Accords must be restored.

     Will Senator Cruz accept self-deportation? Not as long as he is a Republican because the neocons will not tolerate it. But once Cruz is no longer vying for the GOP nomination, he will no longer need to pander to neocons and will be more agreeable toward self-deportation. But this needs to be demonstrated.

     This is why Congressman Tom Tancredo (who is running for Governor of Colorado in 2014 and was a candidate for President in 2008) would be the perfect VP candidate to run with Cruz. His immigration record is as tough as there is. He would stand strong on “No Amnesty” and support all policies needed to induce self-deportation. Also he would have no problem with returning to the pre-1965 Immigration Accords. His presence on the ticket would send a clear signal to America regarding immigration.

     Though media pundits and scholars can’t see it, the American people are ready for revolutionary reform of our tax, monetary, immigration, and foreign policy systems. A Ted Cruz-Tom Tancredo ticket would sweep to victory in 2016 with an Independent campaign and force the Republicans to have to merge with the Democrats in order to remain politically viable in the future. We would then have a genuine two-party system and sanity restored to our lives.

     Can this revolution happen? It depends on how hard we work to implement the AFR strategy for launching the National Independent Party. It depends on how extensive a grassroots support we build. It is grassroots support that is necessary to inspire pundits such as Buchanan, Beck, and Dobbs to sit down with billionaire backers and convince them to fund the advertising to build the base to 3 million supporters. It is such supporters who will then contribute the money to get Ted Cruz and Tom Tancredo on the ballot in all 50 states.

     Thus it all depends on how many of our countrymen we are willing to contact to read the “Four Pillars of Reform” outlined in our Tea Party Special Report linked below. If you as a patriotic American care about your country, you need to read this document and then pass it on to your friends and associates. That is the way it was done in Thomas Paine’s day, and we must do the same.

     In times of great crisis, the “summer soldiers and sunshine patriots” will always linger behind a veil of inertia. Like the Tories in the Revolution, they will find excuses to take no action. But the true patriots, the men of courage, will join the cause immediately and fervently. They will be the ones who give up the softness of conventional life to carry the fight and spread the word. They will do the heavy lifting. They will contact their neighbors, form the Meetup groups, write the editors, get on the radio talk shows, debate the statist lackeys in their communities. If America is to be saved, it is to these patriots that our children will owe an immense debt of gratitude. They will be the Paul Reveres riding into countless nights to inform America about the hope that the National Independent Party and its crucial Four Pillars of Reform represent.   

To read our Special Report, click here: 

http://afr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/TPReport.pdf

---------------------------

Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, TX and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic www.AFR.org. His articles have appeared over the past 20 years in such publications as The Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express-News, American Conservative, Insight, The Freeman, Liberty, and The Social Critic, as well as on numerous Internet sites. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email him at: nelshultberg@aol.com

 

Views: 103

Tags: Cruz, Independent, National, Party, Patriots, Perot, Ross, Tancredo, Tea, Ted, More…Tom

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!

Join Tea Party Nation

Comment by Frank Chance Chenoweth on November 26, 2013 at 2:53pm

This plan Nelson has put together for launching the National Independent Party is absolutely brilliant!  The one part of Morry's plan that gave me indigestion was trying to recruit stalwarts of the Democratic Party such as minorities, etc.  The beauty of Nelson's plan is that this is something we conservatives can embrace!  It will be for conservatives by conservatives. 

 

It is time to stop talking about this and start doing something.  Instead of discussing new parties which are only conceptual, at this point, we have an organization that is up and running.  AFR has those proverbial "boots on the ground."  They exist.  They are real.  I sent my first contribution to them a few weeks ago; I will continue to donate to them. 

 

This is a cause that is just and noble.  It offers us the chance to save this country.  Not just for us, but our children and grandchildren, as well.  A Cruz-Tancredo administration will merely be the beginning of what will be a monumental and historic return to power of this greatest nation ever on God's earth!

 

Let us be firm and resolute.  Let us not wait any longer.  Nelson has given us the tools to do the job.  Now it is up to us to finish the job.  We will only look forward, never back, as we move towards the greatness that the greatest President ever, Ronald Reagan, saw for us and described during the 1976, 1980, and 1984 campaigns.

 

Frank Nitty

Comment by Cam Stapel on November 26, 2013 at 9:16am
To Morry: Thanks! There are so many good intentions out there. That is why we need a collection of the best minds in the Conservative movement to get the best platform we can. We need to be united under one banner, very important. We also need to get open backing of CPAC and any other high profile groups, and we MUST be on the thoughts of everyone prior to the 2014 mid-term.

God Bless America
Comment by Nelson Hultberg on November 26, 2013 at 7:57am

To Morry:

Thank you for your commentary. AFR has been at this "independent challenge to the Demopublicans" for over five years now. I've written a book on the subject, Breaking the Demopublican Monopoly. And we have come to several conclusions that must be adhered to.

Number one is that the American people will not accept a "three-party system." We preached that theme at first and gradually saw that it falls on hundreds of deaf ears for every receptive ear. If you talk against the "two-party system," you will marginalize yourself like the libertarians have done for 40 years; you will get 1% of the vote and go nowhere. This is the major flaw of all third-party movements. So yes, we do need a two-party system. The problem is that we no longer have one. We have a one-party state -- the Demopublican Party with two collectivist wings, or as Patrick Buchanan says, "two wings of the same bird of prey." Thus we need to restore the two-party system by establishing the National Independent Party as the small government choice to counter the the present Demopublican Party.

Number two is that we cannot talk like the libertarians do in saying that we must "abolish the Fed," even though this is our ultimate goal, which we clearly point out in our Tea Party Patriot Report. But such talk cannot be used in a campaign. This kind of talk marginalizes any politician or party in the people's minds as utopian. This dooms such a politician and party to getting only 10-12% of the vote, which is all Ron Paul was able to muster. The people perceived him as a utopian.

Yes, Ron Paul is right about ending the Fed. But such a goal cannot be brought about overnight; even he acknowledges that. It will take 40-50 years (maybe even longer) to educate the people into accepting gold money and a free-market banking system like we had in the 19th century, which are what will replace the Fed. What are we supposed to do during these 40-50 years, just let the Fed run roughshod over the quality of our currency? The Friedman 4% auto-expansion plan solves the problem. It is not meant to be a permanent solution (which we point out in our posting; perhaps you missed that). But it can be a very good interim approach to getting control over the irresponsibility of the Fed. All kinds of both libertarian and conservative economists accept this. We get into this in more detail in our "Tea Party Patriot Report" linked above. 

Politics is a game of incrementalism. Libertarians don't understand this, and it is why they fail at politics. They try to campaign on what we at AFR call "instant idealism." The voters, thus, write them off as utopian and give them 1% of the vote on Election Day. If we are to succeed at saving America, we need a political party and presidential candidate that will garner 37% of the vote, which wins in a three-man race. But even more, we need to get 45-50% of the vote, which will force the Republicans and Democrats to have to merge in order to remain viable for the future. These figures we cannot get if we utilize the libertarian strategy of "instant idealism," i.e., abolishing the Fed.

We need to talk in terms of "restoring sanity to the country," which is what our Four Pillars of Reform will do. Abolishing the Fed and the income tax are both laudable goals, which we share, and which we intend to bring about eventually. But to promote them openly in a campaign platform is the kiss of death. This will doom us to only 12% of the vote at best, when we need 37%.

The National Independent Party intends to get that 37% of the vote. For all Tea Party Patriots who are tired of the big government collectivism of the GOP year after year, come to our website www.afr.org and sign up for our mail list. We have a country to take back.

Comment by Morry Markovitz on November 26, 2013 at 2:31am

Cameron Stapel:

GREAT comment.   Read my TPN blog w/similar thoughts

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/it-s-third-party-time?...

Comment by Morry Markovitz on November 26, 2013 at 2:06am

PS to the below:

See my recent TPN blog on the nomination of Janet Yellen to the FED chairmanship, for its explanation of the value and function of savings, because it is very relevant to your Pillar #2.    You can reach that blog via the URL below:

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/send-janet-yellen-back...

Comment by Morry Markovitz on November 26, 2013 at 2:01am

You almost took the words right out of my mouth.  See my recent TPN blog "IT'S (third) PARTY TIME" at:

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/it-s-third-party-time?...

I do, however, have 2 comments, one FYI and one to point out the one single grievous flaw in your 4 pillars.

1.  FYI:  Read George Washington's farewell address, famous for his warning to "avoid foreign entanglements."  However, he spent much more time on another topic in that address:   WARNING AGAINST THE EVILS OF A TWO PARTY SYSTEM.     Like "Democracy," the two party system has acquired the image of being "the American way," when it is actually inimical to it.    I'm not giving any advice in this first comment, just giving you something to think about, if you care to.

2.  I agree with virtually everything but the ONE GRIEVOUS FLAW in your plan.    That is your Pillar #2, which will destroy you.   It was Milton Friedman's single error in all his economic thinking, the ONLY one I'm aware of.

I don't have time for a full explanation but here's the abbreviated summary and my bona fides for daring to  question Friedman:

BRIEF SUMMARY:  

The 4% plan sanctions the existence of the FED.    Ron Paul was correct to say that the FED must be abolished.   This plan sanctions the massive theft of the wealth of everyone's savings.    It lets Pandora out of the box and there will be no stopping her.  Ron Paul was right on this, Friedman was wrong.  This will KILL your entire plan.   I strongly suggest you read the economics of Ludwig Von Mises, from whom Friedman learned A LOT.   Friedman put his own 2c worth in and got it wrong.   Von Mises is generally recognized amongst free market economists (the professionals, not the man in the street or the WSJ) as clearly being UNQUESTIONABLY THE GREATEST MIND IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE DISCIPLINE OF ECONOMICS.    He would be rolling over in his grave at the error you are making.   Friedman knows his stuff.   99% of it.  This part is dead wrong,and it embodies a very serious misunderstanding of very basic economics:  the nature of inflation.     If  you do understand it, as Friedman does NOT (he understands it well, but with one important error) then you  know why it is also a GRAVE ERROR even to THINK about pacing money growth to  goods growth.   "Goods" growth is UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE in quantitative terms of value.   In 30 minutes of typing which I can't spare now, or in 5 minutes of verbal conversation, I could prove to you why the concept of the value of all goods and services in the economy IS A TOTALLY MEANINGLESS AND IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPUTE NUMBER.   Well, you  can compute one, but it will be meaningless, and you'll  live the rest of your life not realizing that, basing other decisions on it (like Friedman's 4%), and wondering why everything is going so, so wrong for you.  It is very demoralizing to see such an otherwise good plan, and then  OH, NO!!!  NOT THAT AGAIN!!   This is why our job is so difficult.   Understanding government controls is easy.   Understanding free market principles thoroughly is NOT easy.   In fact, very few even amongst free market economists do.  (Take Friedman for example.  He sure doesn't.   Not THOROUGHLY.   He has a single but  FATAL flaw in his understanding.   "For want of a nail . . . the Kingdom was lost."    For want of the correct understanding in this one little area, YOUR PLAN WILL, ABSOLUTELY, FAIL.

MY BONA FIDES:

I'm self taught in economics, a plus that I didn't study it in college.   I did take 2 courses under Paul Samuelson, the MIT Nobel winner, and thought his ideas were insane.   After graduating with a degree in physics, I later switched to economics, which had been an interest of mine since age 14, and had some communication with Samuelson.    We disagreed, and of course events proved him wrong.   

I studied Austrian economics, and read much of the work of Von Mises, and had as a friend Dr George Reisman, who had been a member of Von Mises' seminar at NYU after Henry Hazlitt got him over to the US and found him that position.   Prof. Reisman told me I had an unusually clear understanding of Austrian economics.  He was the closest thing to the horse's mouth after Von Mises died.

BARRON'S Magazine called me "the thinking man's trader" and whereas many Wall St "gurus" hire PR agents to try and get them an interview in this financial weekly which is generally regarded as the #1 in the world, they approached me to be their feature interviewee -- twice.    I'll have to leave out a lot, but I had a reputation for spotting UNPRECEDENTED events correctly well before they happened.   I know everyone says that, but it happens to be true in my case.   I spotted the '87 crash 2 weeks ahead of time.  Yeah, a milion guys say they did too.   They gave vague warnings way too early.  I was also the first to understand that it was a brief, one time event and that the major bull marfket which quntupled the stock market had begun 3 WEEKS AFTER the crash.    And... the stock market was just a sideline for me.   It was boring.  Finance and accounting and lots of emotion taking stock prices to ridiculous extremes in both directions.  I wanted real economics, so I was in commodity forecasting and trading.   I wish I had space to tell you the things I foresaw which virtually everyone I spoke to called me nuts for forecasting -- but which I KNEW had to happen, and which did happen.   Austrian economics was a help  in some parts of that record.  Most people know stocks a bit, few know commodities, so I'm giving you  a couple of my stock mkt forecasting feats which were picayune compared to those in commodities.   May as well mention that in late '99 I explained to my clients EXACTLY WHY and by almost exactly how much the stock market bull would finally halt in 2000, but then zig zag for months up toward highs it would make in the first few trading sessions of 2000, and back down by 10 or 15%, then back up again, frustrating both the bulls and  the bears.  NO ONE saw things clearly enough to make such a detailed forecast because NO ONE understood it sufficiently to have a basis on which such a forecast was possible.  That's where Austrian economics, as I applied it to stocks, did in fact help me tremendously.    You can ask Mark Skousen.   I took a couple hours off from trading on the friday before the '87 Crash to hear a lecture he was giving in NYC.  I was ALREADY short stocks, awaiting the crash.   When someone mentioned that the Dow had closed down 108 points, I KNEW the Crash would be that next Monday, and told Skousen, and explained a bit of how I knew it after the lecture.   He will probably remember.   I also caught the bottom of the crash within 2 points on the S&P500 because I knew from past crashes how the market behaved in the few days surrounding a bona fide crash.    Now that I'm recalling things I haven't thought about for years, I'm remembering  that I  also forecast, 2 months in advance, that a "phony" or "fake-out" crash would occur two months later in 1989.   It occurred on schedule.    And there is something I don't remember, but a friend and one of my brokers told me that in late August of '87, I think it was the 25th, I was on the phone with him telling him that THIS IS THE TOP, RIGHT NOW.   And that was the high point of the '80s bull market, the very day, before the Crash of '87 which I  also predicted precisely, as well as what would follow it.   To me, the stock market was JUST ONE of about 20 markets I followed,and the one I was least intersted in, because it was so unchallenging.   Though I'd read about it a bit since my teens, just cuz of my side interest in economics (my main interest was science), when I did switch to economics after we landed men on the moon (I knew a "recession" in the scientist & engineer professions was looming after I participated in that event), I went into ECONOMICS, not finance, ie into commodities analysis and trading.    It was only AFTER futures markets on financial instruments appeared that I felt I ought to at least  do a little bit of a look-see at the stock market.    John Liscio, now-deceased, was an investigative and financial reporter for BARRON's Magazine.  He spoke to all the famous gurus of Wall St.  He used to  call for my opinion on stocks fairly frequently, maybe for trading his own retirement account, I don't know.  But he told me in confidence something I guess it's OK to say now that it was so long ago, and now that he's no longer around.   He said that I understood the stock market better than anyone else he talked to, and he talked to ALL the gurus of Wall St.   And what he didn't know was that the stock market was a secondary concern for me.   Another thing I just remembered, more in tune with straight economics, is that in 1974 I was considered an idiot youngster know-nothing for telling everyone I knew that the recession we were going to have would be the first inflationary recession in our history.   Supposedly impossible in the eyes of virtually every economist living, including Nobel guys.    It was impossible according to Keynesian economics, which has since lost some of its luster, but I saw this ahead of time, because I understood from Austrian economics how incredibly flawed at the very roots everything about modern economics was.    I wonder, come to think of it, if Freidman foresaw that inflation would accompany  the recession for the first time ever.  Possibly.  He was, compared to others, a super economist.  But you have to understand, of course, that the vast majority of economists are utter incompetents, and that includes most, though not all, Nobel winners.    I give Friedman GREAT credit, don't take the one critique I'm making here as representative of my overall opinion of him.  He was especially superb at explaining his free market ideas in easily understandable terms.   But I always cringed when he got to the topic of inflation, the one area where he had a very, VERY serious MISunderstanding.   I wished he could have understood his subject perfectly.    Only Von Mises did.   Even Hayek, also a student of Von Mises, had his differences with Von Mises, and insofar as he strayed from what  Von Mises taught, he made errors.   An extremely intelligent economist, Hayek was another one who fell shy of understanding his subject in a couple of minor areas which, in some circumstances, could be fatal.

Now that I'm reminding myself of these things I'll add one more and then quit.  It really doesn't speak to my economic qualifications, but it seems to be more interesting to most people than the things I think are important.    In 1994, I'm the guy who broke the Hillary Clinton cattle trading scandal.     The WH had  given out at a press conference, "sanitized" (whited out and xeroxed) copies of Hillary's brokerage acc't records to financial reporters.   A fellow from USA Today called me about them.  It was news to me, but I tried to answer his Qs over the phone.   Tough without seeing what he was trying to  figure out.   He faxed the statements to me.   This was on a Wednesday early evening in April, before Good Friday.  The statements had almost no info on them, most had been whited out.   After about 2 hours of puzzle solving, I figured  out a lot.  There were 5 signs I could think of that would have been red flags of hanky panky, any ONE of them, to an accountant.   Her trading exhibited ALL FIVE OF THEM.    I also figured out what commissions she was charged.   I called the USA Today reporter back with my results, and the next day USA Today had a scoop -- the ONLY paper in the nation with the story.  I got a letter from them thanking me for a "great job of investigative reporting."   For weeks thereafter the pundits in my industry were still arguing over what those statements really meant, including for example WHETHER she was charged commissions at all, or whether they'd been waived for her.    Within less than 2 hours of analyzing those papers, I knew she'd been charged $50 "round turn."    Ultimately, every one of the numerous such deductions I'd made in those 2 hours was proven correct.    The USA Today scoop quoted me in the 2 articles they ran on the story of Hillary's perfidy.    That was on Thursday.    On the following day, Friday, the WSJ ran  a super-long editorial on the story, quoting USA Today's articles and me -- even tho it was a holiday, Good Friday.  I was unaware of it because I was home  sleeping late on a day when markets were closed.  But I got a phone call from Leslie Stahl, and when I didn't recognize her name (I almost never watched TV and had  no idea who she was), the surprised annoyance in her voice was very audible.  She had read the WSJ, and already had checked my bona fides, and gotten my home phone #, by 10AM.  Her call woke me from a deep sleep. When she said she was "LESLIE STAHL, FROM 60 MINUTES!!" after I'd asked her to repeat her name a few times, and asked "do I  know you?", I just said "Oh," and added for the second or third time "Can I help you?"    She wasn't too thrilled with my failure to be impressed.     Long story short, i was recruited to be their professional advisor to the segment on the issue for 60 MINUTES.   The next week various people working on the segment were calling me all day long for explanations and my opinion on what had been said by virtually everyone who ultimately appeared in the segment, and many  who didn't.  I wrote up a 23 point memo on what I'd deduced from Hillary's statements, in which there were many points no one anywhere had been able to deduce, and were being argued over for weeks by alleged experts.    Ms Stahl interviewed me for 3 hours, and I appeared as the "clean up hitter"in the segment that aired.  It was a whitewash, slapping Hillary on the wrist for  what seemed obvious was the taking of a bribe "laundered" through a brokerage account whose statements had  mis-spelled the name of the proud Hillary RODHAM Clinton, without ever having been corrected.   There's tons more on just this event that you'd find interesting, but I've already gone WAY over what I'd intended to write.

Sorry if I sound like I'm bragging but I usually just do my work and am then surprised when it comes out so well that a lot of people seem to be  very surprised.    I  only "sold" myself to you because I know how  many in economics make outlandish claims that are, to put it euphemistically, exaggerations.   Herein I've only given you a sampling, because to criticize the great Friedman you have to have bona fides, and I want you to take me seriously, because I know I'm right on this.  I want you to succeed, as you'll know if you read my TPN blog linked above.   And you  will NOT succeed unless you alter your 2nd pillar, and it will be a great pity, that you latched onto the one area where Friedman was SERIOUSLY in error.   I wanted him to be a hero, but he fell short, and I was disappointed that the man in the best position to be a spokesman for freedom, free markets, and capitalism had a very significant Achilles heel.    I'm not writing this cuz I need to be a big shot.  I don't.    I prefer peace and quiet.    But you have a very good idea, I think it should be done, and if it failed because of something few people understand and I hadn't spoken up, then I would have to assign some of the blame to myself.   

You can reach me via TPN I imagine, if you feel convinced there is some merit to what I've told you.  Part of me hopes you don't, cuz I just happen to be overwhelmed at the moment by the coincidentally simultaneous occurrence of several urgent problems I have to solve, and I'm a bit overwhelmed for the net several weeks, and at least I've salved my own conscience by writing this to you.    But of course I would like you to  call because the fate of this nation is of  much higher priority, and I very much want you, or someone else with a similar idea if there is anyone out there with one, to succeed.  I don't think you can unless  you alter your pillar #2, which should NOT be attempted, and which -- even if you do attempt it -- will almost certainly fail very quickly in a smaller way, but one which will discredit you  in the eyes of  many people you need to convince regarding the effectiveness of your plan..    I would be happy to explain my reasons for the beliefs I've just expressed, but I'd prefer it by phone.    I don't know how to get my phone# to you without making it available to 50,000 TPN members too, but there must be a way.   So . . . get in touch with me via TPN if you wish, we'll take it from there, and then you will have to make the decision as to whether my input is meaningful to you.


 

Tea Party Nation is a social network



The Instant Survivalist

Young Living Essential Oils

 






© 2014   Created by Judson Phillips.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service