Monday, December 31, 2007
Our Job in the Crisis of 2008
- Return to sound money and put an end to the inflation that is eating away at the savings of the middle class and the poor, preventing them from even attempting to catch up with the upper class.
- Restore our civil liberties that has been loss due to the rise in executive power and the abuse of that power.
- Restore a balanced budget that will aid in our mission to curve inflation.
- Save American and foreign lives and restore a diplomatic foreign policy of commerce and friendship and end the war in Iraq.
I advise people to vote Ron Paul for president as the most knowledgeable and passionate candidate on these issues. I ask that even if you can't support Ron Paul for whatever reason to learn about these issues and help the Freedom Movement do battle with the economic and political forces that are slowly killing out nation.
Learn. Educate. Change the World.
We see Corporatism when legislation gets passed that benefits the Lobbyists, or Regulations that reduce competition to these large corporations in the name of protecting the consumer such as the FDA and the FCC. These undermine the most important aspects of a free market, low barriers to entry and competition which is what drives all the positive effects of a free market, leaving only the negative when Corporatism arrives.
A free market with low/no barriers to entry doesn't have the issue of Corporations with to much power, cause it's easy for everyone to create a competing firm. While one competing firm creates no threat, many will wear away at the larger corporations which prevent things like monopolys from happening while creating jobs. Monopolys only happen when the barriers to entry are raised which can only happen from government intervention. The other effect is when this competition comes into play it brings down prices and higher quality and naturally raises wages.
To restore of a free market we need to do the following:
- Abolish the welfare state (minimum wage)
- Get rid of regulatory bodies/laws (FDA, FCC)
- remove/reduce tariffs on imports/exports
- reduce taxes across the board so firms can compete, and the middle class can create new firms
- Strengthen the dollar
- Shrink the government
Even if you against a free market
WE MUST SAVE THE US DOLLAR
Sunday, December 30, 2007
I'm Surprised I never bothered to watch this video before. No matter where you stand on any issue this nails on the head the impending collapse of our country and our only option of turning things around. To ignore these economic issues and not vote Ron Paul is to seal the fate of our Nations existence.
Group A: These people believe that executive power is a good and that problems aren't a cause of allowing executive power but cause of people who use it. The problem with this position is that there is no way to truly determine what's "good" use of executive power if it's in the hand of those that wield. Power Corrupts.
Group B: These people think executive power unchecked is dangerous no matter what the intentions or actions that are being taken unilaterally. People have issue with these people cause they worry about rare circumstances in which they would justify unilateral action.
I belong to group B, most of the time there is no reason for executive unchecked power like signing statements and the patriot act and those rare occasions people fear don't seem dire enough to me to justify such dangerous power being wielded.
Sometimes I feel like I'm watching Lord of the Rings, and the one ring is executive power which everyone wants to wield and Ron Paul is the innocent hobbit with a pure heart that can fight off the temptation of power in his quest to destroy it.
So Where do the candidates stand on executive power:
"No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush administration has gone much further than that," Obama said.
By contrast, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson called for an end to signing statements altogether.Among the Republicans, their stance was echoed by McCain and Paul, both of whom said they would never issue a signing statement. Romney, by contrast, praised signing statements as "an important presidential practice.""
Friday, December 28, 2007
For no justifiable reason the promoter of Liberty and Civil Disobedience, Ron Paul, has been excluded from the FOXnews forum in New Hampshire with the other presidential candidates. This isn't an isolated instance and Ron Paul isn't the only one who's been slighted in FOXnews oppressive collectivist propaganda. Now there is no redemption for FOXnews, there is only one way to hold them accountable through civil disobedience, BOYCOTT FOX NEWS.
How Long should we boycott FOXnews?
UNTIL THEY ARE OFF THE AIR
Why? FOXnews is not the only news channel or media outlet that has shown it's propagandist colors this election season, but it surely is the worst offender and must no be made an example. An example to media outlets and journalists everywhere that the citizens of the US will not lay silent to problems at home and abroad and demand truly "fair and balanced" coverage of what's going on. When it comes to something as important as the President of the United States, the citizens must be aware of their every option. Not only should Ron Paul be at the presidential forum, but third parties across the nation should be taken seriously and treated as voices of the people by the media.
1. Join the RonPaulForums.com and find the list of FOXnews Sponsers and call them to tell them you are boycotting their products until they stop sponsering FOXnews
2. Tell your local businesses the same
3. Boycott FOXnews itself
It's time to take back the lines of communication in this country back! This is our stand, this is our opportunity to fight for Liberty the way the greatest in history have through civility and pride in our Country and the constitution which holds it together. Don't let your country down and fight this battle to very end.
There is No Victory until FOXnews is off the Air
Check Youtube Tomrrow for a Video Response from Myself
I thought I'd take a moment take a moment to bring up some of the most informative posts here on Cause of Freedom. Again, this blog is about the Freedom Movement and the fight for liberty, so please join the Liberty Independence Alliance to be informed and organize in this fight against tyranny and oppression and effort to preserve the constitution.
ALSO CHECK THE LIA VIDEO SECTION FOR ALL THE BEST VIDEOS
The true path to freedom from slavery is knowledge
As a former democrat creating mandates for a minimum standard of living seemed like a very reasonable and humanitarian thing to do, now that I know more about economics and have some regard for the notion property rights I think otherwise. Besides, much of the welfare legislation hurts the poor and middle class it intends to aid in the first place.
The Minimum Wage - While the cost of living has been going up, that is partly due to the welfare state. By forcing higher wages and increasing costs of imports you raise the costs of living (loss of purchasing power), especially these days when most of our goods are imports. When a minimum wage exists a few things happen.
- A firm can only afford to hire less employees, thus we have fewer jobs and people get laid off, which lowers productivity which means more jobs are lost as the company has to downsize or go out of business. With less firms, competition goes down, which lower quality and raises prices.
- In a truly global world, other nations firms are much more competitive wage wise, and so domestic firms face the decision of being put out of business by their competition or outsourcing their work, either way those jobs will be lost.
(NOTE: Ron Paul isn't planning on sending anyone out on the street. He has transitional programs for Social Security and Medicare that would cover those who need it without burdening the younger generation)
Medicare/Medicade - The statistics show more people were covered by health insurance before these programs existed. Without these programs and without all the federal agencies and mandates that favor pharmaceutical companies you'd have an increase demand of health care which expands the market for health insurance which will have the following consequences:
- More health insurance firms will be made to meet demand, creating jobs with benefits.
- Being able to buy insurance across state lines will give people more affordable options, plus increase competition which will lower prices and higher quality cause of competitions agencies
- eventually with all the new agencies a huge spike of the supply and alternatives in health insurance options will create a dip in prices (this wouldn't happen right away, but eventually).
- It also removes the barriers from non-profit and humanitarian groups from providing low cost/free health care to the poor on a local level
Public Schools - First off, Public Schools are mostly run and funded by the states, getting rid of the Department of education would only get rid of the Bureaucracy's and standardized testing that's lower the standard of education. Once the states are able to make decision about their schools you'll see some things happen.
- Different states will try different curriculum's/plans out and some will work better than others, when one state sees another state having a high level of education they will to attract new residents adopt the same system slowly creating a superior and affordable system.
- Some states might privatize schools, this would create huge demand for private schools which would create better paying teaching jobs and low cost schooling cause so many schools will open and begin competing over the new demand.
- Non-profit and Humanitarian organizations will again make sure the poor and needy will be educated without being restricted by the federal government in doing so.
This is the kind of change Ron Paul wants to bring to the US, but of course the congress is a huge barrier in doing so. While Ron Paul is strong on immigration, he ran on open borders in 1988, and still believes in a world with open borders but due to all these social programs hurting our job market and education it's impossible to do so until that has changed. So a world without the welfare state that has better education and more jobs would welcome immigrants with wide open arms.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
stay out of the INTERNAL affairs of other nations
be neutral and trade and talk to other nations and lead by example
this is what Ron Paul offers, express your thoughts by voting
I feel the country needs a new direction of Foreign Policy
I feel the Country Needs Ron Paul in 2008
The United States House of Representative
Jan 17, 2007
Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX]: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 58. I saw Muhammad Ali as a man of great courage, and I admired him for this, not because of the courage that it took to get in a ring and fight men bigger than he, but because of his stance in 1967.
In 1967, he was 25 years old. He was the heavyweight champion of the world, and for religious beliefs, he practiced what Martin Luther King made popular, civil disobedience, because he disagreed with the war. I thought his comments were rather astute at the time and were not complex, but he merely said, I have no quarrel with the Viet-Cong. He said the Viet-Cong never called him a name, and because of his religious convictions, he said he did not want to serve in the military. He stood firm, a man of principle, and I really admired this as a quality.
He is known, of course, for his athletic skills and his humanitarian concerns, and these are rightly mentioned in a resolution like this. But I do want to emphasize this because, to me, it was so important and had such impact, in reality, what Muhammad Ali did eventually led to getting rid of the draft, and yet we as a people and we as a Congress still do not have the conviction that Muhammad Ali had, because we still have the selective service; we say, let us not draft now, but when the conditions are right, we will bring back the draft and bring back those same problems that we had in the 1960s.
I see what Muhammad Ali did as being very great. He deserves this recognition, but we should also praise him for being a man of principle and willing to give up his title for 3 years at the age of 25 at the prime of his career. How many of us give up something to stand on principle? He was a man of principle. He believed it and he stood firm, so even those who may disagree with his position may say at least he stood up for what he believed in. He suffered the consequences and fortunately was eventually vindicated.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Chair: Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX]: Madam Speaker, for some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government's abuse of the people's rights.
I have never met a politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.
What I have heard all too frequently from the various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.
The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.
The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.
Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.
True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.
Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.
It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of danger's undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.
Who are the true patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot?
Randolph Bourne said that, "War is the health of the state." With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a "war psychology" to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.
Certainly, the neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe.
This is a bad trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism. Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism, that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized.
Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big government liberals and big government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.
The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.
All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.
Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or even imprisonment may result.
Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code's unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.
Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state's pleasure.
A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve.
Protesters against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money outlawed matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head. Whether it's with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, or an immoral monetary system or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic, while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots.
If there is a war going on, supporting the state's effort to win the war is expected at all costs, no dissent. The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home, they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions, the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war and to carelessly sacrifice liberties which they are told is necessary.
The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties.
We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being reminded that 9/11 has changed everything.
Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed, that is our policy of foreign interventionism, has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world's policemen and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration.
We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.
Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed the declared effort to make us safe, and we are willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed.
The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists. There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we are now engaged will last a long, long time.
The war mentality and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and, with this, our respect for self-reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self-sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there is no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hair spray, and searching old women in wheelchairs.
Our enemies say, boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We are worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It is certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.
We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us.
These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security.
We may be the economic and the military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism is being lost.
The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course, both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty, even if it is just now and then.
The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution will disappear.
The record since September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long plan for invasion of Iraq.
The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America.
The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.
The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak-and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to libraries and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens' use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.
The attack on privacy has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.
Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.
Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world have been widely engaged in, though obviously extralegal.
A growing concern in the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government's list of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one's name removed even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.
A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It is called the REAL ID card, and it is tied to our Social Security numbers and our State driver's license. If REAL ID is not stopped, it will become a national driver's license ID for all Americans. We will be required to carry our papers.
Some of the least noticed and least discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted the President in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional Republic.
Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called "other conditions." The President can call up the National Guard without congressional approval or the Governors' approval, and even send these State Guard troops into other States.
The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt against the King's abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this self-evident trend away from personal liberty and empire building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.
Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliche "Support the Troops" is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be.
Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm's way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of "patriot"?
Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.
But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.
THE CIVIL WAR WASN'T ONLY ABOUT SLAVERY, this is Ron Pauls point, which is why he mentioned Slavery being on the decline. He posed the possibility of buying the slaves to show that if the war was about slavery there were better alternatives.
(if you think the US couldn't afford to buy the slaves, they had just formed a central bank to fund the war... so they could afford to spend for the war, they could afford to buy the slaves and release them)
The War was solely to prevent the States from from exercising their constitutional rights to secede which had more to deal more with Tariffs than slavery. Abe Lincoln like Bush suspended Habeas Corpus and abused opponent civil liberties to reach his ends.
If you condone this behavior from a president, then you cannot criticize Bush.
Remember, the winners write history.
This is what seems to be forgotten by the left, who criticize Ron Paul's aversion from letting Central Government control the states and individuals to make decisions for themselves in accordance to many issues, usually referring to sodomy laws in Texas. While these laws are ridiculous, and Ron Paul would agree, to give the issue to the central government is to say that the federal government can regulate social behavior even if the intent is one of liberty, this precedence gives authority for even greater controls on a national level.
Laws like the sodomy laws in Texas should be fought on the state level by getting involved and civil disobedience which Ron Paul continually endorses as great methods of change. Although, we can't for the sake of our liberty bring this to the Federal level and this is where this ideological divide occurs. The left feels that if the Federal Government just takes authority that then they can make the laws with the intention of protecting and granting rights and engineering an ideal society (same as the Neo-Cons), they differ on what their ideal society is.
The Left Feels the federal government should be used to promote protection from exposure to each others ideology while granting rights to certain individuals to create some fictional balance between humanly constructed people groups and force individuals to make decisions about their consumption and personal property that fall in their definition of ideal for the environment and social welfare cause of some imposed sense of what everyone elses responsibility to others should be.
This is the same Logic Neo-Cons use to justify using the federal government to promote a Fundamentalist Christian state where laws determine personally "moral" behavior where outside cultural influences are dealt with by military coercion to the principles of those in control of the state.
Ron Paul is fighting for freedom from both versions of a tyrannical state, where you can believe and act as you please, and so can he. Everybody wins in a Ron Paul world no matter how you differ on issues cause Liberty serves all ideals. Stripping the Federal government of it's accumulated power is the first step, but afterwards the battle for freedom on a local level occurs and is a fight that will always be fought but is much easier to manage. The fight never ends, but as anything can be manageable when broken into smaller chunks.
To Preserve Liberty is to preserve the ability for individuals to believe in something you don't agree with, and to protect the actions of those that you don't condone. Ron Paul has stood for this and this protection of Liberty is being used to criticize the most Honest American I'll ever have the pleasure of voting for.
Ron Paul is the only choice for president cause of our weak economy, Period.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Today on the Ron Paul forums someone exposed the vendetta of Neoconservative Pundit, Bill Kristol. I still haven't got quite this far in the tome of knowledge that is Ron Paul's "Foreign policy of Freedom", but this is a find that really explains Kirstols extreme hostility towards Paul on a appearance on FoxNews where he calls Ron Paul a crackpot and unamerican for saying diplomacy and tact would save American lives by preventing wars. It's funny the more people have dug the more it has appeared many people with influence have strong reasons to undermine Pauls candidacy cause of his views of small government which many of his detractors pretend to support.
Iowa is a little over a week away, then the world will finally know where Paul stands in far as actual voters, it's gonna be a nail biter. Ron Paul, your freedoms last chance.
There are many symbols of Liberty in this nation such as the statue of Liberty, The Liberty Bell, The Bald Eagle, The American Flag. These are all great symbols of this Nation built on the principles of the Rule of Law and Liberty. Although the Freedom movement needs a symbol in US history that really embodies us what we're fighting for and can differentiate those in the movement and a group of people have for this purpose revived the Civil Flag, an old US flag long forgotten meant to represent peacetime.
CIVIL FLAGS ON OTHER LIBERTY MERCH
- The White circle represents the Constitution and the 10 stars represent the bill of rights
- the 9 Stripes represent the 9 principles of the LIA which are Liberty, Integrity, Accountability, Federalism, Law, Knowledge, Diplomacy, Individualism, and Civility
Just quick a tangent on Symbolism, it's now time to continue to fight for freedom from tyranny no matter which symbols you prescribe to and vote Ron Paul into office today.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
you are in violation of the 2nd amendment
When you endorse federal agencies like the EPA and the Department of ED...
you are in violation of the 10th amendment
When you sacrifice privacy and fair trial rights for security with the patriot act...
you are in violations of th 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th amendments
Some who defend these things call the constitution anachronistic, and ask why should we listen to a document created in 1776?
Why? Cause our Liberty and Freedom depends on it.
Violations like the ones I've listed above set a precedence that one can legislate in direct violation with the constitution and get away with it. If this is the case what prevents the congress from ignoring the 13th amendment and bringing back slavery? What stops the congress from ignoring the 15th and 19th amendments and telling people they can't vote? Why should we assure your a jury in civil cases instead unilateral judge rulings as promised in the 7th amendment?
The constitution in your eyes may not be perfect, but this is what the amendment mechanism is for and these unjust wars and federal agencies just undermine the only symbol that truly protect our civil liberties from tyranny from the ever growing state.
I support Ron Paul, cause he believes in the Constitution
PLEASE JOIN THE LIBERTY INDEPENDENCE ALLIANCE
comment from inspekt0rgadget
"Well well, what a great piece of obfuscation you've got there... now! Allow me to point out how you're being disingenuous throughout the entirety of your post.
1) Ron Paul does not believe in "Equal "Rights." This is partly true... but you're missing the important "crux" of the argument here. He believes in INDIVIDUAL liberty. This doesn't mean there are "equal" rights among "groups" of people.
(clarification: instead of group rights, Ron Paul believes in individual rights, that we all have the SAME rights despite group affiliation. Refer to my post on Isaiah Berlins concept of Negative/Positive Liberty to understand this.)
So, of course, you completely ignore that Ron Paul has been openly opposed to Don't Ask Don't Tell policies in our military. He is against Government licensing marriages AT ALL, because he see's it as a religious matter. And it is. He's not saying that churches can't marry Gays either... specific religions can do as they please. He also doesn't deny that he is of the personal opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he doesn't want the state to bother with "defining" it. That is why he was AGAINST THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT OF 2004, NOT FOR IT! The co-sponsor you're talking about? That was when the act merely stated that you couldn't force other states to accept a gay marriage licensed in one state, because he believes in states rights... the states can make these decisions, there should be no federal laws either way.
2) Yes, Ron Paul is indeed opposed to Abortion. He is against Roe Vs. Wade because he, consistently here, is of the opinion that the Federal Government cannot make these decisions for the entire nation. It's not what the federal government should be about. He thinks individual states can make this decision. Also, for you to pretend that doctors across the country "understand" where life begins, you're being completely disingenuous here. It is absolutely arbitrary, and if someone DOES believe that life 'begins' at conception, then I don't see why they should be compromising about the issue ... murder IS indeed wrong, isn't it? Me, though, sure, I feel like a woman should have the right to choose.
3) You explain to me how the Government has a right to take money from me and give it to someone else in the first place, and I’ll accept that all of this is wrong for him to vote against. By the way, I should point out that you're still obfuscating here... He's for a transition period. He doesn't just want to turn people out on the streets. I suspect you know this to be true, but since you're merely trying to manipulate your readers here I don't know why I'd expect anything less. The transition period would be apart of a long term goal of cutting the size and scope of government to its constitutionally allowed level. This includes drastically cutting the influence of the Military Industrial Complex and saving hundreds of billions of dollars that we could use to take care of our people at home who are dependent on government programs (letting young people opt out altogether), protect the borders from illegal immigration, and also strengthen our militaries ability to PROTECT us. You can speak of the constitution as being "alive" all you want... I don't know what that means, really. I suppose it's that you're of the opinion that we can interpret however we want to... which, to me, is ridiculous. It's not the fucking Bible, it's not poetry. It's written law.
4) Sounds good to me. (<---- referring to cutting taxes)
5) *sigh* at ALL of this. Pure obfuscation. You didn't even give his position on the matter at all. While he is against all this federal regulation, he's also against subsidizing the corporations who are polluting in the first place. Only large multibillion dollar corporations are able to "pay" to be able to pollute. You can't do that if you're enforcing property rights, can't do that at all. People could take the bastards to court every time they polluted our AIR or WATER. Government regulation is bad because it gets in the way of the free market solving the issue on its own. Why do you think we have Ethanol? Because corn is subsidized, if we stop subsidizing corn we could move onto something else that actually makes more sense. Right now, buying green is considered "in vogue" or whatever. Sure, it looks real "bad" when you bring up all this legislation that he voted against... he voted against giving a medal to Rosa Parks too. This all has to do with his general philosophy of government. A philosophy you fail both to mention and likely even GRASP.
6) Paul doesn't believe we need to be apart of the UN at all and that the ICC is a waste. It's really just a way for the victors to take all the spoils. No country with Veto power would ever be subject to international court law, either. It's completely worthless. And anyway, why would a candidate who is against Big Government in our country be for WORLD government? You're an idiot.
7) See point one regarding Paul's stance on gays and lesbians.
8) You obviously don't care what the original intent of the constitution was anyway. You want to treat it as a "living document." You think it can be "interpreted" to fit whatever you want to promote. Second Amendment allows me to have a gun, end of story. I should be able to have anything that doesn't, by its existence alone, threaten the liberty of people around me... like a nuclear weapon in my back yard for instance :). AK47 though? Sure, why not. And if everyone on my block had one, someone would be hard pressed to screw around with us now wouldn't they? We have aright to protect our property, by force if necessary. And if College Students were allowed to carry hand guns on campuses ... well, that asshole at Virginia Tech wouldn't have gotten very far. And pilots could have pwned the 9/11 hijackers, because the Air Lines wouldn't have had regulations, LEVIED BY GOVERNMENT, disallowing them to carry guns on an airplane.
9) Our current health care crisis as well as our awful educational system is a direct result of government interference. There wasn't even a health care crisis in this country until the government came in and MANDATED HMO's. They CREATED the HMO's. This means that everyone has an incentive to charge as much as they possibly can, because "someone else" is always paying for it. This is INEFFICIENT. Also, in our schools, we don't promote liberty - the government dictates everything, and we end up with Zero Tolerance policies and other complete nonsense that hurts children and leaves parents frustrated because they aren't allowed more say in their child’s education. Schools should be accountable to the parents, NOT to the government. As far as all of the government certifications and what not... man, get a grip. That's all I can say. You're way to dependant on this kind of nonsense. There's no need for the government to certify anyone of anything. People can learn and be certified in other ways ... like ... I dunno, college degrees?
"Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don't you think?"
No, he's not starting to look like anything more than the greatest voice for freedom I’ve seen since I started following politics. Your obfuscating has reached the point of hateful idiocy at this point. This all goes back to his PHILOSOPHY of government, in that the government doesn't ever make any distinctions between "groups" of people. Sure, we have De Factor Segregation going on in this country. This isn't changing no matter what the federal government does. Look at the inner cities like Baltimore, what do you see? And what causes all of these problems? Look into a little thing called The War on Drugs and the War on Poverty.
10) Yes, he has seen from certain special interest what he does personally view as Government getting involved in family life... and he RAILS against that. Again, you completely ignore the fact that he's against government having ANYTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE AT ALL! You are a lying obfuscating bag of -----, sir."
Here I am watching a documentary about the History of PETA and such, and it shows much of the animal abuse footage we are all very familiar with by now. Also I have seen people using Ron Pauls position of Non-Intervention as the basis of saying he supports genocide which is ludicrous. I think everyone can agree that this kinda of treatment of animals isn't excusable and genocide is a heinous injustice to civil liberty and it's our duty as individuals to be informed and to inform others.
I do not believe it's the job of the government to get involved in these issues cause the job of the government is to protect the nations sovereignty and it's citizens rights, by doing so is helping in the spread of Liberty and justice by leading by example and providing the freedom to it's citizens to create change at home and around the world. The fact that many of these issues still exist is cause of the notion we believe government is responsible for fixing every injustice in the world, this thought is what holds people back from action from which is our duty.
It's our duty to be informed about the atrocities in this world and inform others and to address these issues in a civil manner through protests, divestment, proliferation of information, but to not violate the civil liberities of others by encouraging government intervention.
Animal Rights: The only role I see for the government in this issue is if people want to push for an amendment to the constitution introducing rights for animals, but until then there is no role for government in this issue except maybe pushing for divestment from any agencies that invest in violations, although the government should be small enough that this is not an issue.
Genocide: Government should not subsidize other nations on any level. There only responsibility is to it's citizens by trading with other nations and building diplomatic relationships. No foreign aid or military aid to other nations. Ron Paul is the only one who would take this action which would aid in reducing terrorism and genocide around the world without sacrificing the lives of troops.
The responsibility for these issues is ours, not the government, that type of thinking is what caused these atrocities in the first place, period.
I hear so many misinformed accusations about Ron Paul and I'm gonna take a moment to address most of them.
Accusations of Racism: Ron Paul believes in individual rights, so he's gonna vote against any bill the grants rights, since the job of government is to protect individual rights not grant group rights. Here are the common accusations about racism. Ron Paul is actually the most popular republican candidate among black voters.
Racist Comments in Newsletter - This has been PROVEN to be written by someone else who was fired soon afterwards, although Ron Paul did apologize for the release of the newsletter. NEVER before or after this newsletter has Ron Paul ever made any comments even similar to this, and if you read his book "Foreign Policy of Freedom" many times refers to how big government oppresses the poor and minorities.
$500 Donation from Don Black (white supremacist) - Many people donate to Ron Paul and the 18+ million dollars he's raised, he does not have time to screen donations. Also, Ron Paul hasn't and never will deny people their right to support a politician of their choosing, and to return this would be to go against his principles of individual rights. A better question would be about the influence of the donations to Hillary from the same people that funded Bush, the military industrial complex, getting more donations from Lockheed Martin than any other candidate.
Photo with Don Black - again, if you expect Paul to screen everyone he takes photos with your crazy. Ron Paul is the only candidate who stays after every appearance for hours to make sure he let's everybody who's want some of his time to get some, I admire Ron Pauls dedication to his followers despite how it may effect his campaign, he is a man of the people. I'm just glad even people from ideologies I completely disagree with can get behind a constitutional champion like Paul.
Accusations of Earmark Hypocrisy: To understand this you must understand how the earmark system works. There is a portion of the budget that is set aside for every congressional district, if the congressman for that district does not appropriate these funds through earmarks it is given back to the federal government and SPENT ANYWAYS. So to not use these earmarks is to let the districts tax money never get used FOR THEM. Ron Paul is against the earmark system, but not putting earmarks in bills does not lower spending the only way to lower the spending it to get rid of the system altogether which Ron Paul has introduced bills to do.
RON PAUL INTRODUCES MORE BILLS THAN ANY OTHER CONGRESSMAN
Ron Paul actually does his Job.
Ron Paul is against Public School: WRONG, he is against the Department of Education. Getting rid of the department of education does not mean getting rid of Public Schools but giving the authority to the states.
OTHER QUICK POINTS:
- Ron Paul will not take Social Security/Medicare away from people who need it but allow the next generation to opt out of paying money they will never recieve
- Ron Paul actually wants to increase and streamline immigration, but is against subsidizing illegal immigration through welfare and birthright citizenship. He does not think immigration hurts our economy, but a weak economy due to a welfare state hurts our capacity for immigrants.
- Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he believes in free trade and travel with other nations and building friendships. An isolationist would not trade or allow travel between nations.
THE BENEFITS OF STATE CONTROL
different states will have different systems, eventually one state will devise a superior system which many other states will follow suite with. By allowing a variety of ideas, you allow progress in how things are done. If you are progressive you must support the progress of ideas that is brought by allowing differing solutions to different problems.
I think this covers the most offensive and horribly mis-represented information about Ron Paul. No matter what you believe Ron Pauls record shows he is a man of the Constitution and is the only one willing to address the currency crisis, period, there is NO OTHER OPTION.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
- Continue to learn about history and freedom and spread this knowledge through this blog
- take action by speaking public ally and running for public office
- continue to help motivate change to restore liberty
It's this commitment to change in which I present to you ---------------------
(feel free to copy and paste this essay wherever you want)
An Outlook on Change
by Alex Merced
Change is what the world is in constant demand of, yet grows more scarce as oppressive powers that create complacency and rob us of the resources and voice to provide this change. To return this change to the world is the duty of those who believe that hope and idealism still have a role in this world.
In order to create change you must be able to understand where change comes from, it comes from two vital facets, Creativity and Consistency. What are these pieces of the puzzle and how do we put them together?
Creativity - This is not the ability to create new ideas out of thin air like paper money from a central bank, but to take several bodies of valuable knowledge and synthesizing it into new ideas backed by ideas of value like currency back by gold. So to be creative is to be filled with a variety of knowledge and to have ability synthesize it into new knowledge.
Consistency - One day of creativity or action isn't enough to create sustained change in the world, change takes a lifetime of effort. Creating Change is like educating the world, and to learn something it takes repetition and time for something to sink in, the same is true with change.
In order to see a change in the world old ideas must be understood and new ones created in order make several attempts at educating the world with the hope of eventual change. The world is in need of change from each and every one of us.
A Message of Freedom
It's this message that underlines all the writings I've talked about from Robert Nozwick, Isaiah Berlin, and so many more. It's all about freedom, and if you love freedom it's hard not to love the message no matter what form it comes in cause it benefits everyone. The message itself has no fault and no bias and neutralizes bias from anyone who wields it. True freedom from any individual, is still true freedom. Beware the seller of fake freedom in the guise of Security and Welfare.
Epicurus is earliest speaker of the non-aggression principle:
"The justice of nature is a pledge of reciprocal usefulness, neither to harm one another nor be harmed."
This idea would come from many greats mind, and most influentially out of the mouth of Thomas Jefferson:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
It's this principle of true freedom Ron Paul is fighting, if you believe in freedom from tyranny, freedom from the chains that restrain true life, join the Freedom Movement and remove the bondage from which past generations have suffered so the generations to come will not suffer even the smallest crumb of tyranny we may have suffered.
Friday, December 21, 2007
In Negative Liberty, the belief that there should be no constraints or actions on an individuals agency by the state. So basically the government has no role manipulate the control over your life and opportunities whether the intention is good or bad. The more negative freedom an individual has the more possibility of actions one has which gives the individual the autonomy to shape their own lives for better or worse. This can be characterized by Ron Pauls small government views and position against the drug war enabling individuals to make decisions about their own life whether they are bad or good decisions.
In Positive Liberty the priority is the idea that an individual should have the means to perform to the best of their potential. The states role in this vision is to manipulate opportunity in order to promote individuals performing at their best, and the ability to achieve this is freedom. Positive Liberty promote government action and individual involvement, so the drug war would fall into this ideology since it's "positive" manipulation to help the individual perform at their best. This can be characterized by Left wing view on healthcare which implies it's the governments role to assure people perform at their best health potential. This type of thinking would lead to even stricter life Doctrines against smoking and unhealthy foods, as Mike Huckabee has occasionally alluded to. Another example is "moral" legislation against homosexuality with the intention of encouraging an "ideal" lifestyle.
Positive Liberty sounds nice, but leads to Fascism
The dilemma here is what is definition of a individuals best potential? Who decides this? The positive liberty ideology would say those who participate in their government make this decision. Negative Liberty on the other hand prevents government from making these decisions for you so you can pursue your own Individual vision of what is your "best potential".
Negative = Without Restraints Positive = Without "Obstacles"
Promote Liberty, Join the FREEDOM MOVEMENT
Today a little bit of history of the Interventionist policy in the US. Historically, Interventionism has been practiced by democrats who believed in Nation Building, yet the democrats under Jimmy Carter set a very dangerous precedence with the Carter Doctrine. This is the interventionist Doctrine led to Middle East Oil being a priority of US policy, from the traditionally interventionist democrats. Carters administration led to record inflation which led to a revolutionary upset from Reagan in the next presidential elections. While I still feel ill about Reagan's AIDS policy, I still think fiscally and foreign policy wise, Reagan did a better job or going in the right direction and it was a result of the country wanting a change.
Now inflation is going up again and the country is begging for change and it has set a hot fire to the Ron Paul campaign, igniting the Freedom Movement. Now under a republican president, we see the same type of interventionist policies and the results of the Carter doctrine continue. Although in 1992 we saw a continuation of this interventionist policy with the Wolfowitz doctrine, so now was oil not only Foreign Policy by doctrine but also pre-emptive war to prevent rivals to US power... very dangerous policy in my view.
So we got the Wolfowitz and the Carter Doctrine promoting Interventionist policy from the Republicans and Democrats, promoting deficit spending and inflation from both parties. Who can you trust any more, not imaginary party lines. Who you can trust are individuals with integrity and honesty who value the US constitution the document meant to unite the nation in prosperity.
You can trust Ron Paul.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Today I'm giving a whole post to discuss the impending Tom Tancredo announcement at 3pm. Tancredo since the beginning has been a very bizzare character in the GOP race. How else can you charachterize a guy who wants to end LEGAL immigration and bomb mecca. Although, while I feel his misguided patriotism and shortsighted views on immigration tend to be offensive and borderline intolerant (I wouldn't use the word racist, that's probably too strong for Tancredo).
I've watched over the month as Tancredo panders to the likely republican border by taking potshots at Ron Paul at the CNN debate, and alienates "Latino" and "Muslim" voters(I use the terms loosely as an individualist) by saying he'd bomb mecca and boycotting the Univision debate. Although due to his label as a Patriot and Protectionist, he still gets some support from nationalists, who also supported Buchanan and Hunter. While I'm all for protecting US sovereignty, I'm against the protectionism of a Tancredo, Hunter, or Buchanan cause it's a few notches away from isolationism.
I prefer Ron Pauls method of protecting sovereignty while promoting free trade by increasing LEGAL immigration and stripping all benefits to ILLEGAL immigration. Then opening free trade with ALL nations (even Cuba and Venezuela, it would create agriculture jobs!!!). We want immigrants, we just want them to be legal. Without all the social programs around we would have no reason to not let in higher numbers of LEGAL immigrants from around the world to the beautiful melting pot that is the US. We would need all the people we can get to keep up the rise in productivity of a Free Market which the US hasn't seen anything resembling since the late 1800's.
Yet ,Ron Paul, does attract a large variety of voters cause of freedom message. From my time in the Ron Paul grassroots I've met people who identify themselves as democrats, republicans, libertarians, anarchists, protectionists, white suremacists, 9/11 truthers, environmentalists, socialists, stock brokers, Christians, Latino, Black, Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists, and so many more and watched them work together for freedom. This shows you the strength of freedom, and the belief that each individual has rights to their own beliefs and pursuits which crosses the lines of so many conflicting ideologies working together as a concerned nation. We're a melting pot, and it's this truth that makes Ron Pauls support so strong.
So, yes, some Ron Paul supporters are Tancredo fans and hope to see his supporters come to the Paul camp if Tancredo does announce that he will end his run today. I would venture that it may not that work that way cause if they haven't joined the Paul camp yet it's probably cause they won't budge on a Foreign Policy of Commerce and Diplomacy which Ron Paul promotes.
Overall... Tancredo to me isn't someone I can get behind on any level, yet seeing how fans of his can also support Ron Paul along with a flood of former Barack Obama supporters who I've seen support Ron Paul as well show's you the power of the Freedom Movement.
JOIN THE FREEDOM MOVEMENT