Mitt Romney – Supports abortion. (source) Supports Socialist National health care and private mandates, turning millions of unemployed Americans into indentured criminals in 2014. (source) Supports the homosexual agenda. (source)

Rick Perry – Encourages 11-year-old girls to have sex, even to the point of fighting his legislature. (source) Sympathizes with Muslim terrorist groups (source). Favors public works projects. (source)

Newt Gingrich – Supports private health mandates, turning millions of unemployed Americans into indentured criminals in 2014. Supports food and drug regulation. Supports global warming. Supports domestic non-defense regulation. Opposes gun rights. (source)

Rick Santorum – Supports private health mandates, turning millions of unemployed Americans into indentured criminals in 2014. (source) Occasional weakness on the abortion issue. (source) Opposes gun rights. Supports labor union interests. (source) (more on Rick Santorum)

In 1994 we had a free-market Republican Revolution of Deregulation.
In 2010, we had a limited-government Republican Tea Party Revolution of Small Government.

We had Soviet Socialism. We have Cuban Socialism. We have Chinese Socialism.
The Occupy Wall Street movement is American Socialism.

Welcome to the American Socialist Revolution of 2012.
Brought to you by the Republican Party.

Presently, our ability to attain knowledge is threatened because said knowledge represents a threat to the state — not to “national security,” as is claimed, but to the legitimacy of the state itself. Julian Assange, through WikiLeaks, has made available to society a vast collection of information that undermines the state’s legitimacy. Assange cracked the government’s veil of benignity and brought into question the state’s tactics. His website undermines its moral authority.

WikiLeaks was only shut down for one day. The service found a new host, outside the immediate reach of the American government. Bureaucracy has been stumped by a new obstacle that, ironically, it helped to create (although the market let it flourish) — the Internet. Now it is the state that finds itself one step behind. Book burning has been rendered obsolete.

The Internet knows no borders, jurisdictions, or physical limitations. A server in Nigeria can be accessed from the United States. One simply has to look at the number of pirating websites seemingly immune to intellectual-property laws. This global network of information dispersion has made irrelevant the state’s tools of repression: How can a nation’s costume-sporting thugs effectively stop something that does not physically exist within their geographic jurisdiction? How can a government threaten with regulation an entity that operates outside its ability to enforce its laws? The state has been left behind.

True, governments have had some success censoring the Internet through security blocks and similar tactics, but just how effective these means have been is up for scrutiny. Even China’s vast army of “Internet police” has been ineffective at stopping the less technically challenged individuals from evading their firewalls.

More importantly, how many times has the government responded with force and failed? The recent events illustrate that government is losing and the market is winning.

We are above emulating the state’s tactics. The role of ideas has become so comprehensive that even government-empowered gangsters are susceptible once they realize just how ridiculous they have been made to look.

Bloody revolution is no longer with the times, because government’s armies are becoming more and more immaterial. As this WikiLeaks episode unfolds, and as government sows the seeds of its own humiliation, we will see government combated, not by force of arms, but by the supremacy of the market.

Read the full article

I have long been an opponent of the 17th Amendment. Ratified in 1913, this gave the American people direct popular election of Senators. Prior to this, Senators were selected by the states (some states held popular elections), as the Senate was designed to represent the state governments, while the House of Representatives would be democratically-elected representatives of the people. This is stated in the Federalist Papers and apparent when you compare the powers of the Senate to the views of the Founding Fathers (e.g. ratification of treaties) . Since the 17th’s ratification in 1913, we have had extensive growth in government, often against the will (or budget) of the state governments (more recently REAL ID, No Child Left Behind, etc.) and a repeal would once again make the Senate subservient to the state governments while keeping the House subservient to the people.

It is written by “Epaminondas” of An Anti-Federalist’s Blog, and has two parts:

Part 1
Part 2

The article is long, but a recommended read.