This is what everyone paying attention tomorrow needs to understand -- our government has gone off in its own direction. We've lost control.

There is evidence of a present resurrection among independents and some conservatives, but it remains to be seen if this resurrection is grounded in anti-statism and non-intervention overseas like the Old Right. Hardly anyone is addressing the internal threat of statism as both left and right have found new external threats which take precedence over liberty, peaceful trade and free markets. The modern right gives lip service to classical liberal principles, but these principles are largely viewed as quaint ideas of a simpler, less dangerous past.

The old charge of "isolationism" missed one of the core values of the Old Right, what Rothbard described as America "serving the world as a beacon light of peace and liberty, rather than as master of a house of correction to set everyone in the world aright by force of bayonet."

The perceived threat of communism turned the right into militaristic statists, retrenching into a traditional system satisfied with temporary loss of freedom for the sake of Power, God and Nation, much like Bush's betrayal of the free market to save the free market. Individual liberty, free markets and limited government became something we could attain later, but, in effect, classical liberalism was being traded for a statist-leaning conservatism. Many moderate statists today yearn for Buckley when they should yearn for Nock.

The New Order created by the Industrial Revolution, the American Revolution and the French Revolution has been sliding back to the ogligarchic control of the Old Order, but it has a new face. Today's conservativism, which passes for the Right, is a conglomeration of muddled thinking, although a strain of classical liberalism/libertarianism is breaking through. Anti-communism was replaced with anti-terrorism, and while both have been threats, each has been a rationalization for building a more powerful, interventionist state. "Terrorists" are actually statists using different tactics, and America continues fighting statism with more powerful statism, just as we did with the communists. The weapon to use against statism is anti-statism, but we have to believe that statism is wrong in order to use this weapon properly and too have any integrity.

If it's a matter of the most powerful statists winning, then we might win the war of control, but how many innocent people must die in the process? How much liberty must be lost? And if the idea of statism lives on, then we'll always be fighting some other statist power which challenges us for control. Where are the voices of anti-statism in the world, upholding the New Order of classical liberalism which transformed the world once upon a time? The progressives are preaching a stale moral relativism, while the conservatives are preaching military superiority, but no one is preaching individual liberty, free markets and limited government. It seems as if these principles have been assigned to obscurity as we discuss ways for groups of states to control the world.

We are no longer that "beacon light of peace and liberty", just a powerful state with no vision of the future. It embarrasses most intellectuals to even think in such terms of having a vision of the future inspired by classical liberal principles, much less voicing these principles full-throatedly and attempting to persuade others to follow, or, through our actions, lead by example.

The world should be tired of war by now, but there are no champions for peace. The world should be tired of coercion by now, but there are no champions for liberty. The world should be tired of central planning and social engineering, but there are no champions of limited government and voluntary action. Well, there's not many champions, and the ones who do raise their voices are called reactionaries, rubes, rightwing fanatics, gullible, isolationists -- they are ridiculed and marginalized. To be fair, some strains of the right deserved ridicule and marginalization, and we're better off for their loss of power and influence, but, hopefully, the original resistance by libertarians to the Rooseveltization of America will never die.

There's still a useful distinction between right and left, but the right has been reduced to a few surviving libertarians screaming against a powerful and destructive wind. Melodramatic? Quixotic? I prefer to think that it's a healthy defense of liberty, and an authenic call for peace and prosperity for all -- a right resistance to a statist left and a confused moderate middle.

The moderates are claiming that their candidates hve local support and can win, but the national conservative movement is hurting the moderate candidate by financially supporting conservative candidates in primaries who can't win the general election. For this theory to be valid, one has to believe that voters are stupid and will change their minds when money enters the campaign. If the moderate choice has local support, then the candidate should win the primary, then be in a good position to win the election once the party unites behind the primary winner.

I don't think conservatives will pull a Scozzafava and vote for the Democrat candidate if their conservative candidate loses a primary -- in NY-23 there was no primary, but Scozzafava fell behind and dropped out when the conservative independent candidate, Hoffman, gained a lead, then Scozzafava supported the Democrat.

But, if Crist wins the primary, the conservatives will not throw their support to the Democrat, so the moderates don't have to worry about the primary depleting Crist's campaign money and energy -- in fact, it should enhance Crist's campaign.

The moderates are afraid Rubio will get attention and that the voters will prefer him over Crist, therefore placing the conservative over the moderates' choice. But that would be the people's choice. If the voters really don't like Rubio as a candidate, they will not vote for him. If the people like Crist, they will vote for him. In this partisan environment, Democrats and Republicans have made up their minds, and since independents are more politically active, they can register Republican for the primaries and vote for either Crist or Rubio.

In order to give credence to Frum's theory, you would have to believe that primary's are a problem, and that in order to avoid them, voters must rely on the Republican moderate leadership to pick one candidate which everyone supports without question. As far as national support interfering with local elections, if the locals know their politicians, then national interference will have little effect on outcomes. I can understand a presidential election being influenced by money and marketing when the nation is not familiar with certain candidates, but local voters know the players and can make informed decisions. Frum, and other moderates, are wrong to think voters in local elections are swayed by national support from the conservative base. The local voters in Florida will decide in the primaries who they want to run, and that will be their choice.

The moderates are less concerned with local voters having free choice than with who has control of the party. This lack of concern for choice, and this assumption that people are robots who can be programmed by the conservative base leaders, reflects poorly on the moderate mindset as it relates Republican voters -- or people in general for that matter.

This is long, but it's very important to understand this rebuttal of government claims that deregulation caused the financial problems from the past year. What's incredible is that the administration and congress are going forward as if the deregulation narrative is valid. I don't think the seriousness of government dishonesty is yet fully realized. Since most people don't take the time to understand cause and effect related to government intervention, the government can promote these false explanations and get by with it. It must be stopped.

The damage our representatives can cause by creating regulations and laws based on deceitful claims blaming the free market can't be overstated. What will happen is that the new regulations and laws will cause more problems, then there will be more false explanations, then more laws and regulations, until the government controls the financial industry. Healthcare, finance and energy -- what's next?

Hopefully, this nonsense will whirl away into space and we can get on with allowing the free market to deal with healthcare. Hopefully, by now, everyone watching understands government caused our healthcare mess and they have no idea how to solve it.

Nah, it's more than that -- it's a form of hate-hysteria. These people actually hate Sarah Palin. What has she done to deserve this type of animosity?

Then, there's Glenn Beck -- just about every area of media has now attacked Beck. But, Beck simply laughs at them and goes forward. The media seems to be frustrated they can't destroy either Beck or Palin. They've given up on Limbaugh. The private sector is the place to be if you want power in this political environment.

If the media continues these attacks, the public is going to move in greater numbers to defend Palin and Beck  -- the independent/conservative movement is gaining momentum and realizing that too much power has been placed in the hands of government and media. The more the media attacks Palin and Beck, the more people are going to ask the question -- what have they done to deserve this type of animosity?

These attacks might work with the progressive supporters and moderate, north-eastern types, but across the country it's going to look like the hatchet job it is. Call it populism -- call it anti-intellectualism -- call it what you want, but the plain fact is that most people in this country don't think like progressive political activists or north-eastern intellectuals who are immersed in political minutia. The "anti-intellectual" tactic is merely a way to make people who oppose the phony intellectual types appear ignorant and frightened of superior intellect. The public sees a couple of people, Palin and Beck, who've risen to stardom, who seem to be down to earth, who don't talk down to them and who are not any danger to them.

These constant attacks come across as mean-spirited and snooty. Americans don't like snooty. It's not anti-intellectualism -- it's anti-snootyism. All these intellectually superior haters of Palin and Beck, if they really think Beck and Palin are inferior, sure look silly expending so much frenzied energy to destroy them. Whatever happened to looking down your be-spectacled nose and emitting a cool, dismissive sniff? 

It's highly unlikely that Barlett has studied Hayek, but any argument will do when you're accustomed to supporting government work. Bartlett reminds me of a kid who is mad at some of the kids in his neighborhood, but is afraid to confront them face to face in honesty, so he builds Lego versions of the kids, then takes his plastic sword and slays them.

Bartlett makes conservatives appear as wild-eyed fanatics who think any adoption of any European idea means that America will become a totalitarian state. Of course, Bartlett doesn't produce any evidence that any conservative has made a statement such as this -- plus, he ignores, or never read, Hayek's ideas on welfare.

The purpose of the article is not to support European ideas, but to denigrate conservatives, which he does dishonestly. If Bartlett has a problem with the conservative kids in his neighborhood, he ought to summons the courage to face them honestly and debate ideas objectively, and put away his ridiculous plastic sword swatting at Lego figures -- and figures of his imagination.

Bartlett has studies which show how happy people are in different countries. Aside from the fact that it's difficult to compare the happiness level of one individual from the next, since so many variables are involved, it's preposterous to use such studies of countries as scientific evidence proving anything useful. I don't know what's happening to paid political pundits, but they are getting sloppier and weirder everyday -- is "stupider" a word? I mean, people are getting paid for this!

I'm not defending conservatives, because they do this Lego stuff, too, but in this ongoing debate, the moderate statists are losing. Both groups should relax and become libertarians -- but then they wouldn't find any paying jobs.

We know why the moderate statists like Frum hate and denigrate her - they're terrified of her. Frum asks about her intentions:

It’s not the presidency. But it may be more fun. Why campaign, when you can tour? Why seek votes, when you have fans? Why be Evita, when you can be Madonna?

And why care what a lightweight like Frum thinks? But Frum's sarcastic attack is unintentionally correct. It's obvious by the obession that Frum has for criticizing Palin that he knows she has star-power, and this makes him angry. Frum is the type who hates what he believes is unearned success in the political realm. If Palin is as incompetent as Frum suggests, then why even worry about her -- Frum, too, could lighten up and give her a little support, if he believes that if she runs, she will implode -- then she'll be gone for good, right?

No, the moderate statists and the progressive statists must destroy Palin, because Palin is a threat to them, but it's backfiring. The more they pile on, the less credibility they have. It's a pathetic show of fear and elite disgust. But, be that as it may, Palin should not run for President.

The high-stakes political game in Washington D.C. is run by snakes, and only snakes emerge unscathed. Either someone enters politics at a high level already a snake and they survive, or they become a snake and survive, or they resist becoming snake and they're destroyed, or at least marginalized.

Sarah Plain doesn't stand a chance running for president, and if by some miracle she won, she'd be destroyed, or become a snake. Palin's forte is in the private realm. I can't even imagine why she would want to run for president -- it would thwart her power. She would be in constant battle with snakes and nothing would be accomplished.

The private realm is where the untapped power lies. If we want to regain free market principles, it will be done in the private realm. I've recently wrtitten about the need for innovative safety net initiatives in the private realm, but we're using an old worn-out term -- what we need are private empowerment initiatives. There's a certain small fraction of the country which needs permanent assistance because this group of Americans are incapable of helping themselves for various reasons, and they should be taken care of in a wealthy, powerful country. But the great majority of people simply need an environment of empowerment to fight against the big government/big business cartel in a competitive/cooperative free market. Yes, we need representatives in government who will work to limit government power, but a president will not get this done, so it's useless for Palin to even consider running at that level. Palin, and others like her, can avoid the unfair advantage of the political class by running in the private sector for leaders of a private revolution to restore the integrity of the Constitution, capitalism and voluntary social change.

Palin, and other charismatic proponents of the free market, liberty and limited government, can raise money to defeat progressive, professional politicians -- they can represent small businesses, and women, and minorities, and all ordinary people in the private realm, in a battle to fight the state/corporate stranglehold on America.

Palin should be brushing up on the particulars of free market principles and Constitutional issues so she can articulate the philosophical differences, then use her star power to help persuade America to gain control of our government, so that private realm forces are unleashed to make changes. The politcal snakes can't use inside political tricks to destroy her if she immerses herself in the private realm and becomes an integral part of a peaceful revolution of principles. Perhaps principles don't mean much in Washington, D.C., but they are vital for the private realm to restore integrity and to protect our freedom.

So, I say -- "Sarah, give the finger to the political class and join the private citizens who will support clear-headed, limited government ideas, and who will help to re-establish free market prinicples -- who knows, we might make you President of the U.S. where it counts, among producers and hard workers, and intellectuals who are not subsidized by government, and women who need empowerment, and minorities who need empowerment, and all the rest who are trying to make sense of it all. Plus, the pay will be better than a government job. But, here, you'll have to prove you mean what you say, and you'll have to compete, and persuade by reason, rather than coerce." 

Our government is spending money like we're in the biggest economic boom in history. Obama is flying around Asia for 9 days burning up money for no good reason. All this business can be handled from afar with modern technology -- there's no need to pollute and spend money on all this travelling.

Obama should be in the White House working daily to find wasteful areas of government which can be eliminated, not adding to the waste by jet-setting around the globe.