I understand this is premature because Donald Trump has not yet won the Republican nomination.  In fact, it would still not surprise me if the Republican establishment finds a way to rig the game and get a brokered convention to get Trump off the ticket.

Still, it is fun to speculate on who Trump should choose as a running mate if he holds on to the nomination.  It isn’t much fun guessing with Rubio or Cruz as the nominee because they are likely to pick another insider.  Maybe Cruz could surprise us, but probably not.

For Trump, I am not sure if he realizes how high the stakes are.  He has already taken out Jeb Bush, and he is likely to face Hillary Clinton unless she gets indicted.  Of course, even she does get indicted, he still may face her.

Trump is taking on perhaps the two most powerful families in existence.  They are extremely dangerous.

The Clintons have a long history of threatening people to make them fall in line.  It is incredible how many people associated with the Clintons have either gone to prison or met an untimely death.  Most of these deaths were labeled as accidents or suicides.

It is interesting that Roger Stone has recently released books on both the Clintons and the Bushes and their crimes.  I heard Roger Stone say he is planning to release a book on the death of John F. Kennedy Jr.  Kennedy was supposedly getting ready to announce a run for the Senate in New York.  This could have served as a stepping stone to the presidency.

This was the same time that Hillary Clinton was preparing her run for the Senate out of New York, which was also her stepping stone into the presidency.  Obama put a bump in her road, but she is trying to continue on now.

If JFK Jr. died in his plane accident due to foul play, elements of the establishment also had reason to keep him out of the Senate and the presidency.  He could have uncovered what happened in his father’s assassination.

On the Bush side, George H. W. Bush had his connections to Texas politics and the CIA.  He claimed he didn’t remember where he was when JFK was assassinated.  In other words, his hands are likely all over that one.

Bush 41 attended one of the Republican debates, right after his son Jeb had dropped out.  There is this creepy footage of Bush signaling a cut of the throat as Trump speaks.  He may be 91 years old, but people don’t become less evil with age.

And that brings us back to Trump.  I hope he knows that his life is in danger because of his threat to the establishment.  His best life insurance policy is to pick a running mate that is just as much, or more so, of a threat to the establishment as he is.  He should also stay separated from his running mate at all times.

I don’t think Ron Paul is at all likely because of his age and because of their difference in political positions.

The most obvious choice to me is Jesse Ventura.  Trump and Ventura have quite a bit in common.  Ventura is a truth seeker and he seems fearless in facing down the establishment.  Ventura has some libertarian leanings, but he isn’t that great on economics, which is similar to Trump.  Ventura is pretty good on the issue of war though, so him and Trump are not that far apart.

If Ventura were vice president, I don’t think the establishment would think about taking out Trump unless they could do a two-for-one deal.

If there are any attempts on Trump’s life at this point, it is unpredictable on what will result from it.  Obviously his base of supporters would be highly suspicious to say the least.  They would become even more anti-establishment.  I think most libertarians would figure things out too, but they already have things figured out.

Unfortunately, this is what we live in.  And it is nothing new.  The Kennedy assassination in 1963 was a coup.  It was likely the CIA and a few other insiders that did it.  It is the establishment.  Some refer to it as the deep state.

The deep state is not made up of any one individual or a defined group of individuals.  It is hard to describe, but it is definitely a group of insiders.  They don’t all have to have the same exact interests, but they share the interest of a secretive and powerful state.  Parts of the CIA are part of this.  The president may or may not be part of this.  Parts of the NSA are probably part of this now.

I find conspiracy theories fascinating.  And it would be nice if there is a smoking gun someday on something big that becomes widely known.  It is always nice when criminals are caught.

I think having conspiracies exposed does help our cause for liberty in the sense that it does weaken the consent for the state.

With that said, I’m not sure how much would change if a big conspiracy were uncovered.  If there was substantial evidence that the CIA took out Kennedy and it became widely known, would that change anything?  People might find it interesting, but they would say that it happened a long time ago and that most of the people involved are now dead.

But it is highly significant in the fact that it reveals there is a deep state.  When someone gets elected president who doesn’t go along with the deep state, then we can see what happens.

Ask someone you know what should happen if it were ever revealed that elements within the United States government were involved in the 9/11 attacks.  What do you think their answer will be?

Most likely, the answer will be that the people who were involved should be put in jail, or perhaps given the death penalty.

But this doesn’t solve anything in the long run because there is still an establishment.  It may take out a few individuals from the establishment and bring some form of justice to that one event, but it doesn’t change the deep state.

It is not as if a lot of people are going to say that since the government was involved in the 9/11 attacks that we should stop accepting Social Security from a bunch of murderers.  Even though elements of the government have no problem with the murder of thousands of people, most Americans will still say we need the federal government for protection.

Do you see the problem here?

Donald Trump made a statement a few months ago that he could stand on the streets of New York and shoot somebody and his supporters would still stick by him.  It was his attempt at a joke about the loyalty of his supporters.

I think we could have video footage of Hillary Clinton directing orders to take somebody out and I believe that some of her supporters really would stick with her.  I can just envision some women saying that it doesn’t matter what she does because she fights for women’s rights.

Again, I hope Trump understands what he has gotten himself into here.  Many people before him have been taken down by the establishment who were a lot less of a threat.

I’ve watched most of the Republican debate on Fox News, but that is not really the big political story of the day.

We just came off of Super Tuesday, and things seemed to be fitting into place. A Trump vs. Clinton matchup was looking inevitable. But what a difference a couple of days make.

It has been reported that the government has granted immunity to someone who worked for Hillary Clinton in order to gain evidence against her in the email scandal. In other words, it is actually possible that we could see an FBI indictment if Obama doesn’t step in to stop it.

Indictments tend to harm candidates running for political office, although not always. I will still be surprised if she does get indicted because of the politics involved and because the Clintons manage to get away with murder, figuratively and probably literally.

I have said for a while now that Bernie Sanders is Hillary Clinton’s third biggest threat. The first two are an FBI indictment and an economic recession.

On the Republican side, the most interesting story was seeing the establishment push out Mitt Romney for an anti-Trump speech. It came off as desperate. It showed Romney as having a lack of class, as well as being a hypocrite. I think a lot of Republicans are thinking, “Where was this guy when he was running against Obama in the general election?” He never said anything this bad about Obama.

There are only two people in the history of the United States who have signed legislation mandating that people buy health insurance or face a penalty. One is Obama. The other is Romney. You would think that the Republicans could have found any other candidate to go after Obama on Obamacare, which was the most vulnerable issue in 2012.

Trump is correct that Romney is a failed candidate. His campaign in 2012 was terrible. He played really nice with Obama compared to what he is doing with Trump now.

I don’t think Romney hurt Trump at all. If anything, he probably helped him. All of the people who are disgusted with the establishment (which is now a commonly used term) are probably just that much more disgusted after Romney’s speech.

It is also false to assume that all of the support for the other candidates would still go against Trump if it came down to two people. If it were Trump against Rubio, I think some Cruz supporters would go over to Trump over going to Rubio, who is now the establishment favorite.

The reason I said that things have changed in the inevitability of Trump getting the nomination is because Romney’s speech is a shot across the bow that the Republican establishment may try to thwart his nomination at the convention. If Trump falls one delegate short of 50%, you can bet that the Republican establishment will play games to get rid of Trump. Maybe Romney’s speech was a setup for him to step in as the possible nominee in a brokered convention.

If you go back to 2008, John McCain only won 9 states on Super Tuesday out of a total of 21 states. In terms of the popular vote, McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 were far from a majority at the early primaries. The point is that Trump should really be the nominee at this point if the past is any guide. But it is not a guide because Trump is not acceptable to the establishment.

Right now, Trump is hated by the Bush family and the Clinton family, perhaps the two most powerful and evil entities there are. I hope Trump trusts the people around him and that he has good security.

If I were Trump, I would pick someone like Jesse Ventura as a running mate if he does end up holding on to the nomination. He needs to find someone who is more feared by the establishment than he is. It would be the best life insurance policy he could find.

As far as the debate, it was the same three hacks on Fox News asking the questions. Megyn Kelly was sent out again to do an attack job on Donald Trump. There was no question they were trying to get him as compared to the other candidates.

Most of it was personal stuff that often plays into Trump’s hands. There was one good and tough question to Trump about the federal budget. I only wish it had been asked to the other candidates. As usual, there have been a lack of specifics in terms of any government cuts. Trump is the only one who offers anything vague. Occasionally Cruz will say he will cut something, but he doesn’t go out of his way to say it.

If they actually want to damage Trump, they should ask him specific policy questions. But most of them are too stupid to do so. They haven’t figured out that he is at his best when he is being attacked, especially about his businesses and his personal traits.

Trump really is all over the place. I have no idea how he would be as president. But I never would have thought just a year ago that a Republican candidate could say that we were lied into war in Iraq and still be the frontrunner.

Trump has also said that Libya was better off with Gaddafi and that Iraq was better off with Saddam Hussein. He also has said we shouldn’t overthrow Assad, although he has been inconsistent on this. Trump also doesn’t want to go to war with Russia. He actually wants to talk with Putin, where the others seem anxious to do battle.

So I am not a Trump fan per se, and I have no idea what he will actually do while in office. But we know we will get continued intervention with all of the other candidates. With Trump, we may have a chance for some sanity.

And no matter how bad Trump may be, it is a great show to watch the establishment squirm.

Harry Browne passed away on March 1, 2006. It is hard to believe that it has been 10 years since this great libertarian left us.

For those who are relatively new to libertarianism, you may be only vaguely familiar with Harry Browne and his work, if at all.

When we speak of hardcore libertarians in today’s world, the majority of them have probably identified themselves as such only within the last 10 years. Most young libertarians I know today were introduced to it by the 2007/ 2008 Ron Paul presidential campaign, or the 2011/ 2012 Ron Paul presidential campaign, coupled with using the internet for the vast amounts of information.

I wish Harry had been around to see the Ron Paul presidential campaigns. While he was always critical of the state, he retained a great deal of optimism and hope for the future, even during a time when the number of libertarians was far fewer than today.

Harry Browne is most famous for being the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee in 1996, and again in 2000. Although he previously did not engage in the political process, even refusing to vote, he saw his presidential campaigns as an opportunity to educate others on the benefits of liberty.

When Harry ran for president, he never compromised his principles. He always had a way of delivering his message so that it would not necessarily come as a shock to the audience. But his message always revolved around seeking solutions outside of the state.

When he would do interviews during his campaigns, Harry would admit that he had no illusions of winning. He really didn’t even want to win. He would say what he would do as president just to make it obvious on how much our political process has failed. For example, he would say that he would pardon all people who had been convicted of victimless crimes only, including drug offenses. He also made it clear that he would bring all of the troops home immediately.

Harry’s most notable and most controversial articles appeared after September 11, 2001. He wrote a series of articles titled When Will We Learn. It was a critique of U.S. foreign policy, and he was one of the very few at that time willing to point out that the September 11 attacks were a result of blowback from an interventionist foreign policy. If you are not old enough to remember this time well, it was a period when Americans were seeking revenge, and patriotism was running at its highest. It was not an easy thing to speak out on at that time, and Harry certainly received a great deal of criticism and name-calling. It even somewhat fractured the Libertarian Party, although he was always clear that he was speaking on his own behalf and not for the party.

Harry saw himself as a salesman for liberty. He knew that we would not gain greater liberty through the political process, or at least not until a much greater percentage of the population understood the benefits of liberty. He took the opportunity of running for president to speak and write as often as he could to get his message out.

In 2000, he released The Great Libertarian Offer. It was a book that promoted his optimism, and also the need to offer something big for people to pay attention to. He correctly stated that a small tax cut isn’t going to get people excited. His offer was to eliminate the income tax completely (among other things) and to drastically reduce spending.

He pointed out that if you don’t offer something big, then people aren’t going to go for it. You can’t cut one little government program at a time because of the special interests. You have to offer something big so that people will get on board. If you never have to pay the federal income tax ever again, then you might be more willing to give up your favorite government programs.

Harry was very knowledgeable on the Federal Reserve and the issue of money. He would speak about it on his radio show and he would address the subject in articles at times. He didn’t talk about the issue a lot during his campaigns, as it was not something he saw as appealing to a large number of people. In this sense, he was like most other libertarians until the Ron Paul presidential campaign starting in 2007. Many libertarians today, including greats such as Tom Woods, will admit they had similar thoughts that this was not the ideal issue to present to the masses. But Ron Paul proved that this could be a popular issue, even amongst young people.

If you are a young libertarian, or simply new to the libertarian movement, then I strongly encourage you to read (or listen to) some of Harry Browne’s material. He wrote two books for his two presidential campaigns, which are really great primers on libertarianism. His writing is easy to read and understand.

Harry first gained notoriety in the early 1970s when he correctly predicted the devaluation of the dollar and the likely rise of gold. In 1970, he released How You Can Profit from the Coming Devaluation. While some of the book may not seem relevant today, the first 70 pages are a great primer on the issue of money and inflation.

Harry Browne was a financial advisor and helped develop the idea of a permanent portfolio. His little book Fail-Safe Investing describes the permanent portfolio, which is intended to help investors set up a safe investment portfolio designed to hold up in any economic environment. This book is still relevant today, and many people still use the permanent portfolio setup as a basis for their investment portfolios.

Aside from writing other books on investments and money, Harry helped many people with his self-help book titled How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World. While he recognized that our freedom was restricted by government, he pointed out all of the boxes people trap themselves in within their own lives. He showed that we all have options in making ourselves freer. The book was not without controversy, but some will still claim that it helped change their lives.

Aside from his many great speeches, Harry also hosted his own radio show discussing libertarian topics. For a short time before his death, he also hosted a separate show that just discussed the issues of money and investments.

If you don’t have time to read any books, Harry also wrote hundreds of timeless articles. They are on his website, which has been maintained by his widow, Pamela Wolfe Browne.

For me, Harry was instrumental in turning me into a hardcore libertarian. While many libertarians today will say the same about Ron Paul, it is important to recognize the people who helped lay the groundwork prior to the Ron Paul campaign in 2007/ 2008.

Harry Browne himself introduced many people to uncompromising libertarianism. If you haven’t seen any of his work, I encourage you to read it or listen to it. Even for those who are familiar with his work, I encourage you to look at some of it again. We can still learn a great deal from this man. Even though he left us 10 years ago, most of his writings and other works are as relevant and useful today as when he produced them.