This article was originally published at uncoverthenews.com on July 25th, 2008
Hello and welcome to planet Earth.
I trust your trip was a pleasant one. To be honest I´ve always believed you existed. I know some of us here have a little problem believing in you guys, but I´ve always figured in such a big universe with so many planets that you guys had to exist. I heard Dr. Edgar Mitchell do a radio interview today where he confesses you guys do, in fact, exist. Here´s a man who walked on the moon, achieved a doctorate degree, and is a respected scientist who speaks out and says you exist. It´s my understanding that he´s been saying such things for years and yet I´ve never heard of the mainstream media reporting on it. I´m sure some skeptics are going to continue to insist that something else happened or was said. I´m fairly certain that some of the spinners will try to convince themselves and others that Dr. Edgar Mitchell is some kind of lunatic or didn´t mean what he said. A friend of mine already asked me if he was suffering from dementia. Someone else claimed he was suffering from space craziness or some such thing. I don't know about that and see no reason not to take him at his word.
I would personally like to know what planet you are from, where you are located and how you solved the speed of light problem, but hey, that´s just me. It would be nice to get to know you a little better, to find out what you´re all about. I certainly would like to be certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are real, like Dr. Mitchell does. I mean, after all, though the possibilities exist and the evidence is convincing, there´s nothing like being able to see, hear, touch, and smell to validate existence. Besides, Dr. Mitchell admitted to being involved with many government agencies, including intelligence agencies, and it´s difficult for me to believe anything coming out of the mouth of anyone involved with the government. I always look for the agenda. I don´t see an agenda right now with Dr. Mitchell´s statement, but that doesn´t necessarily mean one doesn´t exist.
Anyway, Dr. Mitchell said something during the interview which really concerns me. He claims that many governments have known about you guys for decades and you´ve been in contact with these people. It occurs to me that you may not have made the best decision here. Governments are not always the bastions of the best and the brightest of humanity. In fact, it is quite possible that the opposite is true. It is also quite possible that if you have only had dealings with politicians and high level bureaucrats, it would be understandable if you have a very low opinion of humanity. I would ask that you reconsider who you are dealing with. I would ask that you start searching out others who would be more representative of the hard working common man.
I believe that if you dealt with common folk rather than those who inhabit the halls of power, your impression of humanity might shift dramatically. You would find that not all humans have a lust for power, not all humans wish to control all others. Some of us understand the concept of freedom and wish to grant it to all humanity so that everyone can reach their full potential. You would find that most of us are honest. We mean what we say and we stick to our word. We don´t use language in such a way as to deceive. We are not all plotting and seeking ways to steal from someone to give to another while making sure our own fortunes and those of our friends are well served. Truly, there are many more of us that are principled than you might think.
Of course, whether or not you want to deal with us commoners depends much on what you are like and why you are here. If you are here to study our civilization and learn about us as individuals, then you should try to diversify your experiences with us as much as possible. Dealing only with politicians, high level military and intelligence officials, and other high level bureaucrats is not a good way to go about this. Perhaps you could come experience our socializing functions, how we interact, and see the wonderful products and services we offer each other to make our lives more fun and meaningful. Talk to us. Get to know us. I ´m certain these experiences would open your eyes, especially if you are judging humanity only from such a small, unrepresentative sample.
If you want to trade fairly with us and create an honest, peaceful trade and business relationship with us, again you have made a mistake dealing with government types. They have a tendency to want to regulate everything to make sure those who are rich remain so and those who have new ideas find it difficult to put their products or services on the open market. Indeed, there are some accusations that certain technologies have been hidden and sat upon for years so that those in power would remain in power. If you wish to trade with the mass of humanity, it is best to do so directly for those who seek control over humanity will do whatever is in their power to keep beneficial technologies that would challenge their financial empires away from us. They would also always try to get the upper hand to maximize their own worth while minimizing yours. I´m sure you´ll find the common man more open to find something we could trade that would benefit all parties involved.
If you have come to try to control or enslave us, then you have indeed picked the right allies. In that case, I wish you the best of luck, for I think you will find the common man is full of more surprises than you might realize. Humans are more resilient than you might think. We are more intelligent than some give us credit for. Ideas do not die among us and many of us will continue to seek self reliance no matter the situation. It just might be that we won´t be the easy pushovers you may think we are.
In any case, I invite you to make yourselves known to us if you are visiting. You may find we are more hospitable than you imagine. If you are not visiting and Dr. Mitchell´s statement is just some kind of disinformation, some kind of game being played for nefarious purpose, then this letter is for naught. In that case I say to those who spread such propaganda that one day we will have an open society, an open government which doesn´t keep secrets from its populace. One day, such deception will not be tolerated. When that day comes, our founding fathers´ dreams will have come true and their vision of freedom will have come to fruition.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Revolution Ron Paul Style, the Fun is Just Beginning
This article was originally published at uncoverthenews.com on July 20th, 2008
As anyone who has been paying attention to the Ron Paul r3VOLution knows, the movement was never really about getting Ron Paul elected president – although that certainly should have happened considering the other (cough) candidates and it would have been the icing on the cake – it was about getting the message of freedom back into the American consciousness. His was a campaign about getting rid of the Fed and returning to honest money. His was a campaign about dismantling the IRS, eliminating the income tax and allowing the people to keep the fruits of their labor. It was a campaign about ending not only the war in Iraq, but American involvement in all wars. It was about bringing home not only the men fighting and dying on foreign battlefields, but those conducting their everyday lives on bases even in peaceful countries where our imperial presence is maintained. It was about paring down the centralized federal government to a more manageable size and freeing ourselves from its omnipresence. Basically, it was about changing the paradigm we live in and ridding ourselves of our dependency on government.
It is difficult, however, to build a structure upside down. A pyramid with its point planted firmly in the ground and its base floating in the air high above is destined to fall over one day. Politics in a republic can follow a similar fate. The head of government can accomplish nothing if his base is spread out far above him trying to outflank him to maintain power. In order for the structure to maintain its stability, it must be built from the bottom up. It is therefore necessary to start electing freedom loving politicians to local offices and as representatives. These are the slabs of stone we will be able to build upon as we structure our political system to support smaller government of an individual mindset rather than the collectivist, socialist style system of authoritarian government we have today. Anyone who understands this message of liberty, is principled and can afford to do so should run for local office and try to start by reducing the size of local government. These people can do something such as signing a smaller government pledge in order to show their sincerity.
It may take a while for a peaceful revolution like this to bear fruit, but it would be well worth it. These principles I write about were actually abandoned long ago by the politicos of this country. Many people may feel that we have been a free nation all along when in reality the flaws and injustices of the system have been evident for some decades. Only now are they getting so pervasive that so many are beginning to realize what has been going on. Many people would like to believe that the prosperity we´ve seen over the latter half of the twentieth century was the product of good governance when it reality it was the product of a much less regulated marketplace and a much more voluntary society. The coming crises many see coming are the result of government regulation and policies and the fact that we have yet to pay back the massive debt that has kept this nation afloat for so long. Big government will lead to big collapse.
Such a revolution would be well worth it because it would plant the seeds and knowledge of the liberty ideal in the minds of those who live through it, making it harder for such tyranny as we have now to once again take hold. It would be easy for one to give up, to look at the opposition and believe they are too powerful, too many, and too entrenched to defeat. What could such a small number do against what appears to be so many allied with such a powerful elite? But the numbers game is disingenuous. The masses are easy to sway and once they begin to realize what is to be gained in a free society and how they will benefit they should come around. They will work harder and be more productive when they are working for themselves. A small number of dedicated individuals will indeed have a good chance of defeating the establishment as the message spreads. Why? Mostly because such a group stands upon the moral high ground.
Ours is a peaceful revolution. I realize that this has been tried before and not much has come from it, so what makes this one so different? It is not hard these days to see the violence inherent in the system. The people are starting to tear down the veneer of legitimacy the government has painted over itself for the past few decades. They are beginning to recognize the coercive and violent nature of the gang that controls the streets of Washington DC. They are beginning to understand that these people have been stealing from them and giving their money to a powerful elite for a long time now. They are looking to their roots and realizing that the founding fathers saw this possibility and provided for it when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Many are starting to demand that government no longer infringe upon their rights, including the right to keep the fruits of their labor. When they do so, they are arrested, charged with a victimless crime, and then thrown into a cold cell for a number a years. Society suffers from such occurrences. These people have been removed from our lives and their productivity removed from the marketplace. This is not the way to run a civil society.
Ron Paul and his supporters have shown us a better way. They have bravely stood up to the establishment where others have taken a safer route and gone along with the propaganda. We can allow for greater personal freedom and responsibility. We can reinstate honest money into the system. We can remove our troops from all foreign lands. We can interact internationally on a peaceful base of trade and diplomacy without threatening and flexing our military muscle. Such an America would be good for us and good for the world. Now is not the time to give up and turn your back on the movement. Even though none of the presidential candidates are discussing such issues with any kind of seriousness, electing instead to discuss policies that have already failed, we have not yet lost. We can make the change happen from the bottom up. Talk about these issues to your friends and neighbors. Elect local officials who believe in freedom. If one is not running, than run yourself. Elect congressmen who support smaller government. Most importantly, get involved in whatever way works best for you.
We may have lost a battle, but we are a long way from losing a war. Our socialist government did not establish itself overnight, certainly one wouldn´t expect the individualist government to do so. We can turn this thing around, but it will take some effort. Provide a stronger base and we will build upon it a better structure that will last into the millennia, a structure our progeny can continue to prosper in. This is the nature of the revolution, Ron Paul style.
As anyone who has been paying attention to the Ron Paul r3VOLution knows, the movement was never really about getting Ron Paul elected president – although that certainly should have happened considering the other (cough) candidates and it would have been the icing on the cake – it was about getting the message of freedom back into the American consciousness. His was a campaign about getting rid of the Fed and returning to honest money. His was a campaign about dismantling the IRS, eliminating the income tax and allowing the people to keep the fruits of their labor. It was a campaign about ending not only the war in Iraq, but American involvement in all wars. It was about bringing home not only the men fighting and dying on foreign battlefields, but those conducting their everyday lives on bases even in peaceful countries where our imperial presence is maintained. It was about paring down the centralized federal government to a more manageable size and freeing ourselves from its omnipresence. Basically, it was about changing the paradigm we live in and ridding ourselves of our dependency on government.
It is difficult, however, to build a structure upside down. A pyramid with its point planted firmly in the ground and its base floating in the air high above is destined to fall over one day. Politics in a republic can follow a similar fate. The head of government can accomplish nothing if his base is spread out far above him trying to outflank him to maintain power. In order for the structure to maintain its stability, it must be built from the bottom up. It is therefore necessary to start electing freedom loving politicians to local offices and as representatives. These are the slabs of stone we will be able to build upon as we structure our political system to support smaller government of an individual mindset rather than the collectivist, socialist style system of authoritarian government we have today. Anyone who understands this message of liberty, is principled and can afford to do so should run for local office and try to start by reducing the size of local government. These people can do something such as signing a smaller government pledge in order to show their sincerity.
It may take a while for a peaceful revolution like this to bear fruit, but it would be well worth it. These principles I write about were actually abandoned long ago by the politicos of this country. Many people may feel that we have been a free nation all along when in reality the flaws and injustices of the system have been evident for some decades. Only now are they getting so pervasive that so many are beginning to realize what has been going on. Many people would like to believe that the prosperity we´ve seen over the latter half of the twentieth century was the product of good governance when it reality it was the product of a much less regulated marketplace and a much more voluntary society. The coming crises many see coming are the result of government regulation and policies and the fact that we have yet to pay back the massive debt that has kept this nation afloat for so long. Big government will lead to big collapse.
Such a revolution would be well worth it because it would plant the seeds and knowledge of the liberty ideal in the minds of those who live through it, making it harder for such tyranny as we have now to once again take hold. It would be easy for one to give up, to look at the opposition and believe they are too powerful, too many, and too entrenched to defeat. What could such a small number do against what appears to be so many allied with such a powerful elite? But the numbers game is disingenuous. The masses are easy to sway and once they begin to realize what is to be gained in a free society and how they will benefit they should come around. They will work harder and be more productive when they are working for themselves. A small number of dedicated individuals will indeed have a good chance of defeating the establishment as the message spreads. Why? Mostly because such a group stands upon the moral high ground.
Ours is a peaceful revolution. I realize that this has been tried before and not much has come from it, so what makes this one so different? It is not hard these days to see the violence inherent in the system. The people are starting to tear down the veneer of legitimacy the government has painted over itself for the past few decades. They are beginning to recognize the coercive and violent nature of the gang that controls the streets of Washington DC. They are beginning to understand that these people have been stealing from them and giving their money to a powerful elite for a long time now. They are looking to their roots and realizing that the founding fathers saw this possibility and provided for it when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Many are starting to demand that government no longer infringe upon their rights, including the right to keep the fruits of their labor. When they do so, they are arrested, charged with a victimless crime, and then thrown into a cold cell for a number a years. Society suffers from such occurrences. These people have been removed from our lives and their productivity removed from the marketplace. This is not the way to run a civil society.
Ron Paul and his supporters have shown us a better way. They have bravely stood up to the establishment where others have taken a safer route and gone along with the propaganda. We can allow for greater personal freedom and responsibility. We can reinstate honest money into the system. We can remove our troops from all foreign lands. We can interact internationally on a peaceful base of trade and diplomacy without threatening and flexing our military muscle. Such an America would be good for us and good for the world. Now is not the time to give up and turn your back on the movement. Even though none of the presidential candidates are discussing such issues with any kind of seriousness, electing instead to discuss policies that have already failed, we have not yet lost. We can make the change happen from the bottom up. Talk about these issues to your friends and neighbors. Elect local officials who believe in freedom. If one is not running, than run yourself. Elect congressmen who support smaller government. Most importantly, get involved in whatever way works best for you.
We may have lost a battle, but we are a long way from losing a war. Our socialist government did not establish itself overnight, certainly one wouldn´t expect the individualist government to do so. We can turn this thing around, but it will take some effort. Provide a stronger base and we will build upon it a better structure that will last into the millennia, a structure our progeny can continue to prosper in. This is the nature of the revolution, Ron Paul style.
I Refuse to Abandon My Freedom Loving Friends in the United States of America
This article was originally published at uncoverthenews.com on July 20th, 2008
Recently, I wrote an article explaining the tyranny of seatbelt laws and pointing out some basic flaws in the system that make me question of the reality of our supposed freedom in this nation. In my opinion, we are no longer a free people and instead have become, for the most part, a nation of sheep who are unwilling to stand up for liberty and individual rights and instead have decided to go along in order to get along. I also believe, however, that more and more people are beginning to realize the folly of this position and are starting to find the intestinal fortitude to stand up to those people who continue to insist that they have authority to rule over our lives. I believe their stories need to be told and support garnered for their struggles and so I wrote about Jon fighting the seatbelt laws.
Sometimes these stories of mine get quite a bit of attention. Such was the case with this story. As usual, it was blogged in a number of places and the authoritarian statists posted their rants praising the laws and the greatness and wisdom of the state. Many of them made fun of Jon and stooped to calling me names, questioning my sanity and suggesting I was somehow an inferior human being. None of this bothers me as I consider the source and I rise above such juvenile practices. I did, however, see one blog post that caught my attention not because of what he had to say about the content of my article, which was irrelevant as he had obviously missed the point, but because of how he decided to end his post. He decided to use the tired old argument used by many government apologists, authoritarians, statists, and other collectivists when they become unable to carry on a reasonable discourse that if one doesn´t like the laws, he should leave the country. America, love it or leave it, as the old saying goes. I feel the time has come for me to share my opinion on this type of thinking.
When I was a kid, I was taught that America was the place the oppressed and downtrodden of the world came. These were the dregs of society, the people no one else wanted populating their world. I often wondered why these people had abandoned their people, why they hadn´t stayed in their homeland and fought for their rights. I was certain even back then that if enough of them had stood up for their rights that they could have overthrown their oppressors and gained their freedom. Of course, I realize now that things are not so simple. The poor classes hardly had the wherewithal back then to rise up and throw off the yoke of tyrannical government, and anyone with the money, the cunning or the willingness to work hard for a time who managed to make it to America were welcomed with opened arms and American society was better off for it as we built a powerful nation on the backs of willing, hard working individuals. It is those individuals that built America and made it a great nation, not the government. These pioneers came to a new world and cared not what the governments of Europe or any centralized authority had to say, they did things their own way and hardly ever asked for help from authorities.
Now a few people would demand obedience from everyone. In their minds, anyone who would disagree with them should be dismissed from society. They seem afraid to listen to them, fearful that their points may be poignant and valid. It reminds me somewhat of a child who sticks his fingers in his ears and sings "La, la, la, la, la" so that he doesn´t have to hear something someone else is saying when he knows they´re right. They feel that if the messenger goes away, if those who realize the truth no longer live amongst them, than their problems will be solved and the message will fade to oblivion. But things don´t work that way. Those who worship at the altar of the state might think that dismissing those who believe in the power and rights of the individual will lead to the state providing welfare and security for them, but at what cost? As the old saying goes, what good is it to gain the world at the cost of one´s soul? Besides, you´ll most likely find that when all is said and done, you will have no security, no welfare, and no freedom.
This is the message that has been passed down to us through the ages. It was a message that was realized by civilizations as ancient as the Greeks and perhaps by civilizations even further back. The message is that freedom works, that people don´t need to be ruled over in a tyrannical fashion, that they can do business, socialize, and interact with each other on a voluntary basis and they don´t need some higher power stealing their money and telling them how to run their lives. We have finally evolved to the point where we can truly understand the truth and the importance of this message. We have finally found a technology that makes it easy to disseminate this message to the vast majority of the populace. We have finally found a place, the land called America, where that message can settle into the hearts of millions, grow and maybe someday bear fruit. I´ll be damned if I am going to abandon such a place and such a time because a few collectivists still want to try to convince the majority of people that the state knows better how to run their lives than they do.
I will not abandon my freedom loving friends who wish to take their lives back. Did Martin Luther King, Jr. abandon his people when he saw injustice in the world? No. He stayed in the country of his birth and spoke out against it. Did Thomas Jefferson or George Washington abandon their people when they saw the tyranny of a king cracking down on their friends and neighbors? No. They put their lives and fortunes on the line, fought against the ancient power of royalty, and forged a new nation with the blood of free men. These were true patriots, dedicated to the principle of honoring other men´s freedom and respecting the choices of their neighbors. They were not those who would rule over others and tell them how to behave. They would not try to legislate safety or tax the free man on his labor. They were individualist, not collectivists, and they understood the wisdom in letting individuals decide how best to live their lives and spend their money.
I will not abandon those who see the inherent wrong in a system that insists on making behaviors into crimes rather than prosecuting only those who have victimized others. I will not abandon those who see the truth of coerced taxation, that it is nothing more than a form of legalized slavery. I will continue to live in the country of my birth, the country that supposedly embodies the principles of freedom and liberty, and use my keyboard as best I can to battle tyranny. Unlike those who back in the early history decided to abandon their countries to come to a foreign land offering freedom, I will stay with the people I grew up with and try as best I can to convince those who need convincing that freedom of the individual and respect for their natural rights are the best options, not obedience to the state. And for anyone who wants to remain obedient to some power, rest assured that in a free market where such demand exists someone will offer the service of watching over you, providing security and welfare, for a fee. You will be free to contract such services and will not have to worry about forcing everyone else to contract with the company that best suits you.
Another disturbing comment I´ve seen making its way across the blogosphere lately is the comment that we should stop "whining", that we should just shut up and deal with the problems government has created. This kind of statement is the cousin to the "if you don´t like it than leave" mentality. It is not whining to point out an inherent wrong in the system. It is not whining when one attempts to right the wrong. If no one complains, than how´s anyone supposed to know there is a problem? If no one says anything, than those in power will continue to fleece the sheep more and more, to see how far the sheep can be pushed, how closely they can be shaved. Well, I for one have had enough. I will continue to speak out against injustice, against big brother, against the intrusions on not only my privacy, but on everyone´s, and against the coercive nature of the state. I will continue to speak out as long as someone, somewhere is forced to pay for services he doesn´t necessarily need, won´t necessarily use, and doesn´t necessarily want to pay for. I will continue to speak out against unjust laws so long as the powers that be continue to kidnap my friends, railroad them in the court system, steal their money and falsely imprison them for "crimes" that have no victim. I will not shut up and I will not abandon my freedom loving friends. If you don´t like it, than you have the right to not read my articles and I will respect that right. If you don´t like it, then go ahead and speak against the message of freedom and defend the tyrannical state. You have every right to do so and I respect that right. Unlike the state I will not infringe upon your rights, even though I never made the promise or set it down in writing as they did. Unlike most of those individuals who run the state, I am a man of my word.
Recently, I wrote an article explaining the tyranny of seatbelt laws and pointing out some basic flaws in the system that make me question of the reality of our supposed freedom in this nation. In my opinion, we are no longer a free people and instead have become, for the most part, a nation of sheep who are unwilling to stand up for liberty and individual rights and instead have decided to go along in order to get along. I also believe, however, that more and more people are beginning to realize the folly of this position and are starting to find the intestinal fortitude to stand up to those people who continue to insist that they have authority to rule over our lives. I believe their stories need to be told and support garnered for their struggles and so I wrote about Jon fighting the seatbelt laws.
Sometimes these stories of mine get quite a bit of attention. Such was the case with this story. As usual, it was blogged in a number of places and the authoritarian statists posted their rants praising the laws and the greatness and wisdom of the state. Many of them made fun of Jon and stooped to calling me names, questioning my sanity and suggesting I was somehow an inferior human being. None of this bothers me as I consider the source and I rise above such juvenile practices. I did, however, see one blog post that caught my attention not because of what he had to say about the content of my article, which was irrelevant as he had obviously missed the point, but because of how he decided to end his post. He decided to use the tired old argument used by many government apologists, authoritarians, statists, and other collectivists when they become unable to carry on a reasonable discourse that if one doesn´t like the laws, he should leave the country. America, love it or leave it, as the old saying goes. I feel the time has come for me to share my opinion on this type of thinking.
When I was a kid, I was taught that America was the place the oppressed and downtrodden of the world came. These were the dregs of society, the people no one else wanted populating their world. I often wondered why these people had abandoned their people, why they hadn´t stayed in their homeland and fought for their rights. I was certain even back then that if enough of them had stood up for their rights that they could have overthrown their oppressors and gained their freedom. Of course, I realize now that things are not so simple. The poor classes hardly had the wherewithal back then to rise up and throw off the yoke of tyrannical government, and anyone with the money, the cunning or the willingness to work hard for a time who managed to make it to America were welcomed with opened arms and American society was better off for it as we built a powerful nation on the backs of willing, hard working individuals. It is those individuals that built America and made it a great nation, not the government. These pioneers came to a new world and cared not what the governments of Europe or any centralized authority had to say, they did things their own way and hardly ever asked for help from authorities.
Now a few people would demand obedience from everyone. In their minds, anyone who would disagree with them should be dismissed from society. They seem afraid to listen to them, fearful that their points may be poignant and valid. It reminds me somewhat of a child who sticks his fingers in his ears and sings "La, la, la, la, la" so that he doesn´t have to hear something someone else is saying when he knows they´re right. They feel that if the messenger goes away, if those who realize the truth no longer live amongst them, than their problems will be solved and the message will fade to oblivion. But things don´t work that way. Those who worship at the altar of the state might think that dismissing those who believe in the power and rights of the individual will lead to the state providing welfare and security for them, but at what cost? As the old saying goes, what good is it to gain the world at the cost of one´s soul? Besides, you´ll most likely find that when all is said and done, you will have no security, no welfare, and no freedom.
This is the message that has been passed down to us through the ages. It was a message that was realized by civilizations as ancient as the Greeks and perhaps by civilizations even further back. The message is that freedom works, that people don´t need to be ruled over in a tyrannical fashion, that they can do business, socialize, and interact with each other on a voluntary basis and they don´t need some higher power stealing their money and telling them how to run their lives. We have finally evolved to the point where we can truly understand the truth and the importance of this message. We have finally found a technology that makes it easy to disseminate this message to the vast majority of the populace. We have finally found a place, the land called America, where that message can settle into the hearts of millions, grow and maybe someday bear fruit. I´ll be damned if I am going to abandon such a place and such a time because a few collectivists still want to try to convince the majority of people that the state knows better how to run their lives than they do.
I will not abandon my freedom loving friends who wish to take their lives back. Did Martin Luther King, Jr. abandon his people when he saw injustice in the world? No. He stayed in the country of his birth and spoke out against it. Did Thomas Jefferson or George Washington abandon their people when they saw the tyranny of a king cracking down on their friends and neighbors? No. They put their lives and fortunes on the line, fought against the ancient power of royalty, and forged a new nation with the blood of free men. These were true patriots, dedicated to the principle of honoring other men´s freedom and respecting the choices of their neighbors. They were not those who would rule over others and tell them how to behave. They would not try to legislate safety or tax the free man on his labor. They were individualist, not collectivists, and they understood the wisdom in letting individuals decide how best to live their lives and spend their money.
I will not abandon those who see the inherent wrong in a system that insists on making behaviors into crimes rather than prosecuting only those who have victimized others. I will not abandon those who see the truth of coerced taxation, that it is nothing more than a form of legalized slavery. I will continue to live in the country of my birth, the country that supposedly embodies the principles of freedom and liberty, and use my keyboard as best I can to battle tyranny. Unlike those who back in the early history decided to abandon their countries to come to a foreign land offering freedom, I will stay with the people I grew up with and try as best I can to convince those who need convincing that freedom of the individual and respect for their natural rights are the best options, not obedience to the state. And for anyone who wants to remain obedient to some power, rest assured that in a free market where such demand exists someone will offer the service of watching over you, providing security and welfare, for a fee. You will be free to contract such services and will not have to worry about forcing everyone else to contract with the company that best suits you.
Another disturbing comment I´ve seen making its way across the blogosphere lately is the comment that we should stop "whining", that we should just shut up and deal with the problems government has created. This kind of statement is the cousin to the "if you don´t like it than leave" mentality. It is not whining to point out an inherent wrong in the system. It is not whining when one attempts to right the wrong. If no one complains, than how´s anyone supposed to know there is a problem? If no one says anything, than those in power will continue to fleece the sheep more and more, to see how far the sheep can be pushed, how closely they can be shaved. Well, I for one have had enough. I will continue to speak out against injustice, against big brother, against the intrusions on not only my privacy, but on everyone´s, and against the coercive nature of the state. I will continue to speak out as long as someone, somewhere is forced to pay for services he doesn´t necessarily need, won´t necessarily use, and doesn´t necessarily want to pay for. I will continue to speak out against unjust laws so long as the powers that be continue to kidnap my friends, railroad them in the court system, steal their money and falsely imprison them for "crimes" that have no victim. I will not shut up and I will not abandon my freedom loving friends. If you don´t like it, than you have the right to not read my articles and I will respect that right. If you don´t like it, then go ahead and speak against the message of freedom and defend the tyrannical state. You have every right to do so and I respect that right. Unlike the state I will not infringe upon your rights, even though I never made the promise or set it down in writing as they did. Unlike most of those individuals who run the state, I am a man of my word.
An Open Response to DoJ Antitrust Div. Explaining Sean Dix´s Antitrust Accusations
This article was originally published at uncoverthenews.com on July 20th, 2008
A couple days ago I read an article by Mary Sparrowdancer explaining the predicament of one Sean Dix, the inventor of a simple yet revolutionary product for flossing teeth. Ms. Sparrowdancer struck me as a thoughtful, intelligent, trustworthy individual and a principled reporter. She did an excellent job of telling Mr. Sean Dix´s story and provided many facts I´m sure she verified and included information about witnesses. The story she told was very disturbing, for it involved people and companies who many Americans would trust implicitly and would believe incapable of such malicious acts. The story I´m referring to can be found here: Floss Story
Toward the end of the article Ms. Sparrowdancer asks the reader to send an email to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice asking them to provide justice to Mr. Dix. It is the only thing Sean Dix desires. After everything he went through, that seems to be a pretty magnanimous request. I felt it was only fair and followed the instructions provided to me, keeping my letter to the DoJ simple and providing a link to Ms. Mary Sparrowdancer´s well written story. To my surprise, the DoJ actually emailed me back. Here is a copy of the email:
"Thank you for contacting the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Citizen Complaint Center has reviewed your complaint, and though we understand your concerns, we have determined that the information provided does not warrant further review by the Division at this time. We have your information on file and should the legal staff need further information, they may contact you in the future.
We appreciate your interest in the enforcement of the federal antitrust laws and we wish you the best in resolving your concerns.
Sincerely,
Citizen Complaint Center
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice"
So, they understand my concerns, yet they feel the information does not require further review? How can that be? It makes me wonder if they actually read the article I sent them a link to. If they understand my concern, they certainly should understand that this matter needs to be investigated. They seem to have forgotten the purpose for which they were created. The public puts trust in certain institutions and businesses and they expect certain government entities to make sure those institutions and businesses do not become too powerful. The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice would certainly qualify as one such government entity. Those of us who would like to see this matter investigated are simply asking you to do your job.
The information provided does not warrant further review by the division at this time? What would warrant further review? Are you not supposed to investigate practices that unfairly limit competition? Need I remind you that back in the early 1900s Standard Oil and John D. Rockefeller were investigated for using the government sanctioned railroad monopolies unfairly to stifle his competition? Need I remind you that it was by virtue of his millions and his conniving with others of great means that he was able to cut out the hard working small business men and prevent them from innovating to better serve consumers? It seems to me that something very similar has happened here.
These accusations need to be investigated and either verified or proven false. If CNN was paid off by Johnson and Johnson to misrepresent Mr. Dix´s FlossRings or did so to protect one of their largest advertisers from competition with the potential to take millions of dollars in market share, that certainly "warrants" further review by the division. The man just wants his day in court to try to prove his allegations, so why not let him have it? Is there something about this case that frightens you?
Perhaps lying, providing misinformation to the public, and misrepresentation with malicious intent don´t concern you. After all, the DoJ is a monopoly in itself. Where else can one go to seek justice in such a matter? You can certainly pick and chose which antitrust "crimes" you´d like to investigate and which you wouldn´t. Some small, little businessman whose life was ruined by two huge conglomerates colluding with each other, who cares about that? Of course if it was some small business accusing another small business, or some such thing, you´d probably jump all over that. It wouldn´t be so tough to prosecute such a case. Perhaps it wouldn´t be so hard if it wasn´t CNN, the propaganda arm of the government, that was the culprit here.
Although I´d like to, I won´t stoop to name calling here. I´m sure the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice thinks it has better things to do than investigate the accusations of one Sean Dix who has a legitimate grievance and the documentation to prove it. But if you just don´t want to do your job, than just say so. Prove that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice is just as worthless as any other government agency. Meanwhile, perhaps the consumers can help the market decide what floss is best for them. Start buying Dix´s FlossRings and let the demand for them grow. Go to CVS, Walgreen´s, Walmart, Target, or any local drugstore and start asking them to carry FlossRings. Tell your friends about how FlossRings would have offered the only sterilized floss on the market if not for CNN´s hit piece. Let them know the government is helping to keep a superior product from reaching consumers. If your government refuses to do its job, perhaps the consumers can provide justice for Sean Dix and gain a superior product in the process.
A couple days ago I read an article by Mary Sparrowdancer explaining the predicament of one Sean Dix, the inventor of a simple yet revolutionary product for flossing teeth. Ms. Sparrowdancer struck me as a thoughtful, intelligent, trustworthy individual and a principled reporter. She did an excellent job of telling Mr. Sean Dix´s story and provided many facts I´m sure she verified and included information about witnesses. The story she told was very disturbing, for it involved people and companies who many Americans would trust implicitly and would believe incapable of such malicious acts. The story I´m referring to can be found here: Floss Story
Toward the end of the article Ms. Sparrowdancer asks the reader to send an email to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice asking them to provide justice to Mr. Dix. It is the only thing Sean Dix desires. After everything he went through, that seems to be a pretty magnanimous request. I felt it was only fair and followed the instructions provided to me, keeping my letter to the DoJ simple and providing a link to Ms. Mary Sparrowdancer´s well written story. To my surprise, the DoJ actually emailed me back. Here is a copy of the email:
"Thank you for contacting the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Citizen Complaint Center has reviewed your complaint, and though we understand your concerns, we have determined that the information provided does not warrant further review by the Division at this time. We have your information on file and should the legal staff need further information, they may contact you in the future.
We appreciate your interest in the enforcement of the federal antitrust laws and we wish you the best in resolving your concerns.
Sincerely,
Citizen Complaint Center
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice"
So, they understand my concerns, yet they feel the information does not require further review? How can that be? It makes me wonder if they actually read the article I sent them a link to. If they understand my concern, they certainly should understand that this matter needs to be investigated. They seem to have forgotten the purpose for which they were created. The public puts trust in certain institutions and businesses and they expect certain government entities to make sure those institutions and businesses do not become too powerful. The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice would certainly qualify as one such government entity. Those of us who would like to see this matter investigated are simply asking you to do your job.
The information provided does not warrant further review by the division at this time? What would warrant further review? Are you not supposed to investigate practices that unfairly limit competition? Need I remind you that back in the early 1900s Standard Oil and John D. Rockefeller were investigated for using the government sanctioned railroad monopolies unfairly to stifle his competition? Need I remind you that it was by virtue of his millions and his conniving with others of great means that he was able to cut out the hard working small business men and prevent them from innovating to better serve consumers? It seems to me that something very similar has happened here.
These accusations need to be investigated and either verified or proven false. If CNN was paid off by Johnson and Johnson to misrepresent Mr. Dix´s FlossRings or did so to protect one of their largest advertisers from competition with the potential to take millions of dollars in market share, that certainly "warrants" further review by the division. The man just wants his day in court to try to prove his allegations, so why not let him have it? Is there something about this case that frightens you?
Perhaps lying, providing misinformation to the public, and misrepresentation with malicious intent don´t concern you. After all, the DoJ is a monopoly in itself. Where else can one go to seek justice in such a matter? You can certainly pick and chose which antitrust "crimes" you´d like to investigate and which you wouldn´t. Some small, little businessman whose life was ruined by two huge conglomerates colluding with each other, who cares about that? Of course if it was some small business accusing another small business, or some such thing, you´d probably jump all over that. It wouldn´t be so tough to prosecute such a case. Perhaps it wouldn´t be so hard if it wasn´t CNN, the propaganda arm of the government, that was the culprit here.
Although I´d like to, I won´t stoop to name calling here. I´m sure the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice thinks it has better things to do than investigate the accusations of one Sean Dix who has a legitimate grievance and the documentation to prove it. But if you just don´t want to do your job, than just say so. Prove that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice is just as worthless as any other government agency. Meanwhile, perhaps the consumers can help the market decide what floss is best for them. Start buying Dix´s FlossRings and let the demand for them grow. Go to CVS, Walgreen´s, Walmart, Target, or any local drugstore and start asking them to carry FlossRings. Tell your friends about how FlossRings would have offered the only sterilized floss on the market if not for CNN´s hit piece. Let them know the government is helping to keep a superior product from reaching consumers. If your government refuses to do its job, perhaps the consumers can provide justice for Sean Dix and gain a superior product in the process.
What´s So Scary About Freedom?
This article was originally published at uncoverthenews.com on July 19th, 2008
It seems to me that many Americans have given up on the concept of freedom, perhaps the majority of them. This is evident when you consider the "what´s in it for me?" mentality that many people take with them when they go to the polls to cast their votes. Many people are going to vote for a candidate they feel will give them a bigger piece of the economic pie. If one is poor, this traditionally means one will likely vote for a Democrat since it is often they who offer tighter business controls and social reforms that are supposedly good for the less fortunate and designed to redistribute wealth. Those of greater means often vote for a Republican because it is often they who offer tax cuts and laws designed to oppress those who some mistakenly believe are trying to steal from them or are trying to change the current culture. What these people may not realize is that these types of beliefs, these types of schisms, are the very things that empower the politicians and disempower the common man.
It seems to me that the politicians we have in this country have become quite adept at pitting one group against another. They, along with their media comrades, appear to have mastered the art of deflecting dialogue toward meaningless squabbles while evading real issues. In fact, I would venture a guess that we may very well have the best politicians in the world when it comes to this. It appears to me that those in power have effectively been able to divide the vast majority of the country into two camps which bicker and fret about fears that may very well go unrealized if not for the fact that so many are fretting about them. They seem to have effectively managed to get the majority of the population to engage in group think by planting the fear that one group is trying to tread upon the "rights" of another group. It is this phenomenon of thinking in terms of groups instead of in terms of individuals that leads to the collectivist societies we have seen fail over and over again in human history. It is this type of thinking that leads to tyranny. This is why our founding fathers emphasized the individual when they first set up a government to lead this nation, and it is individualist thought we need to return to in order to restore the freedom that so many of us realize we have lost.
But freedom is scary to many. It is something that seems to have been bred out of the common American citizen or a concept made foreign by the socialist group thinking we have grown up with and become accustomed to. We are no longer sovereign individuals, we are upper, middle or lower class. We are Democrats or Republicans. We are liberals or conservatives. We are pro life or pro choice. We are isolationists or interventionists. We are pro military or anti American. It´s ridiculous how many pigeon holes one can be placed into and categorized with. So many, in fact, that at times it seems many Americans have become frightened of mentioning even the most innocuous political questions for fear of offending and being left out of some group. Every issue seems to have become polarized and painted in black and white. The majority seems to have forgotten that there are many colors in the rainbow as well as many different shades of gray.
And so, in our democratic society with the majority seemingly afraid of freedom and voting against anyone who advocates its restoration, how can we in the minority who wish to regain our freedoms do so? It may help if we explore exactly what it is that´s so scary about freedom. Why do people fear this concept of liberty? What is it that holds such a majority down and prevents them from realizing their true potential?
One thing I´ve noticed in my lifetime is that people have a tendency to fear that which they do not understand. I believe that one of the reasons freedom is so scary to some people is because they don´t understand its true meaning and its true nature. They confuse freedom with security. They believe that the way to make themselves more secure is to increase the power of the state and to try to force people into behaving as they wish them to behave. What they don´t seem to realize is that this leads to a police state, which leads to oppression of the masses. What they don´t seem to realize is that this kind of forced security is nothing short of bullying. People are people and will pursue their own desires. Trying to regulate their behavior to conform to some kind of perceived notion of the perfect human is not only destined to failure, it is just plain wrong. Security is not freedom. In fact, as for myself, as the efforts of the state to provide more security continue, I feel both less secure and less free. The more freedom American citizens have, the more they will be able to exercise their personal responsibility to provide for their own security, the better off we will all be in the long run.
Another fear many seem to have is the fear of loss. Some people seem to think that if we gain freedom they will suffer personal loss. They believe they will lose certain government entitlements they´ve been promised all their lives. This is an understandable fear that actually could be realized in a truly free society. Even so, perhaps what one fears isn´t so bad as he imagines. After all, do you really want to be propped up financially through the theft of your neighbors? Don´t forget that many government monies, hence many government entitlement programs, are financed through income taxes which are not voluntary as they were originally meant to be, but are payments coerced out of people under the threat of imprisonment, confiscation or worse. Other words for such collection of money would be racketeering, extortion and theft.
That said, it might be helpful to look at what would be gained economically in a free society rather than what would be lost. First and foremost one would be able to keep all the money one earns and decide for himself what products, services and charities one would like to spend his money on rather than seeing that money taken from them and someone else deciding how to spend it. You would gain the pride of knowing that you were working for yourself and your family, not the government. Many who would otherwise be getting government handouts would gain self esteem upon realizing that everything they own has been earned rather than given to them. Many would also gain knowledge and fiscal savvy as they determine their own retirement plans rather than using those that are government mandated. Besides, as it stands now entitlements are not all they are made out to be and many people have been greatly disappointed when depending on government programs.
Perhaps the most pervasive fear people have would be the fear of self reliance. People seem to be afraid to have to do things for themselves. They don´t want to have to shop for the best deals in medicine. They don´t want to have to decide which power company would offer the greatest value in terms of price and reliability. They don´t want to decide for themselves which safety features on their cars they want to spend their money on. They don´t want to have to determine for themselves which school to send their child to. They want other people to make those decisions for them. They want the government to tell them how to behave and where to spend their money. But this is a fear that would be easily overcome once people began to realize how easy these things can be. This fear would be non-existent once people began to see how many choices the free marketplace would provide and how quickly the prices would drop once real competition was introduced. When freedom reigns, fear quickly dissipates.
Fear is one way government maintains its power. Its one way that people who want to rule over us prevent us from using our own reasoning power to determine what is best in our own lives. Freedom is not a scary thing. Freedom is the dream had by people worldwide. Freedom is the light that once shined from this great nation of ours and attracted the oppressed and downtrodden of the world with its promise. We should not be afraid of freedom, we should have no fear when exercising it, and we should not be frightened when we give it to others for it will be reciprocated to us. If you give it some thought and begin to truly understand freedom, you should find that there is really nothing scary about freedom.
It seems to me that many Americans have given up on the concept of freedom, perhaps the majority of them. This is evident when you consider the "what´s in it for me?" mentality that many people take with them when they go to the polls to cast their votes. Many people are going to vote for a candidate they feel will give them a bigger piece of the economic pie. If one is poor, this traditionally means one will likely vote for a Democrat since it is often they who offer tighter business controls and social reforms that are supposedly good for the less fortunate and designed to redistribute wealth. Those of greater means often vote for a Republican because it is often they who offer tax cuts and laws designed to oppress those who some mistakenly believe are trying to steal from them or are trying to change the current culture. What these people may not realize is that these types of beliefs, these types of schisms, are the very things that empower the politicians and disempower the common man.
It seems to me that the politicians we have in this country have become quite adept at pitting one group against another. They, along with their media comrades, appear to have mastered the art of deflecting dialogue toward meaningless squabbles while evading real issues. In fact, I would venture a guess that we may very well have the best politicians in the world when it comes to this. It appears to me that those in power have effectively been able to divide the vast majority of the country into two camps which bicker and fret about fears that may very well go unrealized if not for the fact that so many are fretting about them. They seem to have effectively managed to get the majority of the population to engage in group think by planting the fear that one group is trying to tread upon the "rights" of another group. It is this phenomenon of thinking in terms of groups instead of in terms of individuals that leads to the collectivist societies we have seen fail over and over again in human history. It is this type of thinking that leads to tyranny. This is why our founding fathers emphasized the individual when they first set up a government to lead this nation, and it is individualist thought we need to return to in order to restore the freedom that so many of us realize we have lost.
But freedom is scary to many. It is something that seems to have been bred out of the common American citizen or a concept made foreign by the socialist group thinking we have grown up with and become accustomed to. We are no longer sovereign individuals, we are upper, middle or lower class. We are Democrats or Republicans. We are liberals or conservatives. We are pro life or pro choice. We are isolationists or interventionists. We are pro military or anti American. It´s ridiculous how many pigeon holes one can be placed into and categorized with. So many, in fact, that at times it seems many Americans have become frightened of mentioning even the most innocuous political questions for fear of offending and being left out of some group. Every issue seems to have become polarized and painted in black and white. The majority seems to have forgotten that there are many colors in the rainbow as well as many different shades of gray.
And so, in our democratic society with the majority seemingly afraid of freedom and voting against anyone who advocates its restoration, how can we in the minority who wish to regain our freedoms do so? It may help if we explore exactly what it is that´s so scary about freedom. Why do people fear this concept of liberty? What is it that holds such a majority down and prevents them from realizing their true potential?
One thing I´ve noticed in my lifetime is that people have a tendency to fear that which they do not understand. I believe that one of the reasons freedom is so scary to some people is because they don´t understand its true meaning and its true nature. They confuse freedom with security. They believe that the way to make themselves more secure is to increase the power of the state and to try to force people into behaving as they wish them to behave. What they don´t seem to realize is that this leads to a police state, which leads to oppression of the masses. What they don´t seem to realize is that this kind of forced security is nothing short of bullying. People are people and will pursue their own desires. Trying to regulate their behavior to conform to some kind of perceived notion of the perfect human is not only destined to failure, it is just plain wrong. Security is not freedom. In fact, as for myself, as the efforts of the state to provide more security continue, I feel both less secure and less free. The more freedom American citizens have, the more they will be able to exercise their personal responsibility to provide for their own security, the better off we will all be in the long run.
Another fear many seem to have is the fear of loss. Some people seem to think that if we gain freedom they will suffer personal loss. They believe they will lose certain government entitlements they´ve been promised all their lives. This is an understandable fear that actually could be realized in a truly free society. Even so, perhaps what one fears isn´t so bad as he imagines. After all, do you really want to be propped up financially through the theft of your neighbors? Don´t forget that many government monies, hence many government entitlement programs, are financed through income taxes which are not voluntary as they were originally meant to be, but are payments coerced out of people under the threat of imprisonment, confiscation or worse. Other words for such collection of money would be racketeering, extortion and theft.
That said, it might be helpful to look at what would be gained economically in a free society rather than what would be lost. First and foremost one would be able to keep all the money one earns and decide for himself what products, services and charities one would like to spend his money on rather than seeing that money taken from them and someone else deciding how to spend it. You would gain the pride of knowing that you were working for yourself and your family, not the government. Many who would otherwise be getting government handouts would gain self esteem upon realizing that everything they own has been earned rather than given to them. Many would also gain knowledge and fiscal savvy as they determine their own retirement plans rather than using those that are government mandated. Besides, as it stands now entitlements are not all they are made out to be and many people have been greatly disappointed when depending on government programs.
Perhaps the most pervasive fear people have would be the fear of self reliance. People seem to be afraid to have to do things for themselves. They don´t want to have to shop for the best deals in medicine. They don´t want to have to decide which power company would offer the greatest value in terms of price and reliability. They don´t want to decide for themselves which safety features on their cars they want to spend their money on. They don´t want to have to determine for themselves which school to send their child to. They want other people to make those decisions for them. They want the government to tell them how to behave and where to spend their money. But this is a fear that would be easily overcome once people began to realize how easy these things can be. This fear would be non-existent once people began to see how many choices the free marketplace would provide and how quickly the prices would drop once real competition was introduced. When freedom reigns, fear quickly dissipates.
Fear is one way government maintains its power. Its one way that people who want to rule over us prevent us from using our own reasoning power to determine what is best in our own lives. Freedom is not a scary thing. Freedom is the dream had by people worldwide. Freedom is the light that once shined from this great nation of ours and attracted the oppressed and downtrodden of the world with its promise. We should not be afraid of freedom, we should have no fear when exercising it, and we should not be frightened when we give it to others for it will be reciprocated to us. If you give it some thought and begin to truly understand freedom, you should find that there is really nothing scary about freedom.
Monday, July 21, 2008
FISA – Obama, the Democrats and the Mass Media Betray US Again
This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com and uncoverthenews.com on July 13th, 2008
In the year 2006, well before the new century was more than a decade old, the American people decided they´d had enough of the Republicans´ shenanigans. Specifically, they´d had enough of George W. Bush and his administration lying us into war, violating the constitution and doing its best to shred that fine document, the legacy of our founding fathers. Before the November election, there seemed to be an electricity in the air. People were fed up then and were ready to elect new faces, new ideas, into congress to force change in the direction of the old regime, something George Bush continuously refused to do. I was not so positive. In fact, and my writing suggested this, I was more or less certain we were going to get more of the same old, same old.
My friend and coworker Valentine was far more optimistic than I was. He told me he felt that once the Democrats were in power they would impeach the president. I told him I didn´t believe that. As much as I would have liked to believe and as much as I feel that if any president ever deserved impeachment, George Bush is that president, I didn´t think anything was going to be done about his reign of terror. I told Valentine as much. When he asked me why I felt as I did, I explained to him that not only were the Democrats and Republicans cut from the same cloth, two sides of the same coin, so to speak, but that Nancy Pelosi, that all powerful congresswoman from California, had said as much when she proclaimed that impeachment was off the table.
Valentine was quick to defend his new hope. He certainly didn´t want to give into pessimism as I had already done. He told me that she (Nancy Pelosi) was just playing politics and that once the Democrats took over the pressure would build, she´d change her tune, impeachment proceedings would begin, worries of a new war with Iran would subside, flowers would bloom, children would frolic and play, the world would be set to rights and all would be harmonious in the universe. "I hope you´re right," I told Valentine as I returned to my bench to work. It was all I could do at the time. I did hope he was right, but in my heart there wasn´t much hope. I understood that Valentine was a hopeless dreamer like I am, but he was putting his faith in politicians who had already proven themselves to be unreliable and corruptible at best and criminal at worst. I put my faith in the common man, which may not be much better, but at least the vast majority of common folk are honest, hard working people.
And so the Democrats became the majority in both the House and Senate and we waited for something to happen. We waited for change to come. It never did. Just like the Republicans before them, the Democrats kept the status quo. Just like the Republicans before them, the Democrats continued to disrespect, disregard and disobey the Constitution. And what did our magnificent "free press" and the mass media have to say about all this? Nothing of consequence. They may report the facts briefly so that they can claim they´re not being negligent in their duty to disseminate accurate information, but their commentary for the most part continues to sound like cheerleading for one team or the other and drastically fails to bring any sort of meaningful dialogue of the truly important issues to the forefront of American political discourse. This is as true today as it was in 2006 and long before. The mass media sold out the American electorate long ago and continues its betrayal to this day. The Democrats, having decided to go along with their unprincipled leadership, failed to follow through on the public´s mandates to end the war in Iraq, prosecute or at least indict those in the executive who so gravely abused their power, and restore constitutional restraints to a federal government gone amuck in their zeal to find boogiemen hiding in closets across this nation.
It´s been nearly two years now and still nothing has changed. Nothing has been accomplished. The government continues to grow. Our troops remain in harm´s way in a country we never should have attacked or at least should have left long ago after the defeat of its military. It should be obvious to most by now that the Democrats have once again betrayed us, as political parties have done time and time again. But, they had a chance to rectify at least some of that not too long ago. Just last week they had a chance to vote down a piece of legislation that would validate Bush´s actions and leave unaccountable those who would violate the rules of the Constitution. This bill, the new "FISA Amendments Act", should have easily been defeated since the Democrats have control of both the House and the Senate. But it was not. The House passed it a couple of weeks ago and last week the Senate passed it by a large margin. Many Democrats flocked to the Republicans´ side and once again betrayed those who voted them into office by passing this piece of legislation which completely disregards the fourth amendment. They have, in essence, told us that they think it´s okay for federal agents to spy on all of us without warrants, and it seems as if they´re trying to give their friend, President George W. Bush, and his cronies a pass on an unconstitutional, impeachable, unconscionable, and unnecessary offense which was committed long before any act of Congress was implemented. And so Democrats who were hoping for restoration of civil liberties are once again ignored and excluded by their own party.
Most surprising of all, or perhaps not so surprising, was the vote of one Barack Obama. Here is a man running for president that promises change. I have before wondered what kind of change he offers. Perhaps we can get a glimpse at that now. He voted for the "FISA Amendments Act." He voted to keep the powers to spy on Americans without warrant. He voted to continue a campaign which will chill the bones of those who disagree with government policy. His vote was perhaps the most important as so many of his fellow Democrats voted according to his leadership. This is not change. With this vote, Mr. Obama shows us his true nature. He cares not for the individual. He cares not for those who simply wish to live in freedom. He is a collectivist. He will abuse his power. He is no better than any other politician pretending to care while he attempts to force the common man, AKA the little folk, deeper into servitude. Mr. Obama, who in the past voted against a similar bill, has flip-flopped on this issue and so who knows on what other issues he may suddenly have a change of mind? Perhaps Mr. Obama believes he will almost certainly one day be president and he wishes to keep such an awesome power so that one day he too may punish his political adversaries.
Now the question becomes, "What will the mass media have to say about all this?" Apparently not much. They seem to have kept pretty quiet about all this and have decided to focus on other issues that maybe aren´t quite as important. I doubt very much that we´ll hear Kieth Oberman deride Mr. Obama as he so often and effectively does with Mr. Bush. When Mr. Bush violates the Constitution, it´s bad, but not so if Mr. Obama does. After all, Barack Obama is a Democrat and Kieth likes Democrats. They can do no wrong. They will set the world to rights. Once they get into office, harmony will be restored to the universe. If you believe that, well, I wouldn´t hold my breath if I were you. The betrayal is complete. We´re on our own. One can only hope that at some point there becomes an outcry so loud that those in power cannot ignore it. Until such a time, I wish the best of luck to you.
In the year 2006, well before the new century was more than a decade old, the American people decided they´d had enough of the Republicans´ shenanigans. Specifically, they´d had enough of George W. Bush and his administration lying us into war, violating the constitution and doing its best to shred that fine document, the legacy of our founding fathers. Before the November election, there seemed to be an electricity in the air. People were fed up then and were ready to elect new faces, new ideas, into congress to force change in the direction of the old regime, something George Bush continuously refused to do. I was not so positive. In fact, and my writing suggested this, I was more or less certain we were going to get more of the same old, same old.
My friend and coworker Valentine was far more optimistic than I was. He told me he felt that once the Democrats were in power they would impeach the president. I told him I didn´t believe that. As much as I would have liked to believe and as much as I feel that if any president ever deserved impeachment, George Bush is that president, I didn´t think anything was going to be done about his reign of terror. I told Valentine as much. When he asked me why I felt as I did, I explained to him that not only were the Democrats and Republicans cut from the same cloth, two sides of the same coin, so to speak, but that Nancy Pelosi, that all powerful congresswoman from California, had said as much when she proclaimed that impeachment was off the table.
Valentine was quick to defend his new hope. He certainly didn´t want to give into pessimism as I had already done. He told me that she (Nancy Pelosi) was just playing politics and that once the Democrats took over the pressure would build, she´d change her tune, impeachment proceedings would begin, worries of a new war with Iran would subside, flowers would bloom, children would frolic and play, the world would be set to rights and all would be harmonious in the universe. "I hope you´re right," I told Valentine as I returned to my bench to work. It was all I could do at the time. I did hope he was right, but in my heart there wasn´t much hope. I understood that Valentine was a hopeless dreamer like I am, but he was putting his faith in politicians who had already proven themselves to be unreliable and corruptible at best and criminal at worst. I put my faith in the common man, which may not be much better, but at least the vast majority of common folk are honest, hard working people.
And so the Democrats became the majority in both the House and Senate and we waited for something to happen. We waited for change to come. It never did. Just like the Republicans before them, the Democrats kept the status quo. Just like the Republicans before them, the Democrats continued to disrespect, disregard and disobey the Constitution. And what did our magnificent "free press" and the mass media have to say about all this? Nothing of consequence. They may report the facts briefly so that they can claim they´re not being negligent in their duty to disseminate accurate information, but their commentary for the most part continues to sound like cheerleading for one team or the other and drastically fails to bring any sort of meaningful dialogue of the truly important issues to the forefront of American political discourse. This is as true today as it was in 2006 and long before. The mass media sold out the American electorate long ago and continues its betrayal to this day. The Democrats, having decided to go along with their unprincipled leadership, failed to follow through on the public´s mandates to end the war in Iraq, prosecute or at least indict those in the executive who so gravely abused their power, and restore constitutional restraints to a federal government gone amuck in their zeal to find boogiemen hiding in closets across this nation.
It´s been nearly two years now and still nothing has changed. Nothing has been accomplished. The government continues to grow. Our troops remain in harm´s way in a country we never should have attacked or at least should have left long ago after the defeat of its military. It should be obvious to most by now that the Democrats have once again betrayed us, as political parties have done time and time again. But, they had a chance to rectify at least some of that not too long ago. Just last week they had a chance to vote down a piece of legislation that would validate Bush´s actions and leave unaccountable those who would violate the rules of the Constitution. This bill, the new "FISA Amendments Act", should have easily been defeated since the Democrats have control of both the House and the Senate. But it was not. The House passed it a couple of weeks ago and last week the Senate passed it by a large margin. Many Democrats flocked to the Republicans´ side and once again betrayed those who voted them into office by passing this piece of legislation which completely disregards the fourth amendment. They have, in essence, told us that they think it´s okay for federal agents to spy on all of us without warrants, and it seems as if they´re trying to give their friend, President George W. Bush, and his cronies a pass on an unconstitutional, impeachable, unconscionable, and unnecessary offense which was committed long before any act of Congress was implemented. And so Democrats who were hoping for restoration of civil liberties are once again ignored and excluded by their own party.
Most surprising of all, or perhaps not so surprising, was the vote of one Barack Obama. Here is a man running for president that promises change. I have before wondered what kind of change he offers. Perhaps we can get a glimpse at that now. He voted for the "FISA Amendments Act." He voted to keep the powers to spy on Americans without warrant. He voted to continue a campaign which will chill the bones of those who disagree with government policy. His vote was perhaps the most important as so many of his fellow Democrats voted according to his leadership. This is not change. With this vote, Mr. Obama shows us his true nature. He cares not for the individual. He cares not for those who simply wish to live in freedom. He is a collectivist. He will abuse his power. He is no better than any other politician pretending to care while he attempts to force the common man, AKA the little folk, deeper into servitude. Mr. Obama, who in the past voted against a similar bill, has flip-flopped on this issue and so who knows on what other issues he may suddenly have a change of mind? Perhaps Mr. Obama believes he will almost certainly one day be president and he wishes to keep such an awesome power so that one day he too may punish his political adversaries.
Now the question becomes, "What will the mass media have to say about all this?" Apparently not much. They seem to have kept pretty quiet about all this and have decided to focus on other issues that maybe aren´t quite as important. I doubt very much that we´ll hear Kieth Oberman deride Mr. Obama as he so often and effectively does with Mr. Bush. When Mr. Bush violates the Constitution, it´s bad, but not so if Mr. Obama does. After all, Barack Obama is a Democrat and Kieth likes Democrats. They can do no wrong. They will set the world to rights. Once they get into office, harmony will be restored to the universe. If you believe that, well, I wouldn´t hold my breath if I were you. The betrayal is complete. We´re on our own. One can only hope that at some point there becomes an outcry so loud that those in power cannot ignore it. Until such a time, I wish the best of luck to you.
The Tyranny of Seatbelt Laws
This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com and uncoverthenews.com on July 6th, 2008
In Illinois there is a law that says one must wear their seatbelt when driving their car. Should a member of a state sanctioned gang known as the police pull you over and find you are not wearing your seatbelt, they are instructed to write a citation instructing you to either mail your tribute to one of their collection agencies or report to one of their superiors should you decide you don´t agree with their "law" and you don´t want to pay them their extortion because you feel doing so would be unjust. Of course, should you decide to do the latter, the cards are stacked against you as it is their system that would be put on trial and they are not about to admit that their system is fundamentally flawed. And shame on you, citizen, for daring to question the system. These seatbelt laws simply create more victimless crimes that do nothing except steal money from those who are victimized by government enforcers looking for violators, and in the worst case scenarios can destroy an individual´s life.
Now, Illinois is not the only state in this nation that has created these unconstitutional seatbelt laws. In fact, the only state that doesn´t have a seatbelt law is New Hampshire, and I applaud them for having the courage to stand up to the federal government and tell them "No, we will not subject our citizens to such intrusive laws simply to receive your bribe money," but that is an article in itself. This is an article about a friend of mine named Jon who one day decided to stand up to this gang of thugs known as the government and did his best to defeat this behemoth against impossible odds. It is an article about how we have lost our freedoms, even in the smallest of matters, and how too few of us care.
Personally, I wear a seatbelt. I have always worn my seatbelt, and certainly since long before legislators decided to make a law forcing me to. But if I decided not to wear one for whatever reason, I don´t think it´s right that I be forced to wear one by government mandate. What right have they to determine the level of risk I am willing to take with my life? What right have they to tell me how to conduct my affairs whilst driving in my car, which is my private property? In fact, I remember that when the law was passed I almost decided to stop wearing my seatbelt just to say "screw ´em," but I didn´t. I know quite a number of people who felt the same way I did. Yet I just kept wearing my seatbelt, kept obeying like all the good little sheep, only vaguely aware that a tiny bit of my freedom had been taken away, that a tiny portion of my ability to determine what is best for me had been delegated to strangers, that a smidgeon of my private, personal life had been intruded upon by faceless bureaucrats working for the heartless state.
But, as many people would say, what difference does all that matter? They pass these laws for your own good. The same can be said for a myriad of other laws. After all, citizen, you are too stupid and juvenile to look after yourself. You can´t possibly make such tough decisions on your own, without the government´s help. Besides, we live in a democracy, right? And what the majority says, what the majority wants must be correct. But we don´t live in a democracy, we live in a republic, and I urge those of you who don´t know the difference to learn on your own what the differences are. One of the purposes of a republic is to keep the majority from abusing minorities. Majority rule is not always fair and just, in fact many times it´s very tyrannical. It has been referred to as the tyranny of the majority. This nation was set up at its inception to protect the ultimate minority, the individual. It was supposed to be set up in such a fashion as to prevent the government, or the majority, from infringing upon the God given rights of the individual. Seatbelt laws are a perfect example of how these fine concepts have been forgotten and discarded by so many living in this nation.
These concepts were not lost on Jon, however. He received a citation for not wearing his seatbelt and decided he was going to try to fight it. He wasn´t a sheep. He wasn´t just going to simply follow the herd, grumble a little, pay the extortionists and just go merrily on his way without so much as uttering a protest. He wasn´t going to just stand there while the shepherd known as government grabbed him and had its way with him. He would challenge the law, and challenge the legality of how such laws are enforced. Sure, he would have to do so in their courts arguing with their judges and follow their convoluted words, but his voice would speak out against what they were doing and he would be heard.
Now, Jon made a mistake. It was a simple mistake most of us would make. When he went to court the first time he was asked to plead and he pled not guilty. By doing so he more or less admitted that the court had purview and could judge him on whether or not he was guilty of this particular crime. Of course, many of us would have done the same believing that we are not guilty of committing a crime when in reality what we want to do is challenge the validity of a certain law and the proper function of the court in regards to that law. He had no real understanding of what he was doing, or even what the charges were against him, yet the judge asked him to enter a plea. This is actually true of most of us, that we have no real understanding of courtroom procedure, as the legislators and lawyers of this nation have so perverted the English language when writing these laws as to make them nearly impossible to understand. There´s a reason most people refer to such language as legalese. If you´re mad about the Hispanics not wanting to learn English, you should be livid about lawyers and judges who don´t wish to use it. Jon got a continuance.
The next time Jon went to court he was not allowed to make his arguments. He was not allowed to challenge the law. He was not allowed to challenge the court´s jurisdiction over him. When he asked his questions the judge told him he was dangerously close to a contempt of court charge. He had pled not guilty and all the judge was interested in was seeing the evidence that he was in fact not guilty and hearing from witnesses. But that wasn´t what Jon´s case was about. He didn´t believe a crime had been committed. There was no victim. There was no harm done to another. There was no property damaged. The judge didn´t care. He proclaimed Jon guilty and demanded the fine be paid. If the fine wasn´t paid, he threatened Jon with a charge of contempt of court and jail time. This is an example of how lives get ruined by a law that seems so simple, that is supposed to protect people from themselves, and yet all it does is steal from innocent people who believe they should be the ones to determine for themselves what safety measures to take while driving, making them victims of the heartless state. And where there are victims, there is crime.
And what of this contempt charge? What of this tool the courts use to be able to silence dissent without so much as even pretending to care? Have not the courts earned our contempt by upholding such blatantly unconstitutional laws? Is it not despicable how they victimize the public with extortionist schemes meant to pick the pockets of the citizenry? The courts are allowed to show contempt for the individuals it drags before it with impunity, but God forbid they should show the contempt the courts deserve or they will be thrown in a cold cell for as long as it takes to break them. It´s even conceivable that one could be declared an enemy combatant by showing such disdain for these extortionists and be thrown in some hell hole in some foreign land and then tortured until one screams "The courts in the United States of America are the best courts in the world! Now please stop!" and then breaks down in tears. This is certainly not fair or just. This is certainly not why these courts were set up. And then they wonder why people hold them in contempt? This is just another way for them to infringe upon one´s first amendment rights. They can´t even follow their own laws yet they expect us to.
And so they threatened to throw my friend Jon into jail for not wearing his seatbelt. He buckled and paid the fine. What would you have done? Jon told me that he believed it was his duty to challenge tyrannical laws. If only more people felt like him, if only more people would refuse to roll over and simply pay their fines without challenging those who wish to rule over us. If only more people would use the courts as a tool to challenge unfair, unjust, unconstitutional laws rather than as a simple venue to determine whether someone is guilty or not guilty of a crime that should never have been a crime in the first place. If just a few more people would take a stand then maybe things would start to change. Maybe those who would rule over us would start to realize that we are thoughtful, powerful human beings that no longer wish to be pushed around. Maybe they would start to treat us like adults who can make their own decisions rather than as children who need their hands held and constant guidance along the way. And speaking of children, it is they who are the real losers the longer these tyrannical laws remain valid in our system. They are being indoctrinated and becoming used to this government tyranny, and it is they who may never know the true meaning and the joy of freedom and liberty. Perhaps we could all learn something from Jon. Perhaps it is the duty of every freedom loving American to challenge tyrannical laws. If you don´t wish to do it for yourself, perhaps you can do it for the children.
In Illinois there is a law that says one must wear their seatbelt when driving their car. Should a member of a state sanctioned gang known as the police pull you over and find you are not wearing your seatbelt, they are instructed to write a citation instructing you to either mail your tribute to one of their collection agencies or report to one of their superiors should you decide you don´t agree with their "law" and you don´t want to pay them their extortion because you feel doing so would be unjust. Of course, should you decide to do the latter, the cards are stacked against you as it is their system that would be put on trial and they are not about to admit that their system is fundamentally flawed. And shame on you, citizen, for daring to question the system. These seatbelt laws simply create more victimless crimes that do nothing except steal money from those who are victimized by government enforcers looking for violators, and in the worst case scenarios can destroy an individual´s life.
Now, Illinois is not the only state in this nation that has created these unconstitutional seatbelt laws. In fact, the only state that doesn´t have a seatbelt law is New Hampshire, and I applaud them for having the courage to stand up to the federal government and tell them "No, we will not subject our citizens to such intrusive laws simply to receive your bribe money," but that is an article in itself. This is an article about a friend of mine named Jon who one day decided to stand up to this gang of thugs known as the government and did his best to defeat this behemoth against impossible odds. It is an article about how we have lost our freedoms, even in the smallest of matters, and how too few of us care.
Personally, I wear a seatbelt. I have always worn my seatbelt, and certainly since long before legislators decided to make a law forcing me to. But if I decided not to wear one for whatever reason, I don´t think it´s right that I be forced to wear one by government mandate. What right have they to determine the level of risk I am willing to take with my life? What right have they to tell me how to conduct my affairs whilst driving in my car, which is my private property? In fact, I remember that when the law was passed I almost decided to stop wearing my seatbelt just to say "screw ´em," but I didn´t. I know quite a number of people who felt the same way I did. Yet I just kept wearing my seatbelt, kept obeying like all the good little sheep, only vaguely aware that a tiny bit of my freedom had been taken away, that a tiny portion of my ability to determine what is best for me had been delegated to strangers, that a smidgeon of my private, personal life had been intruded upon by faceless bureaucrats working for the heartless state.
But, as many people would say, what difference does all that matter? They pass these laws for your own good. The same can be said for a myriad of other laws. After all, citizen, you are too stupid and juvenile to look after yourself. You can´t possibly make such tough decisions on your own, without the government´s help. Besides, we live in a democracy, right? And what the majority says, what the majority wants must be correct. But we don´t live in a democracy, we live in a republic, and I urge those of you who don´t know the difference to learn on your own what the differences are. One of the purposes of a republic is to keep the majority from abusing minorities. Majority rule is not always fair and just, in fact many times it´s very tyrannical. It has been referred to as the tyranny of the majority. This nation was set up at its inception to protect the ultimate minority, the individual. It was supposed to be set up in such a fashion as to prevent the government, or the majority, from infringing upon the God given rights of the individual. Seatbelt laws are a perfect example of how these fine concepts have been forgotten and discarded by so many living in this nation.
These concepts were not lost on Jon, however. He received a citation for not wearing his seatbelt and decided he was going to try to fight it. He wasn´t a sheep. He wasn´t just going to simply follow the herd, grumble a little, pay the extortionists and just go merrily on his way without so much as uttering a protest. He wasn´t going to just stand there while the shepherd known as government grabbed him and had its way with him. He would challenge the law, and challenge the legality of how such laws are enforced. Sure, he would have to do so in their courts arguing with their judges and follow their convoluted words, but his voice would speak out against what they were doing and he would be heard.
Now, Jon made a mistake. It was a simple mistake most of us would make. When he went to court the first time he was asked to plead and he pled not guilty. By doing so he more or less admitted that the court had purview and could judge him on whether or not he was guilty of this particular crime. Of course, many of us would have done the same believing that we are not guilty of committing a crime when in reality what we want to do is challenge the validity of a certain law and the proper function of the court in regards to that law. He had no real understanding of what he was doing, or even what the charges were against him, yet the judge asked him to enter a plea. This is actually true of most of us, that we have no real understanding of courtroom procedure, as the legislators and lawyers of this nation have so perverted the English language when writing these laws as to make them nearly impossible to understand. There´s a reason most people refer to such language as legalese. If you´re mad about the Hispanics not wanting to learn English, you should be livid about lawyers and judges who don´t wish to use it. Jon got a continuance.
The next time Jon went to court he was not allowed to make his arguments. He was not allowed to challenge the law. He was not allowed to challenge the court´s jurisdiction over him. When he asked his questions the judge told him he was dangerously close to a contempt of court charge. He had pled not guilty and all the judge was interested in was seeing the evidence that he was in fact not guilty and hearing from witnesses. But that wasn´t what Jon´s case was about. He didn´t believe a crime had been committed. There was no victim. There was no harm done to another. There was no property damaged. The judge didn´t care. He proclaimed Jon guilty and demanded the fine be paid. If the fine wasn´t paid, he threatened Jon with a charge of contempt of court and jail time. This is an example of how lives get ruined by a law that seems so simple, that is supposed to protect people from themselves, and yet all it does is steal from innocent people who believe they should be the ones to determine for themselves what safety measures to take while driving, making them victims of the heartless state. And where there are victims, there is crime.
And what of this contempt charge? What of this tool the courts use to be able to silence dissent without so much as even pretending to care? Have not the courts earned our contempt by upholding such blatantly unconstitutional laws? Is it not despicable how they victimize the public with extortionist schemes meant to pick the pockets of the citizenry? The courts are allowed to show contempt for the individuals it drags before it with impunity, but God forbid they should show the contempt the courts deserve or they will be thrown in a cold cell for as long as it takes to break them. It´s even conceivable that one could be declared an enemy combatant by showing such disdain for these extortionists and be thrown in some hell hole in some foreign land and then tortured until one screams "The courts in the United States of America are the best courts in the world! Now please stop!" and then breaks down in tears. This is certainly not fair or just. This is certainly not why these courts were set up. And then they wonder why people hold them in contempt? This is just another way for them to infringe upon one´s first amendment rights. They can´t even follow their own laws yet they expect us to.
And so they threatened to throw my friend Jon into jail for not wearing his seatbelt. He buckled and paid the fine. What would you have done? Jon told me that he believed it was his duty to challenge tyrannical laws. If only more people felt like him, if only more people would refuse to roll over and simply pay their fines without challenging those who wish to rule over us. If only more people would use the courts as a tool to challenge unfair, unjust, unconstitutional laws rather than as a simple venue to determine whether someone is guilty or not guilty of a crime that should never have been a crime in the first place. If just a few more people would take a stand then maybe things would start to change. Maybe those who would rule over us would start to realize that we are thoughtful, powerful human beings that no longer wish to be pushed around. Maybe they would start to treat us like adults who can make their own decisions rather than as children who need their hands held and constant guidance along the way. And speaking of children, it is they who are the real losers the longer these tyrannical laws remain valid in our system. They are being indoctrinated and becoming used to this government tyranny, and it is they who may never know the true meaning and the joy of freedom and liberty. Perhaps we could all learn something from Jon. Perhaps it is the duty of every freedom loving American to challenge tyrannical laws. If you don´t wish to do it for yourself, perhaps you can do it for the children.
Ron Paul, America´s Best Hope, Not the Last
This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com and uncoverthenews.com on June 23rd, 2008
As most Ron Paul supporters know, he has suspended his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. This has upset many people I know, a couple of my coworkers specifically. Valentine seemed especially upset with this and came in Tuesday morning with his head hung low and in poor spirits because he felt Ron Paul had let him down. He told me he now had no one to vote for and that he felt the country was doomed, as did his daughter. This led to a long and convoluted discussion about politics American style and prodded me into sitting down to write another article though I thought I´d be taking the summer off to complete a couple of books I´ve been working on and to find a better paying job. I hope my words can be of some comfort to at least a couple of people.
I think perhaps Valentine´s attitude may have sprung somewhat from some Ron Paul supporters themselves. I´ve seen quite a number of websites and blogs supporting Ron Paul who refer to him as "America´s last hope." I doubt this is the case. I think Ron Paul is America´s best hope if freedom is to be achieved at a national level, but he is certainly not the last hope. To say so would be a defeatist attitude. And yet this is what many people seem to believe. Perhaps the powers that be would prefer those who support liberty in our lifetimes to think that way. Perhaps there are those in this world who seek power over others, who seek to control even the minutia in people´s lives, who wish people to believe that the defeat of one man means the end of a movement. I believe that if such people exist then they are sorely mistaken. Ron Paul and his revolution are not a means to an end, but a vehicle which has started a movement that will continue even though that vehicle may have stopped short of the final destination.
Oh sure, having a liberty minded president would be a great thing. We would quickly be out of all wars and foreign entanglements and would be able to use the resources saved to defend our borders and prop up some of the federal government welfare programs – which are quickly becoming insolvent – that people have come to depend on until such a time as they can be phased out and market solutions implemented. We could look forward to a national debate on the nature of money and the harm a central bank can do to an economy. The people of the nation could finally come to understand the fraudulence inherent in the Federal Reserve System and see how it fleeces the middle class and the poor through the inflation tax. Many secrets would likely be exposed and shown as the illegal scams they are rather than as necessary for national security. Unconstitutional laws that have pervaded our society over the past decade would be debated in the open and would likely be shown to the public as a means to subdue rather than protect the common man. The media would more or less have to cover Ron Paul honestly if he was president, after all, it would be hard to ignore the president. And, hopefully, if they were to continue to try to minimize him and his message of freedom, they would ultimately be ignored by a people who once again care about the principles of freedom and liberty above all else. That is, after all, the foundation of the America that is supposed to be.
And so Valentine was worried he had no one to vote for. He so wanted to vote for Ron Paul for president and now it would impossible. He´d have to vote for one of the authoritarian statists, one of the collectivists that the two major parties decided to run. He would have to vote for an evil he did not wish to vote for. I asked him why and he explained that he felt like voting for a third party was a waste of a vote. I´ve addressed this argument in other articles and I´m not going to get into that here, nor did I get into that with Valentine either. I simply asked him why he wouldn´t just write in Ron Paul, if that´s who he wanted to vote for. He explained that he had heard that Illinois is going to take the option for write-in votes off the ballot. I don´t know if that´s true and I hope it´s not, but even if it is I asked Valentine, "So?" This rather flustered the old guy and I´m afraid I´m not as good at explaining things using the spoken word as I am with the written. I went on and on about freedom and how we as individuals have to exercise our personal responsibility and I think I may have been more confusing than helpful.
Who are they to limit my choices when voting for president? Who are they to say I can´t vote for this person or that person? If I want to vote for Ron Paul for president because I feel he represents my point of view, my beliefs, and because he believes in the concepts of our founding fathers and defends the constitution and its principles, than by God that´s what I´m going to do. If they decide not to leave a space for a write-in vote, than I´ll just write Ron Paul´s name across the damn ballot and give it to them that way. If they want to call that a spoiled ballot, so what? How can I be sure they´re even going to count my vote when we have to use their damned electronic machines that any teen-aged computer geek worth his salt could hack? If they can´t look at that ballot and figure out who I voted for what good are they anyway? They know who I voted for, and what I voted for, whether they want to admit it or not. I vote for an end to the evil of empire. I vote for a return to the principles of our founding fathers. I vote for adherence to the constitution by those who abuse their powers and ignore its tenets. I vote for a return to a republican form of government. I vote for the freedom that at one time was America and the liberty its citizenry once enjoyed.
A Ron Paul presidency was (and as far as I´m concerned still is) our nation´s best hope to once again regain the freedom, prosperity and world envy it once had, but it certainly is not our last hope. If there´s anything Ron Paul´s candidacy taught us, it should have taught us that we can only depend upon ourselves. We, the people of this nation, are America´s last hope. It is up to those of us who understand freedom and its implications to keep explaining to those who believe in the holiness of the state that government is the problem, not the solution. It is up to us to explain to them that government is force, insidious and brutal, exercised against the populace. I´ve taken the time to read Ron Paul´s book and it is a good primer for those who are uninitiated as to the true nature of freedom. For those of us who have been aware for some time as to the real nature of America´s political elite, it is a refresher course, well worth the read to remind us of what we are striving to regain.
There are plenty of other movements that are occurring in which the seeker of freedom can take part in. There is the Free State Project which strives to bring liberty lovers together in one state, New Hampshire. There is DownsizeDC.org which strives to pass common sense laws that will help reduce the mammoth sized federal government. There is the Ron Paul meetup groups which continue to exist despite their candidate´s announcement that he will suspend his campaign. Latest of all, there is Ron Paul´s Campaign for Liberty which was launched on the same night he announced his withdrawal and which seeks to find and elect liberty loving candidates into congress, where the real power of the state should reside. I´m sure there are many other organizations promoting liberty springing up across our nation and that this list is in no way exhaustive. All these movements seek to restore adherence to the constitution, smaller central government and the freedoms we once enjoyed. They are all worthy of our attention and hopefully they will continue to grow and prosper as more and more people find and begin to understand the message of freedom.
Ron Paul is not America´s last hope, but he remains her best hope. Still, there are many, many hopeful voices across the country that are ready to do whatever it takes to regain freedom and are willing to show that individual leadership and responsibility spring from respecting the liberties God endowed in all men. More and more people in our nation are beginning to understand this and are starting to shun the establishment. More and more people are joining the revolution and expressing their displeasure with the status quo. We are winning this battle peacefully. Each person that learns the truth of freedom is like a raindrop added to the storm. It is becoming more and more difficult for the established powers to maintain the levies of ignorance that hold back the floodwaters of liberty. When those levies burst, only those on the high ground will be safe, and from my point of view it seems that the establishment has chosen some very low ground to stand upon.
As most Ron Paul supporters know, he has suspended his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. This has upset many people I know, a couple of my coworkers specifically. Valentine seemed especially upset with this and came in Tuesday morning with his head hung low and in poor spirits because he felt Ron Paul had let him down. He told me he now had no one to vote for and that he felt the country was doomed, as did his daughter. This led to a long and convoluted discussion about politics American style and prodded me into sitting down to write another article though I thought I´d be taking the summer off to complete a couple of books I´ve been working on and to find a better paying job. I hope my words can be of some comfort to at least a couple of people.
I think perhaps Valentine´s attitude may have sprung somewhat from some Ron Paul supporters themselves. I´ve seen quite a number of websites and blogs supporting Ron Paul who refer to him as "America´s last hope." I doubt this is the case. I think Ron Paul is America´s best hope if freedom is to be achieved at a national level, but he is certainly not the last hope. To say so would be a defeatist attitude. And yet this is what many people seem to believe. Perhaps the powers that be would prefer those who support liberty in our lifetimes to think that way. Perhaps there are those in this world who seek power over others, who seek to control even the minutia in people´s lives, who wish people to believe that the defeat of one man means the end of a movement. I believe that if such people exist then they are sorely mistaken. Ron Paul and his revolution are not a means to an end, but a vehicle which has started a movement that will continue even though that vehicle may have stopped short of the final destination.
Oh sure, having a liberty minded president would be a great thing. We would quickly be out of all wars and foreign entanglements and would be able to use the resources saved to defend our borders and prop up some of the federal government welfare programs – which are quickly becoming insolvent – that people have come to depend on until such a time as they can be phased out and market solutions implemented. We could look forward to a national debate on the nature of money and the harm a central bank can do to an economy. The people of the nation could finally come to understand the fraudulence inherent in the Federal Reserve System and see how it fleeces the middle class and the poor through the inflation tax. Many secrets would likely be exposed and shown as the illegal scams they are rather than as necessary for national security. Unconstitutional laws that have pervaded our society over the past decade would be debated in the open and would likely be shown to the public as a means to subdue rather than protect the common man. The media would more or less have to cover Ron Paul honestly if he was president, after all, it would be hard to ignore the president. And, hopefully, if they were to continue to try to minimize him and his message of freedom, they would ultimately be ignored by a people who once again care about the principles of freedom and liberty above all else. That is, after all, the foundation of the America that is supposed to be.
And so Valentine was worried he had no one to vote for. He so wanted to vote for Ron Paul for president and now it would impossible. He´d have to vote for one of the authoritarian statists, one of the collectivists that the two major parties decided to run. He would have to vote for an evil he did not wish to vote for. I asked him why and he explained that he felt like voting for a third party was a waste of a vote. I´ve addressed this argument in other articles and I´m not going to get into that here, nor did I get into that with Valentine either. I simply asked him why he wouldn´t just write in Ron Paul, if that´s who he wanted to vote for. He explained that he had heard that Illinois is going to take the option for write-in votes off the ballot. I don´t know if that´s true and I hope it´s not, but even if it is I asked Valentine, "So?" This rather flustered the old guy and I´m afraid I´m not as good at explaining things using the spoken word as I am with the written. I went on and on about freedom and how we as individuals have to exercise our personal responsibility and I think I may have been more confusing than helpful.
Who are they to limit my choices when voting for president? Who are they to say I can´t vote for this person or that person? If I want to vote for Ron Paul for president because I feel he represents my point of view, my beliefs, and because he believes in the concepts of our founding fathers and defends the constitution and its principles, than by God that´s what I´m going to do. If they decide not to leave a space for a write-in vote, than I´ll just write Ron Paul´s name across the damn ballot and give it to them that way. If they want to call that a spoiled ballot, so what? How can I be sure they´re even going to count my vote when we have to use their damned electronic machines that any teen-aged computer geek worth his salt could hack? If they can´t look at that ballot and figure out who I voted for what good are they anyway? They know who I voted for, and what I voted for, whether they want to admit it or not. I vote for an end to the evil of empire. I vote for a return to the principles of our founding fathers. I vote for adherence to the constitution by those who abuse their powers and ignore its tenets. I vote for a return to a republican form of government. I vote for the freedom that at one time was America and the liberty its citizenry once enjoyed.
A Ron Paul presidency was (and as far as I´m concerned still is) our nation´s best hope to once again regain the freedom, prosperity and world envy it once had, but it certainly is not our last hope. If there´s anything Ron Paul´s candidacy taught us, it should have taught us that we can only depend upon ourselves. We, the people of this nation, are America´s last hope. It is up to those of us who understand freedom and its implications to keep explaining to those who believe in the holiness of the state that government is the problem, not the solution. It is up to us to explain to them that government is force, insidious and brutal, exercised against the populace. I´ve taken the time to read Ron Paul´s book and it is a good primer for those who are uninitiated as to the true nature of freedom. For those of us who have been aware for some time as to the real nature of America´s political elite, it is a refresher course, well worth the read to remind us of what we are striving to regain.
There are plenty of other movements that are occurring in which the seeker of freedom can take part in. There is the Free State Project which strives to bring liberty lovers together in one state, New Hampshire. There is DownsizeDC.org which strives to pass common sense laws that will help reduce the mammoth sized federal government. There is the Ron Paul meetup groups which continue to exist despite their candidate´s announcement that he will suspend his campaign. Latest of all, there is Ron Paul´s Campaign for Liberty which was launched on the same night he announced his withdrawal and which seeks to find and elect liberty loving candidates into congress, where the real power of the state should reside. I´m sure there are many other organizations promoting liberty springing up across our nation and that this list is in no way exhaustive. All these movements seek to restore adherence to the constitution, smaller central government and the freedoms we once enjoyed. They are all worthy of our attention and hopefully they will continue to grow and prosper as more and more people find and begin to understand the message of freedom.
Ron Paul is not America´s last hope, but he remains her best hope. Still, there are many, many hopeful voices across the country that are ready to do whatever it takes to regain freedom and are willing to show that individual leadership and responsibility spring from respecting the liberties God endowed in all men. More and more people in our nation are beginning to understand this and are starting to shun the establishment. More and more people are joining the revolution and expressing their displeasure with the status quo. We are winning this battle peacefully. Each person that learns the truth of freedom is like a raindrop added to the storm. It is becoming more and more difficult for the established powers to maintain the levies of ignorance that hold back the floodwaters of liberty. When those levies burst, only those on the high ground will be safe, and from my point of view it seems that the establishment has chosen some very low ground to stand upon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)