Rose Wilder Lane - Mother Of The Libertarian Party

On Rose Wilder Lane: "Her love of America has nothing to do with the jingoism we know all too well. It is a love of individualism, experimentation, risk, entrepreneurship, creativity, reward, and the inspiration that comes with building." - From the Discovery of Freedom by Rose Wilder Lane

More than 6 years I've been researching political movements and history. I've been reading books written in the late 1930's - to the 1970's in a sort of quest to understand history as it unfolded, through the eyes of people as they were experiencing it. And Lord knows we can't trust anything media says or does anymore.

I'd had a quote about freedom from Rose Wilder Lane tucked in a quote book I created from quotes that struck me along the way as I read (the quote/passage is at the end of this essay).

I knew Lane was the daughter of Laura Ingalls; however, I didn't know she was considered one of the "mothers" of the  Libertarian party. She hung out with communists when she was young (in the 1920's) but as she traveled the world and actually visited communist countries, she realized communism is not the answer. Common Sense and Individual Freedom is the answer.

I started to read her book, The Discover of Freedom, in June of 2016. I was amazed at how my thoughts and feelings and ideas imitate Lane's - and yet, I'd had no idea she was such a political (and fiction writer) phenom.

This is what makes me sad about the years I spent doing mind numbing, soul crushing, things; parties, bars, movies, days spent lost watching TV shows (Ok, the tv show Friends was not really a loss because we all need a few breaks now and then), and reading fiction (which is good, but too much and you start to live in a fantasy world) - and in the last few years: getting hopelessly lost on Facebook (do I really need to spend 45 minutes looking at the 'wall' of people that are friends of friends?).

When I discovered Lane, I'd been working on a few different projects and have one major project that I keep refining, re-tuning. It is full of big ideas - big ideas that are very simple. I just wasn't sure how to whittle them down and explain them in relate-able language.

And then I stumbled on Rose Wilder Lane (who's quote had been with me for years, I simply did not seek out information on her nor the book it came from until now) and there was my answer.

No one has ever mentioned her in any of my research. I have Libertarian friends and her name has never surfaced.

How sad!

There were actually 3 women who gave the Libertarian party some street cred: Ayn Rand, Lane, and Isabel Paterson.

During the '30s Rose Wilder Lane also became a leading opponent of the New Deal. The "real political question" of the '30s, Lane wrote, was "the choice between American individualism and European national socialism."

Unfortunately, as Lane saw it, there was no American political party committed to individualism. "In 1933," she wrote, "a group of sincere and ardent collectivists seized control of the Democratic Party, used it as a means of grasping Federal power, and enthusiastically, from motives which many of them regard as the highest idealism, began to make America over. The Democratic Party is now a political mechanism having a genuine political principle: national socialism." Another way of saying this was to say that, again in Rose's words, "a vote for the New Deal approves national socialism." Unfortunately, however, the Republican Party was "a political mechanism with no political principle. It does not stand for American individualism." Therefore, lamentably, "Americans (of both parties) who stand for American political principles … have no means of peaceful political action." What was needed, Rose believed, was a political movement, which would unite writers, activists, teachers, propagandists, and politicians in favor of individual liberty. A "libertarian movement" — that was her phrase. Brian Doherty reports in his book Radicals for Capitalism ) that he found Rose using this phrase — "libertarian movement" — as early as 1947. He calls it "the first example I've found of the phrase in its modern sense."

I felt I might be insane as I have a ton of binders filled with notes, thoughts, highlights from books, etc. I have notebooks filled with personal essays, and, indeed, blog posts - lots and lots of blog posts. But most of them are scattered (the blog posts) - because I'm easily distractable. Most of us are; we have different people, different hobbies, pulling us in all sorts of direction. It's easy to lose sight of the few things that are truly important.

I was thrilled to learn that Lane had filled over 84 notebooks with her writing at the time of her death (she died in 1968 (the same year I was born) at the age of 81). She was self taught, and maybe that's what makes her work so brilliant; she didn't live her life in a cave, she experienced life and wrote about it.

Here's a book review (from 1943!) for her book The Discovery of Freedom
You can buy her book on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Ebay.

Here's a long passage from the book that I love - about what ONE person can accomplish:

"And when at last this rebellion compelled the British Government to use the only power that any Government has -- force, used with general consent -- and British troops moved into Boston to restore order, Americans did not consent.  They stood up and fought the British Regulars.
     "One man began that war.  And who knows his name?
     "He was a farmer, asleep in his bed, when someone pounded on his door and shouted in the night, 'The troops are coming!'
     "What could he do against the King's troops?  One man.  If he had been the King, that would have been different; then he could have done great things.  Then he could have set everything to rights, he could have made everyone good and prosperous and happy, he could have changed the course of history.  But he was not a King, not a Royal Governor, not a rich man, not even prosperous, not important at all, not even known outside the neighborhood.  What could he do?  What was the use of his trying to do anything?  One man, even a few men, can not stand against the King's troops.  He had a wife and children to think of; what would become of them, if he acted like a fool?
     "Most men had better sense; most men knew they could do nothing and they stayed in bed, that night in Lexington.  But one man got up.  He put on his clothes and took his gun and went out to meet the King's troops.  He was one man who did not consent to a control which he knew did not exist.
     "The fight on the road to Lexington did not defeat the British troops.  What that man did was to fire a shot heard around the world, and still heard...
     "That shot was the first sound of a common man's voice that the Old World ever heard.  For the first time in all history, an individual spoke, an ordinary man, unknown, unimportant, disregarded, without rank, without power, without influence.
    "Not acting under orders, not led, but standing on his own feet, acting from his own will, responsible, self-controlling, he fired on the King's troops.  He defied a world-empire.
    "The sound of that shot said: Government has no power but force; it can not control any man.
    "No one knows who began the American Revolution.  Only his neighbors ever knew him, and no one now remembers any of them. He was an unknown man, an individual, the only force that can ever defend freedom."
 -- from THE DISCOVERY OF FREEDOM: Man's Struggle Against Authority by Rose Wilder Lane, daughter of, and secretary to, Laura Ingalls Wilder,

Emotional Benghazi Testimony From Greg Hicks (Why Benghazi Matters)

This clip is not even 5 minutes long. Please watch when you get a chance. It is moving testimony from Gregory Hicks, who tearfully, regretfully, and painfully recounted that the administration could have saved the Benghazi 4. I watched the Benghazi hearings. I learned 2 things which is all I needed to understand how Hillary Clinton operates: Ambassador Stevens did not have her personal email but Ben Affleck does. And Clinton believes past actions do not "make a difference." Even if you discount all the scandals going on, remember this: She did not go to Louisianan to help flood victims, instead she went to fund-raise at Justin Timberlake's house. Hillary Clinton is nothing but scripted spin, and if you are watching nothing but CNN and main media, they are not reporting, they are shilling for status.

Benghazi is more than just "blaming Hillary Clinton" it's about lying to in order to not hurt the 2012 election, it's about refusing to label it an Islamic terrorist attack - which is something she STILL refuses to say. Clinton will readily label Conservatives as terrorists, but refuses to hold true terrorists responsible? And the Orlando terrorist's father was at a rally for her? Proudly holding a Hillary Clinton sign?

The Nonsense Democrat Viral Post About Trump; A FACTUAL Rebuttal

I noticed this post on FB circulating; it is a plant from Daily Kos and the ironic thing is, attributed to  it is filled with nothing but emotional opinionated talking points with no facts and it ends with an elitist reminder that Trump supporters offer nothing but “thin” arguments. Yet, none of the ‘arguments’ in this Progressive Opinion are backed with any facts!

I bring you a rebuttal:

1) Bill Clinton didn’t just “cheat” on his wife. Bill Clinton repeatedly said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” He continued to say that until tapes came out to prove otherwise. He is serial liar and cheater. Any woman that would continue to stand by him is sending a message to women that it’s okay for a man to disrespect and dishonor his wife, his marriage.
Not only was there Monica Lewinsky, there was Gennifer Flowers – (an affair for 12 years with Bill Clinton)  Juanita Broderick (whom he raped), and Paula Jones who filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill Clinton and he settled with her for 850.000.00
He was impeached for lying. Not cheating.

Trump never sexually assaulted any woman. He has been married and divorced. Has he cheated? Who knows. But a major difference is he was a business man – not a man who worked in politics. Politics, where the main goal is to protect and help the citizens. Bill Clinton’s treatment of women and Hillary’s (and now Huma’s!) ignorance does not help nor protect.

2) Hillary Clinton and Benghazi. Hillary Clinton was warned weeks prior to Benghazi attack that they needed extra security. Then Hillary lied after the attack and stated that is was caused by a Youtube video (later proved false) and also blamed it on a “spontaneous attack.” This attack occurred during a Presidential Election; it was very important that she (nor the Democrat Party) appear incompetent, which is why they lied. I watched the Benghazi Hearings. It was moving. The testimony of  - and Hillary admitted Ambassador Stevens didn’t have her personal email, but Ben Affleck did.   That, is really, all you need to know to understand what is important to Hillary Clinton.  ***Note – Hillary Clinton skipped touring flood stricken Louisiana in 2016, instead, she went fundraising
This Progressive Comment states Republicans were in office when over 200 die in Embassy attacks…hmm, where is the link to this? What, exactly, is it referencing?
Were there attacks on other embassies during other administrations? Absolutely, yet there are valid reasons to treat Benghazi differently from earlier attacks.
"Is Benghazi different? Absolutely," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an adjunct assistant professor in Georgetown University’s security studies program. One reason, he said, is that an American ambassador died in the attack, which hadn’t happened since the 1970s. Another relevant question, Gartenstein-Ross said, "is whether what happened was put to the American people in an honest manner, not just with respect to the administration, but also with respect to the intelligence community."Gartenstein-Ross added that he wasn’t endorsing "how the Republicans go about" investigating this question. But he did say it’s a "real, legitimate question."
"As always, what causes the problem is not so much what happens, but the response to it," said Theodore R. Bromund, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "‘If the administration had come out shortly after the attack and said, ‘Our consulate was attacked by organized Islamist forces, and we will pursue these terrorists and bring them to justice, one way or the other,’ I very much doubt there would be much juice in these hearings, if indeed they were being held at all."
3) Immigrants don’t pay taxes. Donald Trump doesn’t pay taxes.
Al Sharpton, Melissa Harris-Perry, Google, George Lucas, Facebook – all “dodge” taxes. Some dodge illegally, some dodge by using the tax loopholes. Here’s a long list of other liberals that don’t pay taxes. Oh,and while we’re talking tax dodging. Let’s talk about the Clinton Foundation. A non-profit. Which, in of itself, is simply a “front” organization used to bring in money and avoid paying taxes. If you want to be truly informed about the Clinton Cash scandals, which is far more serious than taxes, read Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer or watch the documentary for free online.
Trump is not calling for persecution of illegals, in fact, he is trying to make the path less confusing for illegals to gain citizenship. However, his first priority is to protect Americans by making sure that illegals entering into our Country are documented and free of disease, criminal records, and connection with terrorist ties. Boston Bombers, San Bernardino, Orlando Shooting, all had terrorist ties, and all were overlooked or ignored by the Obama Administration.
Hillary claims she “took a 700K” loss and was “broke” when she came out of the White House. Which, if true, only supports the fact she is incompetent.
    4) Hillary did NOT take responsibility about having a private server until AFTER wikileaks revealed a trove of leaked emails that she was well aware of the fact she knew it was illegal and a security breach to have a private server.
Again, as someone who has been in politics all her life, and someone who was the Head of the State department, to have had such a breach in security under her watch, shows not only her incompetence, but her lack of respect for the American people and her total corruption.
Has Trump said things that are embarrassing? Absolutely. Which is what makes him different.
Politicians are experts at spin; they can make you believe anything despite the cold, hard, facts. It’s also easy to do when you have a group of people pretending to be journalists, but they are nothing but public relations artists.
Republicans and Democrats fear Trump, because he represents that the long held mold of “pay to play” might (hopefully) come to an and. That politicians’ will now have to fear the people, instead of controlling the people BY instilling fear.
Could Trump perhaps, find better wording than “Build That Wall!” – Yes, he could. But then that would make him a politician.
I don’t want a career spinner like a Clinton in the office. Or like one of the Third Party Candidates.  I want a person who understands the things that make America Great; Independence, Courage, Honesty, Putting FAMILY FIRST (our Veterans, Americans, Police).  Business made America great, not federally funded “cradle to grave” “womb to tomb” programs!
The Real Hillary Clinton is found in Wikileaks.
The Real Donald Trump is found by watching him at any rally.
I’d rather put my trust in what I can see and know; rather than put my trust in a person/party who have funded their wealth by doing one thing, and saying something completely different.
Who profits from the surrender of reason and liberty? Politicians.
And one thing everyone can agree on, Trump, is no politician.