Dear America,
As a musician I value creativity, individuality, and ambition. It takes a very American idealism to pursue the dream of a music career. Now after many of years of fighting for "fair" trade and government empathy, I realize to truly value individualism is to value the Free Market.
It's in a free market where Creativity and Individuality are truly fostered in the people, where the limits are only drawn by your ability to bring fresh and new ideas to the table. It's in the free market where every individuals journey is theirs and theirs alone to derive art and expression that is unique to them and no one else.
Yet, as a community of individuals, why do we tend to fight against the very thing that has spawned us? I've heard the argument that in Idealized socialist world, the artist will no longer have to worry about struggling for ends meat and can spend his day creating art and discovering expression. Yet it's the struggle, it's the unique circumstances that shape each artists unique perspective and expression. Who is the government, or liberals to take away the struggle that drives inspiration and growth of the individual spirit.
I fight for a world of individuals, where your journey is owned by you to share with no one else. Where a free market of commerce brings us prosperity and innovation while a free market of ideas brings us peace and art. I fight for the freedom and liberty to see such a world exist, a world that great men such as Ron Paul have fought all their lives to restore. I continue this fight in a revolution beginning from the top, starting with the president of the united states and working it's way down into the heart of every individual. I fight in the revolution, the Ron Paul revolution.
Friday, November 30, 2007
#5 - Isolationism vs. Non-Interventionism
After reading the article by Ross Slaneff about Iraq, "War was, and still is, a disaster" who I got the impression will be supporting a democratic ticket, I felt the need to respond. Only one candidate is promoting the non-interventionist policy that is needed to bring the troops home, which would have other benefits as saving enough money to alleviate the Social Security deficit. This candidate is Ron Paul, who Glenn Beck said on his show, "is the closest to the founding fathers".
I'll leave it to you to go to Ron Pauls website, RonPaul2008.com, and read the details of his Foreign Policy, but what I would like to do is dispell a common misconception, Non-Interventionism IS NOT Isolationism as John Mccain would like you to think.
Isolationism is the idea that our country should not have any type of relationship with foreign nations, no trade, no diplomacy, nothing. Islationism is very dangerous philosophy which undermines the free market and can kill the economy. Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist, he is a Non-Interventionist.
A Non-Interventionist does not intervene in the foreign affairs of other nations by providing Financial and Military aid to other nations, which would create deficit spending and weaken our national defense. A Non-Interventionist is for free trade with other nations and building friendships through diplomacy and leading by example, this is the school of thought of Ron Paul. The ideas of Civil Liberty and Freedom spread faster through friendship and trade than can ever be spread through coersion and cooptation.
Mccain tried to blame WWII on isolationism during the debates, when it's actually Interventionism through sanctions on Germany that lead to Hitlers rise in power. All I ask is that you grab a history book and understand the motivations and cultures of foreign nations to truly develop a view on world politics.
In response about Fred Thompson last week, my intention was not to undermine his campaign but to allude to the chord Paul has struck in the nation. Fred Thompson is actually very aligned with Ron Paul on most issues except Foreign & Monetary policy. To read more on my political thoughts and rhetoric read my blog, Cause for Freedom, at http://causeoffreedom.blogspot.com/.
I'll leave it to you to go to Ron Pauls website, RonPaul2008.com, and read the details of his Foreign Policy, but what I would like to do is dispell a common misconception, Non-Interventionism IS NOT Isolationism as John Mccain would like you to think.
Isolationism is the idea that our country should not have any type of relationship with foreign nations, no trade, no diplomacy, nothing. Islationism is very dangerous philosophy which undermines the free market and can kill the economy. Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist, he is a Non-Interventionist.
A Non-Interventionist does not intervene in the foreign affairs of other nations by providing Financial and Military aid to other nations, which would create deficit spending and weaken our national defense. A Non-Interventionist is for free trade with other nations and building friendships through diplomacy and leading by example, this is the school of thought of Ron Paul. The ideas of Civil Liberty and Freedom spread faster through friendship and trade than can ever be spread through coersion and cooptation.
Mccain tried to blame WWII on isolationism during the debates, when it's actually Interventionism through sanctions on Germany that lead to Hitlers rise in power. All I ask is that you grab a history book and understand the motivations and cultures of foreign nations to truly develop a view on world politics.
In response about Fred Thompson last week, my intention was not to undermine his campaign but to allude to the chord Paul has struck in the nation. Fred Thompson is actually very aligned with Ron Paul on most issues except Foreign & Monetary policy. To read more on my political thoughts and rhetoric read my blog, Cause for Freedom, at http://causeoffreedom.blogspot.com/.
#4 - CNN and the Liberal Media
Hey Guys,
Mashable.com is right, the CNN debate on Wednesday did not only reflect badly on social media but it also really made the media efforts to discredit the right very apparent. While many of candidates were easy pickings by using planted questions and timed juxtapositions it was the unfair boost to Mike Huckabee and marginalization of Ron Paul which I found most offensive.
I was never one to buy into the idea of a liberal media bias until I saw this debate, and by this logic it makes sense why they'd give Huckabee so much hype and air time, he's a liberal. Aside from his Christian views, Huckabee is very "progressive" on his views of funding social programs, federal regulation, and would love to raise taxes by implementing the FAIRtax and other taxes despite his views on the IRS. To Huckabees credit, he is a great orator who did a great job turning some pretty sticky questions and accusations around, yet most of the time he did it without really coming hard on why his views are better aside from compassion.
On the flip side it makes sense why they'd make the most active effort was to give Ron Paul little air time as possible, and the times they did they only gave him questions that fueled misconceptions about Pauls views and supporters. So first off, the North American Union and the Council of Foreign Relations are not figments of the imagination. While there are theories of conspiracies around these entities, their existence is real, and so is the threat to our National Sovereignty. Watching Pauls performance at the debate again shows the reason for this marginalization, Ron Paul is the only candidate offering significant opposition to the left. He undermines the lefts platform for being the strongest candidate for ending the Iraq war, is very well educated on history and the constitution and can rationally explain the dangers of big government and benefits of private healthcare and what's actually wrong with our current system. He actually is a viable option for ACTUAL CHANGE, of course the liberal media can't let a rational educated candidate run against the Dems!!!
So since the media won't be clear, here is Ron Pauls and Huckabees views:
Ron Paul
Mike Huckabee
Yes, I've traditionally voted democratic and am quite fond of Bill Richardson and Barack Obama but there is a fundamental problem. We can't afford or need socialized healthcare, and should pull out of Iraq immediately, and I'm afraid most of the Dem candidates will not pull out of Iraq and increase spending exponentially on many social programs which our inefficient and are hurting our Global Competitiveness. Although, Richardson comes pretty close to being a viable option. Don't let the media make your decisions for you, go educate yourself on the candidates, especially Ron Paul.
Mashable.com is right, the CNN debate on Wednesday did not only reflect badly on social media but it also really made the media efforts to discredit the right very apparent. While many of candidates were easy pickings by using planted questions and timed juxtapositions it was the unfair boost to Mike Huckabee and marginalization of Ron Paul which I found most offensive.
I was never one to buy into the idea of a liberal media bias until I saw this debate, and by this logic it makes sense why they'd give Huckabee so much hype and air time, he's a liberal. Aside from his Christian views, Huckabee is very "progressive" on his views of funding social programs, federal regulation, and would love to raise taxes by implementing the FAIRtax and other taxes despite his views on the IRS. To Huckabees credit, he is a great orator who did a great job turning some pretty sticky questions and accusations around, yet most of the time he did it without really coming hard on why his views are better aside from compassion.
On the flip side it makes sense why they'd make the most active effort was to give Ron Paul little air time as possible, and the times they did they only gave him questions that fueled misconceptions about Pauls views and supporters. So first off, the North American Union and the Council of Foreign Relations are not figments of the imagination. While there are theories of conspiracies around these entities, their existence is real, and so is the threat to our National Sovereignty. Watching Pauls performance at the debate again shows the reason for this marginalization, Ron Paul is the only candidate offering significant opposition to the left. He undermines the lefts platform for being the strongest candidate for ending the Iraq war, is very well educated on history and the constitution and can rationally explain the dangers of big government and benefits of private healthcare and what's actually wrong with our current system. He actually is a viable option for ACTUAL CHANGE, of course the liberal media can't let a rational educated candidate run against the Dems!!!
So since the media won't be clear, here is Ron Pauls and Huckabees views:
Ron Paul
- Abolish IRS and not replace it with any type of tax
- Competing Currencies and Abolish Federal Reserve
- End Foreign Interventionism in Iraq and Abroad
- Free Trade and Friendship with other nations without Treaties and Trade Agreements
- Transitional Programs to phase out most social programs
- Healthcare Freedom allowing people more options in healthcare
- Repeal Patriot Act Abolish Homeland security
- End Subsidies on Oil and Corn Ethanol, let market decide
- End war on drugs ending drug cartels and cutting off terrorism funding
- Enforce Borders and end welfare state
Mike Huckabee
- Continued Occupation of Iraq
- Replace Income Tax with National Sales Tax of %23
- Strengthen Social Programs such as NASA
- Preventative Healthcare
- Federal Ban on Smoking
- Benefits for Illegals such as "Earned" Scholarships
Yes, I've traditionally voted democratic and am quite fond of Bill Richardson and Barack Obama but there is a fundamental problem. We can't afford or need socialized healthcare, and should pull out of Iraq immediately, and I'm afraid most of the Dem candidates will not pull out of Iraq and increase spending exponentially on many social programs which our inefficient and are hurting our Global Competitiveness. Although, Richardson comes pretty close to being a viable option. Don't let the media make your decisions for you, go educate yourself on the candidates, especially Ron Paul.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
#3 - Civil Liberties and the Free Market
Hey Guys,
In a very interesting blog post from Blorge.com about how the government wants to violate the privacy (a civil liberty) of Americans and force Amazon and Google to give up records yet these companies fight back. While it's great to see that companies protect our civil liberties it just goes to show you that our rights can be protected in a small government, free market society.
The growing government is gaining power and excising it and not only violating our civil liberties and the constitution but the sovereignty of other nations. Do your self and favor and learn about Ron Paul and help put the USA back on course.
- Alex Merced
P.S. It was sad to see in the CNN post debate coverage a audience member said "I like John Pauls view on the Constitutions" it is sad when people think there are multiple constitutions. Educate yourself people, the government sucks at doing it for you.
In a very interesting blog post from Blorge.com about how the government wants to violate the privacy (a civil liberty) of Americans and force Amazon and Google to give up records yet these companies fight back. While it's great to see that companies protect our civil liberties it just goes to show you that our rights can be protected in a small government, free market society.
The growing government is gaining power and excising it and not only violating our civil liberties and the constitution but the sovereignty of other nations. Do your self and favor and learn about Ron Paul and help put the USA back on course.
- Alex Merced
P.S. It was sad to see in the CNN post debate coverage a audience member said "I like John Pauls view on the Constitutions" it is sad when people think there are multiple constitutions. Educate yourself people, the government sucks at doing it for you.
#2 - Carbon Tax just Further Intervention
Carbon Tax just Further Intervention
by Alex Merced
Yesterday, an article calling for a Carbon Tax was published and I
felt compelled to respond. To institute a Carbon Tax is to tax
something we subsidized which is counter productive and can better be
solved by the free market solution, END THE SUBSIDIES. The US
Government subsidiezes oil through foreign intervention, by sending
foreign aid and troops to protect many oil refineries. If the US were
to end these types of subsidies we would save $19 Billion dollars a
year according to an article from the Cato Institute. This would
essentially have the same market effect of a raise in price in Oil
without us having to tax it.
Many criticize the free market for externalities outlined in a
wonderful documentary called, The Corporation. After reading up on
Austrian Economics and looking into government subsidies I understand
that these externalities are not the result of a free market, but a
market filled with government intervention. These interventions
motivate companies AWAY from the most efficient solutions to problems
and destroy the incentive of consumers to be informed on their
purchases by making decisions for them.
Corn ethanol is a great example, Corn ethanol without government
subsidies is just as NOT viable as oil, but subsidies force the market
to use inefficient material cause the new artificial price. According
to an article by Lance Winslow, Hemp ethanol can produce 4x the amoung
of ethanol, a much better bang for your buck. Yet, industrial hemp in
many cases is illegal which is yet more government intervention.
Although the different types of ethanol are all fine and dandy but how
about sugar, solor and others, subsidies on Corn Ethanol only detract
from there other more viable options.
If you leave the market ENTIRELY ALONE, meaning no tariffs, subsidies,
federal wage mandates, or other GOVERNMENT intervention, companies will
be forced to do research and develop the most cost effective and
sustainable fuel whatever that may be. The free market perscribed by
Austrian economics is still the most efficient and fair way to
distribute wealth, but even the tiniest intervention can cause long
term ramifications.
Don't take my word for it, go online and do some research on Austrian
Economics, Government Subsidies, and Foreign Intervention. For those
interested, the only candidate running for office who talks about this
type of domestic and foreign intervention is Ron Paul, go do some
research.
by Alex Merced
Yesterday, an article calling for a Carbon Tax was published and I
felt compelled to respond. To institute a Carbon Tax is to tax
something we subsidized which is counter productive and can better be
solved by the free market solution, END THE SUBSIDIES. The US
Government subsidiezes oil through foreign intervention, by sending
foreign aid and troops to protect many oil refineries. If the US were
to end these types of subsidies we would save $19 Billion dollars a
year according to an article from the Cato Institute. This would
essentially have the same market effect of a raise in price in Oil
without us having to tax it.
Many criticize the free market for externalities outlined in a
wonderful documentary called, The Corporation. After reading up on
Austrian Economics and looking into government subsidies I understand
that these externalities are not the result of a free market, but a
market filled with government intervention. These interventions
motivate companies AWAY from the most efficient solutions to problems
and destroy the incentive of consumers to be informed on their
purchases by making decisions for them.
Corn ethanol is a great example, Corn ethanol without government
subsidies is just as NOT viable as oil, but subsidies force the market
to use inefficient material cause the new artificial price. According
to an article by Lance Winslow, Hemp ethanol can produce 4x the amoung
of ethanol, a much better bang for your buck. Yet, industrial hemp in
many cases is illegal which is yet more government intervention.
Although the different types of ethanol are all fine and dandy but how
about sugar, solor and others, subsidies on Corn Ethanol only detract
from there other more viable options.
If you leave the market ENTIRELY ALONE, meaning no tariffs, subsidies,
federal wage mandates, or other GOVERNMENT intervention, companies will
be forced to do research and develop the most cost effective and
sustainable fuel whatever that may be. The free market perscribed by
Austrian economics is still the most efficient and fair way to
distribute wealth, but even the tiniest intervention can cause long
term ramifications.
Don't take my word for it, go online and do some research on Austrian
Economics, Government Subsidies, and Foreign Intervention. For those
interested, the only candidate running for office who talks about this
type of domestic and foreign intervention is Ron Paul, go do some
research.
#1 - Introduction and Monetary Policy
Hello,
My name is Alex Merced and for the most part I'm concerned citizen. My Background is in Marketing and Cultural Studies for those who are curious. I have tend to have a very libertarian view on politics, so it's safe to say I'm a very proud Ron Paul supporter for US president in 2008. I must say he's the only one addressing many issues such as US sovereignty, Non-Interventionism, and my favorite, Monetary Policy.
If you not up to date on the US monetary system, watch this video
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrQgBpcrJqo&feature=user
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6NRvOpZP9o
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lXkg0J4PuE&feature=user
This is important, without sound monetary policy our country will collapse
My name is Alex Merced and for the most part I'm concerned citizen. My Background is in Marketing and Cultural Studies for those who are curious. I have tend to have a very libertarian view on politics, so it's safe to say I'm a very proud Ron Paul supporter for US president in 2008. I must say he's the only one addressing many issues such as US sovereignty, Non-Interventionism, and my favorite, Monetary Policy.
If you not up to date on the US monetary system, watch this video
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/wat
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/wat
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/wat
This is important, without sound monetary policy our country will collapse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)