Nelson Hultberg's blog

26 votes

The War on Raw Milk

by Nelson Hultberg | Americans for a Free Republic

Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers have recently introduced legislation to allow for the sale of raw milk, i.e., unpasteurized milk. Their Milk Freedom Act of 2014 would make it legal for “certified dairy farmers” to sell unpasteurized milk products without harassment and criminal prosecution on the part of the FDA. If enacted, this would be a major victory for those who are health conscious and understand the grievous misperception by our medical establishment regarding the safety of raw milk.

The distribution of raw milk has been banned in the U.S. since inception of the pasteurization laws in the 1920s. The American Medical Association together with the FDA brought about this ban of raw milk because of its susceptibility to being a carrier for certain infectious microbes such as salmonella.

The error here is that it was never “raw milk” that was a problem. It was “warm raw milk” produced in crowded, unsanitary conditions from grain-fed cows instead of grass-fed that was prone to an unhealthy level of microbes. Grass-fed cows produce a milk with natural “inhibins,” anti-microbial agents that keep pathogens low, while grain-fed cows do not produce high “inhibin” levels in their milk.

5 votes

Welfare Without the State

by Nelson Hultberg | Americans for a Free Republic

Libertarians and free-market conservatives take an unequivocal stand on the provision of state welfare. It should be phased out and returned to the private sector. Charity is not a proper function of government.

This, of course, attracts the usual horrified denunciations of, "My God, what kind of human being are you? Don't you have any compassion? How can you wish to suppress poor people so? We can't just let people be poor; we must do something!"

But to be against state funded welfare does not mean one is devoid of compassion or desirous of suppressing poor people. It means one is against the dispensing of special privi­leges from the government to the citizens of a country, which means that the help we give to poor people must be done with our own money and time, and not be confiscated from others to gratify our desires and assuage our guilt. It means that if American citizens are to possess equal rights, then government cannot take money from some and give it to others. To enact such a policy is to convey pri­vileges upon some at the expense of others, which destroys the moral-philosophical foundation of our entire system. So if we are to maintain justice (i.e., equal rights), government must be barred from transferring wealth from some individuals to other individuals. This means that all charity must be private.

The “safety net” for low income earners will still function in a laissez-faire society. What our present day intellectual community refuses to face is that the phasing out of state welfare would not, in any way, eliminate the safety net. It would just transfer the safety net from the ministra­tions of power hungry government bureaucracies to a vast, private sector of concerned and humane persons. There are countless charitable organizations, agencies and groups, of both religious and secular nature, that would capably assume the role of a "welfare safety net" for people in need.

47 votes

Equal Rights vs. Special Privileges

by Nelson Hultberg | Americans for a Free Republic

One of the major evils of the welfare state in libertarian eyes is that it destroys the concept of objective law (i.e., equal rights under the law) throughout society. This is because the welfare state is based upon the violation of individual rights in order to convey privileges to special interest groups. All primary policies of state welfarism entail such a violation and conveyance. This is why justice can never be achieved under a welfare state philosophy, liberal or conservative.

Government's job is to protect rights, not violate them. It’s laws must be applied equally, which means no privileges. Yet we are taught today that government conveyance of privileges to special interest groups will bring us a just society. It is even taught that our concern with “special interest groups” is the American Way – this in face of the fact that the Founders’ repeatedly warned against the creation of “political factions.”

Special Privilege Defined

What follows will hopefully throw some light on this important issue and clarify how government’s conveyance of special privileges is destroying freedom and justice. Because of the heavy ideological obfuscation that prevails in our media and our schools, we need to first define the term special privilege. It means the intervention of government into the free-market to legislate policy that favors specific individuals and groups over other individuals or groups. It is the enactment of laws that either aid or suppress some people in relation to other people. Special privilege can take any number of forms. For example:

5 votes

Federalism: The Founders’ Legacy

by Nelson Hultberg | Americans for a Free Republic

For the first 125 years of our history (1789-1913), America was a country comprised of libertarian politics and conservative cultural values.

1) Libertarian politics is based upon the fact that man was meant to be free. Thus his government must be strictly limited by a Constitution rather than determined by the dictates of an autocrat or the passions of the majority. And his economy must be a free marketplace, i.e., laissez-faire capitalism.

2) Conservative cultural values are based upon the fact that there is an objective moral order in the universe, i.e., certain rights and wrongs in human life that are applicable to all of us for all of time. Man’s culture is to be guided by these objective moral values by instilling them into young people at an early age.

These are the two vital elements that built us into the most desired nation in history – libertarian politics and conservative cultural values. The Founding Founders believed that if political freedom is to avoid degenerating into license and anarchy, we cannot promote different opinions on morality within the same society, i.e., a “do-your-own-thing” moral philosophy.

For example, no rational person would tolerate different opinions on whether six-year olds would make good congressmen in Washington, or whether cyanide is as good a season as salt, or whether the sun and rain are necessary for a farmer's crops. Why then would he tolerate different opinions on what is right and wrong in the moral realms of life? In other words morality is not, as today's pundits insist, relative to the person and the culture. There are fundamental rights and wrongs that can be agreed upon and upheld by all members of society. To do otherwise is to create a culture of chaos and decadence, which is what is being created all around us today.

12 votes

A Strong Breed of Men

by Nelson Hultberg | Americans for a Free Republic
February 6, 2014

As most Americans are now painfully aware, our Constitution was not a perfect document, for there were certain powers granted to the government that should never have been granted. But if interpreted literally, it was a magnificent beginning because it valued freedom so highly. It was, and still is in conception and meaning, the greatest single political work in the history of man.

Should it not then be our goal as a people to return to a literal interpretation of this Constitution that valued freedom so highly and then set about to perfect it where it was flawed? Is it not then our job to reduce the tyrannical power of government and once again allow men to live, and trade, and interact as they see fit?

If freedom is right and just for men to possess, why on earth are we tolerating a government that will not allow us to be free? Why are we enduring a bloated and arrogant bureaucracy that takes over half our earnings every year and refuses to let us make our own choices in life? Why are we allowing social engineers in Washington to dictate how our businesses are to be run, where our children are to go to school, what prices we are to charge, what wages we are to offer, who we are to employ, who we are to associate with, what type of charities we are to support, how and when we are to retire, what is in our best interests, and what is not in our best interests? Are we sons of the heroes of '76 who pledged their lives and noble honor for the right to live as independent men, or are we naught but modern-day vassals to be formed and cared for by condescending bureaucrats?

26 votes

The Killing of Kennedy

by Nelson Hultberg | Americans for a Free Republic

With the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination this past November, I began revisiting the various conspiracy theories that have appeared over the years. I never put any stock in the Warren Commission and the establishment verdict of “Oswald as lone killer.” But among all the conspiracy portrayals put forth, none truly satisfied me as definitive. That is until I read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, by James W. Douglass.

There are hundreds of “JFK conspiracy” books in print, but Douglass takes the reader to places not visited by others eloquently and hauntingly. And he backs up his disclosures with 2,041 source notes. This is a book that will linger in the recesses of one’s mind for a lifetime. Establishment defenders of the Warren Commission – like Vincent Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, and Bill O’Reilly – come off as grubby lap dogs of the state in comparison.

Something conspiratorial, indeed, took place in Dallas that frightful November day in 1963, and the fact that all establishment partisans scrambled so quickly to obfuscate so blatantly in their explanations afterwards should be a clear signal that evil was at work on the part of our government. The Warren Commission’s “single bullet theory” is so embarrassing that an intelligent individual feels immense shame in even listening to it, much less extending any probability to it. It’s not a theory; it’s a “Big Lie” the likes of which Joseph Goebbels popularized.

But, of course, the Warren Commission was not after the truth. It was an egregious whitewash from the beginning with its conclusion well-formed prior to its assembly, which was to then be rammed home to the American public by LBJ and Chief Justice Earl Warren. Why? Because they wanted to avoid all evidence pointing to conspiracy so as to bring a quick closure to the horrific tragedy and any possibility of the truth being exposed, any possibility of the government’s connection to a modern day regicide finding its way into the public mind.

Important Corruptions and Suppressions

18 votes

Dupes for the Dictatorship

by Nelson Hultberg | Americans for a Free Republic
January 27, 2014

Webster’s defines a dupe as “one who is easily deceived.” But a misperception prevails among most people. They think of dupes as ignorant people only. On the contrary, there are large amounts of intelligent dupes in all societies. Brains are no protection against dupery. In fact, I would classify dupery as one of the deadly sins that curse all men and women no matter what level of class and smarts they possess. Dictatorships depend upon dupery to perpetuate themselves – especially dupery among the intelligentsia.

There are, in this writer’s opinion, three forms of dupery afflicting the human race, or three major archetypes of dupery: 1) the dupes of ignorance, 2) the dupes of apathy, and 3) the dupes of inconceivability. These archetypes are always with us, and they are why tyranny has thrived so well throughout history. Let’s examine each of them.

1) Naturally dupes of ignorance are the most prevalent because the masses of low IQ humans outnumber the much smaller number of intelligentsia in all societies. Think of humanity as formed in the shape of a pyramid. Those lacking in the capacity to reason and think clearly make up the bottom half of the pyramid, far more than 50 percent of humanity. So this sector is going to produce far more dupes than any other.

2) The dupes of apathy encompass all classes of men and women and all levels of intelligence. These types get so caught up in their careers, their families, and their country clubs, that the political direction of their country takes a tragic back seat to their personal concerns. Many individuals succumb to this problem, some temporarily, but most perpetually for a lifetime. Then all of a sudden they wake up in the midst of a full blown dictatorship and exclaim, “This is not what America is supposed to be. The Founders must be turning over in their graves.” But it is too late. The doors to freedom have closed. Our rights have been suspended by stealth. Centralized government has usurped all our important freedoms and left us with only a few bones of superficial freedom, such as the right to watch pornography and do dope. Or a bunch of false rights, such as the right to happiness, automatic acceptance, and security, instead of our true rights, which are to PURSUE happiness, acceptance, and security.

10 votes

Overcoming the Modern Tories

by Nelson Hultberg | AFR.org

The Republican Party is lost to massive statism, and it is time to seek our political salvation elsewhere. We at AFR have been sounding this alarm for several years now. Because of the vice grip that liberals and neoconservatives have over our major parties, what is needed is a fully independent political campaign that challenges their Demopublican monopoly in the way that Ross Perot did. Thus we are forming the National Independent Party for 2016.

Many readers write to us about the “pros and cons of such a venture” and naturally voice their concern about its possible results. There are two main objections put forth. What follows are answers to each of them:

1) The number one objection encountered is that all we will do with an independent challenge to the Democrats and Republicans is to guarantee election of the Democrat candidate, which would certainly not be good for America. But a Democrat win will only take place if we fail to muster a decent vote tally. If we design the right strategy and platform and recruit a nationally prominent candidate with gravitas (such as Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Tom Tancredo, etc.), then all we need is 37 percent of the vote. That wins in a three man race.

AFR’s Four Pillars of Reform for our tax, monetary, immigration, and foreign policy systems is the right platform. The above three candidates (along with several others) possess the necessary prominence and gravitas. And 37 percent actually underestimates things. Half the electorate will vigorously support the Four Pillars of Reform. Thus when a prominent candidate such as Cruz or Tancredo is factored in, 45-50 percent of the vote is a very realistic figure to expect. No Democrat will be elected with our plan. Those who fear this are not thinking clearly.

The “Impregnability” of the Ruling Class

2) The second major objection to the idea of challenging the Demopublican elites in Washington is that it’s a colossal waste of time and energy. Even if such a challenge could be built to respectability, it will attract only naive Pollyannas who have no idea of the immensity of the forces that are entrenched against them. The country is in the hands of powerful cartels of corporate-banking-bureaucratic interests that will ruthlessly suppress our efforts. The ruling class in America will wipe us out of existence before we make even small inroads into their game of fiat money and confiscatory taxes. Individuals can’t make a difference in face of such a monster machine of corporate-statism.

45 votes

Libertarians and Conservatives: Allies, Not Enemies

by Nelson Hultberg | AFR.org

The modern libertarian movement in America was launched in 1957 by Ayn Rand with her heroic novel, Atlas Shrugged. Using its radical advocacy of capitalism as their rallying cry, libertarians have, over the past 55 years, built a powerful political movement upon Rand’s ideas and vision. It is a very persuasive cause they have fashioned. But, unfortunately, its philosophical base contains flaws, which (if not corrected) will doom libertarianism to being nothing more than a footnote to history rather than a formidable force.

In my opinion, the libertarian movement, as presently constructed, is not capable of defeating the monstrous statism that is taking over the modern world? My book, The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values, has been written to explain why and what we must do to restructure the freedom movement to give it the strength to prevail. Following are some testimonials to the book, its Introduction, and information on how to purchase a copy.

* * *

“The Golden Mean is an extremely important book that I believe is destined to be a classic…[It] made me think and gave me answers I've never thought of before. I read it from cover to cover and couldn't put it down.” – Mark Skousen, former professor of economics, Columbia University, author of The Making of Modern Economics.

“In a world inundated with political / ideological books, Nelson Hultberg’s brilliant work…stands apart from, and above, anything I have previously read in this genre.” – Robert Ringer, Author of Restoring the American Dream.

“No one can read this book and not have his thoughts and conscience provoked…It is a profound and passionate effort toward healing a major schism that is long overdue.” – Lawrence W. Reed, President, Foundation for Economic Education.

* * *

INTRODUCTION

The prevailing sentiment on the political right today is that there can be no compromise between the forces of libertarianism and those of conservatism. Such an attempted mix is, as Russell Kirk put it, “like advocating a union of fire and ice.” Murray Rothbard’s hard-core libertarians conclude also that the two philosophical views are forever incompatible and that there can never be a meeting ground where conservatives and libertarians will be able to coalesce. This is primarily because libertarians believe that the central dilemma of civilization is liberty and how to advance it, while conservatives believe that the central dilemma of civilization is order and how to preserve it. Moreover, many libertarians believe in the perfectibility of man, while conservatives see man as forever flawed in nature. Therefore, these two groups must go it alone, each fighting for the implementation of its specific worldview on its own.

This sentiment is grievously flawed, and it has led to our present ineffectuality in combating the statism so insidiously consuming the modern world. Neither of the two philosophies of libertarianism and conservatism can stand alone, nor would any clear-thinking person wish them alone upon humanity. A purely conservative country would be a static despotism of traditionalist philosopher kings, and a purely libertarian country would be a cultural anarchy of moral primitives. One of the purposes of this book is to demonstrate that each philosophy only gains validity by adopting strains of the other.

35 votes

America’s Ruling Troika

by Nelson Hultberg | AFR.org

Nelson Hultberg is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values.

Who rules America today? Not the people; they have been vanquished. America is ruled today by a collectivist Troika – an Executive-Congressional Combine, Judicial Oligarchs, and a Corporatist Banking Cartel – who have as much concern for the resplendent principles that formed our country as street pimps have for romance and love. How has this Troika come to possess its power over our lives? It has accrued its power by conveying endless privileges (handouts, subsidies, loans, quotas, monopolies, price controls, tax breaks, etc.) to an ever-swelling mobocracy. This buys the mobocracy’s support every election year and insures the Troika’s permanency.

Who comprises the mobocracy? Sixty million Americans looking to get more out of life than they have a right to: government bureaucrats, corporate quislings, welfare parasites, media lackeys, union members, Black and Latino minorities, feminists, gays, environmentalists, Hollywood decadents, illegal aliens, unemployable misfits, and hordes of other obtuse voters.

Is this being unfair to Blacks, Latinos, gays, and feminists? To union workers and welfare recipients? Not at all. These groups demand and receive from the federal government quotas, monopolistic protections, hiring dictates, and subsidies to advance themselves in the marketplace. This violates their fellow citizens’ rights to free association, to free trade, and to their property. Such conveyance of “special privileges” is the reason why we are now $110 trillion in debt, why lobbyists annually converge upon Washington like weevils to the gristmill, and why Americans have voted a blatant Marxist radical into the highest office of the land.

21 votes

The Anti-Ideology Syndrome

by Nelson Hultberg | Americans for a Free Republic

Modern intellectuals are anti-ideology. They shun its use like kings and high priests shun voting. One of the first putdowns a student receives from a liberal professor when expounding the basic principles of capitalism in a college classroom is, “Oh, that’s too ideological. Your thinking is too rigid. You’re trying to label things! You must be more open to progressive experimentation and creative government. The Constitution is a living document. The use of any strict ideology or rigid set of political principles is impractical and reactionary. In a modern world, we must be flexible, pragmatic, willing to tolerate a new and ever changing role for government.”

Such is the usual response given to any student daring to declare that government’s functions should be limited to a Constitution that is strictly, i.e., literally interpreted, or that capitalism is the only socio-economic system that is capable of protecting the individual’s rights, or that without upholding the principle of “equal rights under the law,” there can be no true or lasting freedom, etc.

It’s not difficult to understand why our liberal-dominated intellectual establishment opposes ideology and its use of labels to define government’s role in society. Precisely because it does just that – it defines government’s role in society! The statist mind wants a vaguely and loosely defined government, unfettered by the restrictions of theory or principle or rights or labels or moral judgment. He seeks blanket power over men and their production. Thus it is only natural for him to be antagonistic toward the use of an overall ideology that labels his approach dictatorial, statist, neo-fascist, authoritarian, etc. and backs it up with rational arguments. Such intellectual labeling inhibits his power.

24 votes

The Paradigm Shift Dilemma

by Nelson Hultberg

Paradigms are mega-systems of thought that explain certain realms of reality so as to shift mankind toward new visions. For example, mercantilism, Lockean limited government, species evolution, Pasteurian medicine, quantum physics, Keynesian economics, and welfare-state politics are paradigms that developed in their respective fields over the past several centuries. History is a continual process of shifting toward new paradigms in which the established thought of society is dramatically altered.

Paradigm shifts can be either positive or negative. When positive, these shifts are the manifestations of truth’s discovery and a better way of life. But in bringing about a better way of life, they also create a powerful dilemma for those who find themselves on the wrong side of the shift.

72 votes

Revitalization of the State Militias: A Review of Edwin Vieira’s The Sword and Sovereignty

Revitalization of the State Militias
A Review of Edwin Vieira’s The Sword and Sovereignty

by Nelson Hultberg

On April 19, 1775, the battles of Lexington and Concord on the outskirts of Boston ignited the conflict that led to the most momentous political event of man’s history – the Declaration of Independence and the birth of America. In the early morning hours of that day, a command of British troops was dispatched from Boston to search out and confiscate stores of militia weapons and supplies at Concord. On the way they confronted a small and unimposing band of armed American militia at Lexington. The British Major John Pitcairn shouted out, “Ye villains, ye Rebels, disperse; damn you, disperse! Lay down your arms!”

The American militia were under the command of Captain, John Parker; and their orders were to remain non-antagonistic to the British. They were outnumbered by almost ten to one. So why didn’t they lay down their arms when ordered to do so? “Because,” says constitutional scholar Edwin Vieira, “free men with a duty to keep and bear arms never willingly lay down their arms. And at Lexington, none of them did.” The heroic militia Captain John Parker warned his men, “if they mean to have a war let it begin here.” And begin it did.

Importance of the State Militias

With his newest book, The Sword and Sovereignty, Edwin Vieira, Jr., has given us a magisterial work that meticulously documents the history of the early American militias and why similar units must be revitalized today if we are to adequately confront our disintegration as a society and restore the republic that the Founders gave us. It is a book that will profoundly shock 98 percent of Americans. It is so overpowering in its legal logic and constitutional veracity that the intellectuality of Cicero and Plutarch comes to mind as one reads the prose. It is not a book that can be read lightly; it demands a tolerance for legal thought and abstract conceptualization. But for those “men of the mind” who understand the importance of ideas in the unfolding of history, the effort will be most rewarding. You will be shown an entirely new way of seeing things regarding guns, militia, the Second Amendment, homeland security, how they intertwine, and how they have been grossly misrepresented by quisling, pseudo-experts of the establishment.

4 votes

Time for the Unthinkable: a Third-Party

How to Take the Ron Paul Revolution to the Next Level

Nelson Hultberg | AFR

In the aftermath of the sickening travesty that Obama's reelection represents, pundits on the right are building up their strategic juices to project how conservatives and libertarians can "take over the Republican Party" and begin taking the country back.

My answer to them is: It will never happen! Oh, we can take the country back, all right, but not through control of the GOP. The ideological sycophants that comprise the GOP couldn't take back a sack of sunflowers from spinsters in a rest home.

Far too many pundits on the right have ceased to think. Irrationality saturates their minds regarding how to confront the political leprosy that Obama represents. This is because they believe we must, now and forever, work within the statist establishment. This is grievously in error. The present political insanity in America mandates a new direction, a dramatic new strategy. Dare I say it? We need a THIRD-PARTY to provide an escape from the GOP's debilitating lack of chutzpah.

Conservatives desperately need to purge the me-too welfarists from their command centers. But tragically all we hear today from “respectable” voices on the right is the same me-too welfarism we've heard for over four decades about how the GOP must "become more inclusive" and "build a bigger tent." Translated, this means we need to shelve our principles in favor of more compromises with the leprosy of the liberals.

40 votes

A New Kind of Freedom

by Nelson Hultberg | AFR.org

Karl Marx was asked once how he could justify advocating a political system of slavery for the individual, which is what socialism is. He replied that, socialism is not slavery; it is a "new kind of freedom." As all perceptive students of history know, the intellectuals of Europe bought into such Alice in Wonderland sophistry and plunged into the twentieth century nightmare of collectivist tyranny. But unfortunately so did American intellectuals about 30 years later when the Progressives of Woodrow Wilson's era established the Creature from Jekyl Island to usher in centralized government banking and the progressive income tax to "spread the wealth around."

Socialism is not really so bad, reasoned the American intellectual community. If we think about it, it actually is a "new kind of freedom." We just have to do what the Red Queen and the Mad Hatter advocated. We have to change the meaning of the words that define the fundamental values of our lives. After all, there is no objective reality; words can mean whatever we want them to mean. All we have to do is teach Marx's new definition of freedom to the young at an early enough age, and when they grow into adulthood they will not think of a government-dominated society as slavery at all. It will be a "new kind of freedom" to them.

Americans never bought into Lenin's violent revolutionary socialism, but they did buy into the Fabians' democratic evolutionary socialism. Fabian ideas in Britain were readily picked up by the American progressives and liberals of the twentieth century. This redefinition of values has been consuming us now for 100 years ever since the Creature from Jekyl Island and the tax revenuers took over Washington. The progressives and liberals have even redefined their redefinitions. Fascism, being basically the same as socialism, is now acceptable in the mix.

Syndicate content