This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on Feb 10th, 2008
Has anyone ever told you that life´s not fair? I remember hearing that many times when I was a child. Life isn´t fair. We can see it all around. Nature provides many examples. Life certainly doesn´t seem fair to the poor little antelope when he´s caught by a vicious lion. Yet the lion has to eat. Besides, it probably doesn´t seem fair to the lion that the antelope can run so fast. So lions, being clever, will use their brethren and set up traps for their prey. Perhaps to our sensibilities it seems more fair for the lion to attack the water buffalo. They are bigger and can defend themselves better with their horns. Still, the lions have a distinct advantage over these creatures with their long sharp claws and teeth. It hardly seems fair. Yet I´ve seen footage where a herd of buffalo come together to fend off a pack of lions attacking a baby buffalo. This has to seem grossly unfair to the lions, they being so hungry and there being so many water buffalo. No sense in taking a chance at getting hurt. I´ve never seen footage of a lion attacking an elephant. This must seem very unfair to a lion, so much meat in such a package and yet it´s too dangerous for them to try to obtain. But these things are just the way nature is, and so we as humans observe it, shrug it off, and say "that´s life." There´s really not much we can do about it.
It´s quite different when it comes to human constructs. We have a tendency to believe in fairness when it comes to human activity. We try to make everything we do as fair as possible. Of course, that doesn´t always work. Let´s face it, life´s not fair. There are many tales of unfairness I could tell from my own life, more than I could fit in an online article, so many, in fact, that I can fill an entire book, and so I am. That´s life. Still, we humans seem to believe that we can somehow make things better, that we can somehow make life fair for all, or at least fair for the majority of mankind. Perhaps it´s possible, perhaps not, but it seems to me to be a worthwhile endeavor. So, if we are to try to make life fair, the question becomes "how do we do it?"
I remember as a boy in school there would be occasions where someone, usually another boy, in class would do something devious such as shooting a spitball or making some obnoxious noise. The teacher would not know who it was and would dutifully ask the question "who did it?" Inevitably she would not get a confession and would appeal to the class to snitch out the perpetrator. Of course in those days there was an unwritten law amongst us kids that one did not rat out one´s classmates. That was perhaps the cardinal sin back then, and doing so would quickly subject the tattletale to peer condemnation. Despite knowing this, the teacher would threaten collective punishment. I doubt she ever expected anyone to tell, and so we were inevitably all punished in some minor way, less recess time, more homework, sitting quietly doing nothing, or some such thing, perhaps with the hope that we children would end up taking matters into our own hands and chastising the little classroom lawbreaker. Sometimes we did and sometimes we didn´t, but that´s inconsequential. The point is that collective punishment hardly seemed fair to us. This was the first time in our young lives that we experienced the exercise of authoritarian power over the masses.
Collective punishment is always going to be unfair to someone. If some person or group of people commit a crime, only those directly involved in the crime, those who knew what was happening and/or intended harm, should be punished. If everyone associated with them, no matter how innocuously, is punished, then innocent people end up being punished. In the real world, the results of this punishment can be devastating and tragic. Bombs, even smart ones, have no conscience. The shrapnel they produce will strike and kill a nearby innocent child as easily as a nearby soldier. The indiscriminant nature and inherent unfairness of group punishment, a concept stemming from a collectivist mentality, is destined to cause resentment and unintended consequences.
There are many who will contend that collectivism is the fairest type of social system. These social engineers will argue that it is everyone´s duty to help out those in greatest need. While these arguments are well intentioned and have a tendency to make a sort of moral sense, fallacies abound within them. There are always lines drawn and individual situations that make socialism unfair, sometimes to a few and sometimes to many. Wealth redistribution has a history of failure, many times resulting in the fall of great civilizations. Freedom and individual responsibility, on the other hand, have historically brought prosperity to the general population. We would do well to remember that.
The big problem becomes how to go about cutting the economic pie so that everyone has their "fair" share. Unfortunately the way societies around the world have always chosen is to do it by force. They use the arms of government. Equally unfortunate is the corruption that comes with this. Those put in charge of redistributing seem to have a tendency of making sure they and their friends receive far more than their fair share. Perhaps they catch a bit of the "one for you, twenty for me" syndrome. Whatever the case, I´ve noticed at least that those making our laws seem to be incredibly rich while those in the middle are constantly asked to sacrifice. It sure seems to me that the current system we have is anything but fair. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class are becoming extinct.
It seems a fairer approach would be to let those earning money keep the money they earn and spend it in the manner they see fit. In this way, while it may be true that some will earn more than others for their efforts, it is also true that earners will not have their money stolen from them by bureaucrats and politicians that end up stuffing their own coffers and justifying their own existence before trickling down anything left over to those who really need it. Individuals are far more in tune with their own lives, far more able to handle their finances than government. While it may not seem fair that some in society end up unemployed, even those that want to work, and while charitable organizations and other forms of financial help for the destitute may not be perfect, certainly they are preferable to government agencies forcing everyone to "give" their "fair" share. While it is true that some people at times may need a hand up, it is also true that some take advantage of the system. If the state believes itself to be so great at determining who is truly in need, then let them become a voluntary organization competing with other private voluntary organizations claiming the same thing and we´ll see which organizations thrive and which fold.
Collectivism comes in many shapes and sizes. When it is practiced, the individual who is doing his best to get along in this world could very well find himself on the losing end of an injustice. Groups are afforded protections while individuals are left hanging. It hardly seems fair that someone who has harmed no one can end up jailed. It hardly seems fair that the individual should lose his freedom so that a group can be protected from perceived wrong, but no actual, physical harm. Collectivism allows for the injustice and unfairness of victimless crimes. Collectivism allows for the persecution of those who think differently or have different points of view. Collectivism allows for the state to become all powerful while the individual struggles to find justice against such persecution. Collectivism allows for the protection of one group at the expense of another. It makes for an "us versus them" mentality that does no one in society any good. Even those gaining the perceived benefits of this system lose at a fundamental moral level, and they may one day find the opposing group in power and therefore lose their benefits. One only has as much freedom as he is willing to grant another. It is time for the idea of freedom to come home to roost. We as a society can no longer afford to quietly allow our freedoms to fade into obscurity while the state turns us into a collection of groups. It is time we reclaim our individuality and independent spirit or this great experiment known as America may well fade into the annuls of history as just another failed attempt to free man from the scourge of collectivism.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
An Open Letter to the Citizens of the United States of America
This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on Jan. 29th, 2008.
There are many times in every nation´s history when that nation reaches a crossroads. The decisions made at those times help to define that nation´s character for many years, perhaps decades to come. It is my humble opinion that this great nation known as the United State of America has come to such a time. There are many decisions that will be made in the next few months, important decisions that will define the character of this nation and perhaps the character of the world we all live upon.
In the past few years, in fact, in the past few decades, our nation has diverted itself from the path the founding fathers set it upon. Slowly the rights of the individual have been eroded in an attempt to build the security state. Slowly life´s decisions have been removed from the individual and put into the hands of the state. Slowly the concepts which helped build this great nation and bring us prosperity have been mutated, twisted into nothing more than buzz words with no intrinsic meaning. At best, this republic with its checks and balances on power is on life support, and if it hasn´t already truly died, then the simple pulling of a plug will kill it. The laws are in place. The constitution has been subverted. The word just needs to be spoken and the protections it affords the people of this nation need no longer apply. In our attempt at security, in our fear of the outside world, the apparatus was built which could end up taking from us not only our freedoms, but any security we might have hoped to purchase at such cost.
Freedom means more than the ability to choose whether to go to McDonald´s or Burger King. Liberty means so much more than having a choice of television stations to watch. These concepts are an expression of our desires to take control of our own lives with as little interference as possible from outside forces. It is this ability that has led this nation down the road of prosperity. It is the ability of the individual to be able to make the best life possible for himself that has led to so many great achievements credited to our fellow countrymen. This is the bravery of our nation, the willingness to take on personal responsibility and fearlessly face life without safety nets. Such is the courage of our citizenry, to be able to declare "Keep your tyrant and his promise of security, for we prefer standing tall as freemen to kneeling in subservience to the state." This is true freedom, when one challenges the rights of the individual over the force and coercion of that group entity known as the state.
Liberty is a legacy handed down to us by the founders of this great nation. It was codified in the Constitution and is known as the Bill of Rights. This is a great legacy and one we should cherish deeply. It was meant to put chains upon those who would govern us and to make certain that abuses of power did not occur. But, alas, it seems to have failed us. Slick politicians and callous leaders have subverted the very document they vowed to uphold. A fearful populace and a complicit media have failed to demand adherence to the vital law of the land. And so we now find ourselves facing the prospects of never ending war, a failing currency, and the presence of a brutal police state which can be unleashed against anyone who dares speak out in dissent or protest against state policy.
And so I wonder, what kind of legacy will we leave for our children, or their children, or their children? Will they learn of freedom and independence, or will they be forbidden by decree to know of such things? Will they realize the joy of personal responsibility and the pride that comes from achieving self reliance, or will they be taught subjection to the rule of the political elite? Will they be corrupted by entitlements and privileges that can be taken away on a whim? Will our progeny know liberty and respect individual rights, or will they know only collectivism and the tyranny of the majority? Will they be able to own private property and know the American dream, or will those that rule be able to confiscate whatever they want whenever they want for the "good of the public commons?" The America I knew as a child no longer exists. Or perhaps it was already gone when I was young and I only learned of what it was meant to be. But the pendulum appears to be swinging back. America is not yet completely broken. There is still hope.
This is where one would expect to find an explanation for a simple solution to put this nation back on track. The fact is, there is no simple solution. There is no one man that can deliver us from the trap we have fallen into. Unfortunately, we cannot elect any single individual into any office and expect our liberty to be restored. Yes, I would like to see Ron Paul or any man with a libertarian mindset elected president, that would be a huge step in the right direction, but that is not the end all, be all. It will take a massive effort involving many to bring back the freedom and prosperity we once knew. Like an overweight middle aged man looking to regain a healthy physique after years of neglect, it will take a lot of hard work before we can look in the mirror and be proud of our accomplishments. There will be many aspects we must consider as we move forward with this great undertaking.
There are many steps that we as a people should consider in order to regain what we have lost. The first is to be certain that honest and fair elections are taking place. With recent events in New Hampshire and other primary states, the electoral process is in shambles. How are we to survive as a representative republic when we can´t even be certain we can hold our representatives accountable for their actions through the ballot box? An end to electronic voting and a demand for verifiable, traceable, transparent methods where votes are counted at the precinct level in front of representatives of all parties involved would do much to alleviate the doubt and uncertainty in our electoral process. If we know our elections are fair, then at least we know we´ll be able to vote a representative who does something reprehensible out of office.
Citizens should also consider turning off their televisions, especially TV news. They should consider dropping any subscriptions they may have to newspapers or news magazines. These are filled with collectivist propaganda. They no longer report the news so much as they try to tell you what to think about it. There are other avenues to take to become informed, other sources less compromised and more willing to deliver unbiased information, sources that have little to gain by lying and much to lose should they be caught doing so. Those who realize the folly of the news organizations and the entities they represent should fight back by boycotting their advertisers. A huge swath of the American public not buying advertised merchandise and looking to other sources of competition will make any advertiser think twice about paying to have his product demonized. The loss of revenue should cause the news organizations to think twice about the news they present to the American public. In this manner, we can begin to affect the old media and perhaps a fair coverage of people and events that affect our world will begin to change some of the hearts and minds the new media has yet to reach.
Citizens should endeavor to learn about money. It all seems to come down to money. Politicians can´t campaign without it. Corporations fight and scrap for it. People work hard to earn it. But what is money? Is it true that the Federal Reserve creates money from nothing? According to more than a few reliable sources, it is. But while these notes are printed, real treasure is being stolen. Those who create this instrument of debt also have first dibs on it. They can use it to buy gold or other precious metals, or real property, or to buy out entire corporations if they so desire. They can even use these notes to leverage lawmakers to create laws to protect their activities. Money as it stands now represents only debt, maybe not yours, but it represents somebody´s debt. If we know this is the true nature of money, then it is up to us to demand a change in our monetary system. Should we demand that congress dutifully respect its obligation under the constitution to supply the people of this country with honest money backed by gold, then what would that money represent? Since that money isn´t just created from nothing, and since fractional reserves would no longer be allowed, then money would no longer be possessed unless it was earned in one way or another. Money would no longer represent someone´s debt, it would represent someone´s labor, and it could only be acquired through hard work or a good reputation. A private monopoly on money was something the founding fathers warned us against. It would behoove us to listen to them. This nation should never have allowed it.
We the people should demand restoration of the constitution. We should demand of our representatives an end to the politics of fear. Some of our representatives are already hearing these demands and beginning to act on them. Others are sticking by their guns and digging in for a fight, and it will be a fight against the citizenry of this country. We should let it be known in no uncertain terms that we will settle for nothing less than the true liberty and freedom that is ours by birthright. We should let it be known that any unconstitutional law is repugnant to the concepts the founders and our ancestors fought and died for and that these laws need to be repealed. There are many organizations that have sprung up in the last few years that will help us achieve these goals. If enough people make a clamor on the street, those in the tower will eventually have to listen.
Involvement is essential. There are many who are waking up to this fact today. There are many young people who are coming to understand the message of freedom and what it means to each and every individual in this country. They understand that these concepts are worth fighting for and worth the vigilance necessary to preserve them. The best thing that could happen is for people to become involved. People who believe in freedom, who believe in less government, should themselves run for local office. Others who understand the message should vote for those who agree to smaller government and more individual freedom on every issue, every time. In that way, we can slowly take back the instrument of government and relieve the people of its burden.
As a nation, we have just begun to understand ourselves and the real meanings of the concepts it was built upon, or perhaps we are rediscovering them. There is a revolution taking place in this country, a peaceful one, a revolution to win the hearts and minds of the populace. There are those who believe in the credo of the collectivist. They believe it is okay for the state to steal from some and give to others. There are those who believe there is nothing wrong with the state denying the right of the individual for the security of the many, without realizing that when the individual loses his rights, we all lose our rights. Many of these people are filled with good intentions, but that does not make them right. Then there are those who believe the individual knows best how to run his own life, that stealing from those who have earned their money in an honest fashion is wrong, and that using force and coercion on people is not a proper approach to issues. There are those who understand that power corrupts and those who obtain it will use it against those who disagree with them. These are the individualists and they, like those who founded this country, can see the danger that lurks in collectivist systems of government.
We can take this country back with a bit of hard work and perseverance. After all, isn´t that what this country was founded upon? We can expose the collectivist mentality for what it truly is, an unjust system that runs on mob mentality and turns those who rule into nothing more than criminals and mob enforcers. We can once again make this country a place respected and looked up to by the rest of the world. We can make it a place of principle once again and a shining example for others to emulate. We can regain the moral high ground. In fact, this movement is becoming a worldwide phenomenon. With luck, one day the entire world will enjoy freedom and liberty. With luck, we can find ourselves living in a world where tyrannical governments and those who seek to exercise power over others will be just a bad memory, a nightmare forgotten in the light of a new morning.
There are many times in every nation´s history when that nation reaches a crossroads. The decisions made at those times help to define that nation´s character for many years, perhaps decades to come. It is my humble opinion that this great nation known as the United State of America has come to such a time. There are many decisions that will be made in the next few months, important decisions that will define the character of this nation and perhaps the character of the world we all live upon.
In the past few years, in fact, in the past few decades, our nation has diverted itself from the path the founding fathers set it upon. Slowly the rights of the individual have been eroded in an attempt to build the security state. Slowly life´s decisions have been removed from the individual and put into the hands of the state. Slowly the concepts which helped build this great nation and bring us prosperity have been mutated, twisted into nothing more than buzz words with no intrinsic meaning. At best, this republic with its checks and balances on power is on life support, and if it hasn´t already truly died, then the simple pulling of a plug will kill it. The laws are in place. The constitution has been subverted. The word just needs to be spoken and the protections it affords the people of this nation need no longer apply. In our attempt at security, in our fear of the outside world, the apparatus was built which could end up taking from us not only our freedoms, but any security we might have hoped to purchase at such cost.
Freedom means more than the ability to choose whether to go to McDonald´s or Burger King. Liberty means so much more than having a choice of television stations to watch. These concepts are an expression of our desires to take control of our own lives with as little interference as possible from outside forces. It is this ability that has led this nation down the road of prosperity. It is the ability of the individual to be able to make the best life possible for himself that has led to so many great achievements credited to our fellow countrymen. This is the bravery of our nation, the willingness to take on personal responsibility and fearlessly face life without safety nets. Such is the courage of our citizenry, to be able to declare "Keep your tyrant and his promise of security, for we prefer standing tall as freemen to kneeling in subservience to the state." This is true freedom, when one challenges the rights of the individual over the force and coercion of that group entity known as the state.
Liberty is a legacy handed down to us by the founders of this great nation. It was codified in the Constitution and is known as the Bill of Rights. This is a great legacy and one we should cherish deeply. It was meant to put chains upon those who would govern us and to make certain that abuses of power did not occur. But, alas, it seems to have failed us. Slick politicians and callous leaders have subverted the very document they vowed to uphold. A fearful populace and a complicit media have failed to demand adherence to the vital law of the land. And so we now find ourselves facing the prospects of never ending war, a failing currency, and the presence of a brutal police state which can be unleashed against anyone who dares speak out in dissent or protest against state policy.
And so I wonder, what kind of legacy will we leave for our children, or their children, or their children? Will they learn of freedom and independence, or will they be forbidden by decree to know of such things? Will they realize the joy of personal responsibility and the pride that comes from achieving self reliance, or will they be taught subjection to the rule of the political elite? Will they be corrupted by entitlements and privileges that can be taken away on a whim? Will our progeny know liberty and respect individual rights, or will they know only collectivism and the tyranny of the majority? Will they be able to own private property and know the American dream, or will those that rule be able to confiscate whatever they want whenever they want for the "good of the public commons?" The America I knew as a child no longer exists. Or perhaps it was already gone when I was young and I only learned of what it was meant to be. But the pendulum appears to be swinging back. America is not yet completely broken. There is still hope.
This is where one would expect to find an explanation for a simple solution to put this nation back on track. The fact is, there is no simple solution. There is no one man that can deliver us from the trap we have fallen into. Unfortunately, we cannot elect any single individual into any office and expect our liberty to be restored. Yes, I would like to see Ron Paul or any man with a libertarian mindset elected president, that would be a huge step in the right direction, but that is not the end all, be all. It will take a massive effort involving many to bring back the freedom and prosperity we once knew. Like an overweight middle aged man looking to regain a healthy physique after years of neglect, it will take a lot of hard work before we can look in the mirror and be proud of our accomplishments. There will be many aspects we must consider as we move forward with this great undertaking.
There are many steps that we as a people should consider in order to regain what we have lost. The first is to be certain that honest and fair elections are taking place. With recent events in New Hampshire and other primary states, the electoral process is in shambles. How are we to survive as a representative republic when we can´t even be certain we can hold our representatives accountable for their actions through the ballot box? An end to electronic voting and a demand for verifiable, traceable, transparent methods where votes are counted at the precinct level in front of representatives of all parties involved would do much to alleviate the doubt and uncertainty in our electoral process. If we know our elections are fair, then at least we know we´ll be able to vote a representative who does something reprehensible out of office.
Citizens should also consider turning off their televisions, especially TV news. They should consider dropping any subscriptions they may have to newspapers or news magazines. These are filled with collectivist propaganda. They no longer report the news so much as they try to tell you what to think about it. There are other avenues to take to become informed, other sources less compromised and more willing to deliver unbiased information, sources that have little to gain by lying and much to lose should they be caught doing so. Those who realize the folly of the news organizations and the entities they represent should fight back by boycotting their advertisers. A huge swath of the American public not buying advertised merchandise and looking to other sources of competition will make any advertiser think twice about paying to have his product demonized. The loss of revenue should cause the news organizations to think twice about the news they present to the American public. In this manner, we can begin to affect the old media and perhaps a fair coverage of people and events that affect our world will begin to change some of the hearts and minds the new media has yet to reach.
Citizens should endeavor to learn about money. It all seems to come down to money. Politicians can´t campaign without it. Corporations fight and scrap for it. People work hard to earn it. But what is money? Is it true that the Federal Reserve creates money from nothing? According to more than a few reliable sources, it is. But while these notes are printed, real treasure is being stolen. Those who create this instrument of debt also have first dibs on it. They can use it to buy gold or other precious metals, or real property, or to buy out entire corporations if they so desire. They can even use these notes to leverage lawmakers to create laws to protect their activities. Money as it stands now represents only debt, maybe not yours, but it represents somebody´s debt. If we know this is the true nature of money, then it is up to us to demand a change in our monetary system. Should we demand that congress dutifully respect its obligation under the constitution to supply the people of this country with honest money backed by gold, then what would that money represent? Since that money isn´t just created from nothing, and since fractional reserves would no longer be allowed, then money would no longer be possessed unless it was earned in one way or another. Money would no longer represent someone´s debt, it would represent someone´s labor, and it could only be acquired through hard work or a good reputation. A private monopoly on money was something the founding fathers warned us against. It would behoove us to listen to them. This nation should never have allowed it.
We the people should demand restoration of the constitution. We should demand of our representatives an end to the politics of fear. Some of our representatives are already hearing these demands and beginning to act on them. Others are sticking by their guns and digging in for a fight, and it will be a fight against the citizenry of this country. We should let it be known in no uncertain terms that we will settle for nothing less than the true liberty and freedom that is ours by birthright. We should let it be known that any unconstitutional law is repugnant to the concepts the founders and our ancestors fought and died for and that these laws need to be repealed. There are many organizations that have sprung up in the last few years that will help us achieve these goals. If enough people make a clamor on the street, those in the tower will eventually have to listen.
Involvement is essential. There are many who are waking up to this fact today. There are many young people who are coming to understand the message of freedom and what it means to each and every individual in this country. They understand that these concepts are worth fighting for and worth the vigilance necessary to preserve them. The best thing that could happen is for people to become involved. People who believe in freedom, who believe in less government, should themselves run for local office. Others who understand the message should vote for those who agree to smaller government and more individual freedom on every issue, every time. In that way, we can slowly take back the instrument of government and relieve the people of its burden.
As a nation, we have just begun to understand ourselves and the real meanings of the concepts it was built upon, or perhaps we are rediscovering them. There is a revolution taking place in this country, a peaceful one, a revolution to win the hearts and minds of the populace. There are those who believe in the credo of the collectivist. They believe it is okay for the state to steal from some and give to others. There are those who believe there is nothing wrong with the state denying the right of the individual for the security of the many, without realizing that when the individual loses his rights, we all lose our rights. Many of these people are filled with good intentions, but that does not make them right. Then there are those who believe the individual knows best how to run his own life, that stealing from those who have earned their money in an honest fashion is wrong, and that using force and coercion on people is not a proper approach to issues. There are those who understand that power corrupts and those who obtain it will use it against those who disagree with them. These are the individualists and they, like those who founded this country, can see the danger that lurks in collectivist systems of government.
We can take this country back with a bit of hard work and perseverance. After all, isn´t that what this country was founded upon? We can expose the collectivist mentality for what it truly is, an unjust system that runs on mob mentality and turns those who rule into nothing more than criminals and mob enforcers. We can once again make this country a place respected and looked up to by the rest of the world. We can make it a place of principle once again and a shining example for others to emulate. We can regain the moral high ground. In fact, this movement is becoming a worldwide phenomenon. With luck, one day the entire world will enjoy freedom and liberty. With luck, we can find ourselves living in a world where tyrannical governments and those who seek to exercise power over others will be just a bad memory, a nightmare forgotten in the light of a new morning.
Monday, January 21, 2008
The Ron Paul Pandemic
This article was originally post at uncoverthenews.com on Jan. 17, 2008
Whether you like him or not, Ron Paul has become a worldwide phenomenon. His banners fly in the skies over US cities. His signs are springing up alongside our nation´s highways. Bumper stickers are appearing on cars, it seems almost spontaneously. Certain days of commemoration are set up to donate on his behalf. His supporters show up in droves to wave signs and inform the uninformed of Ron Paul´s message of peace, hope and freedom. He even has a blimp to rival Goodyear´s paid for by private citizens to help spread his rEVOLution. It is a spontaneous campaign that depends not upon a flashy candidate who attracts supporters through his cult of personality, but rather depends on the supporters to follow their own gut feelings on how to best spread the message of the campaign. It is exactly this kind of spontaneity, this kind of freedom to act as one sees necessary, attracting many Ron Paul supporters not only in this nation, but in countries across the planet.
One might ask, what is it about Ron Paul that causes such excitement and devotion? After all, he appears to be just a nice 72 year old grandfatherly type gentleman. He´s not particularly well spoken or sexy. In fact, with the rampant ageism prevalent in our society, I´m surprised he gets any support at all. I like to say that it´s the message, but certainly there must be more to it than that. Well, I have to admit there probably is. Ron Paul´s message is the most powerful asset of his campaign as he propels it forward, but there are some things about Ron that make him appealing to a variety of people.
Ron Paul is honest. Some in the media have tried to paint him as a racist, an old accusation that was cleared up long ago and should clearly ring out as propaganda in the minds of anyone paying attention. He has some strange heroes (Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks) for a racist. Some have called him an isolationist, again playing upon the fears of those who worry that some powerful nation is suddenly going to be amassing troops to invade the continent. This is also a disingenuous notion as Dr. Paul simply wants to stop policing the world, not stop doing honest business with it. He wants America to lead by example, something anyone with adult thought patterns realizes is the best way to influence others. I´m sure I won´t convince the paranoid few, but there´s a good chance that if the United States stopped acting so belligerent and demanding to the rest of the world, maybe the rest of the world wouldn´t hate the United States so much. Listen to what Ron Paul says. It makes sense. Watch him carefully as he speaks. One can tell how honest he is just as easily as one can tell how dishonest and manipulative other politicians are. You will never see him crying or feigning emotion in answer to a question in order to garner support. The passion he expresses is genuine.
Ron Paul is principled. One can go back twenty years and look at his voting record. He hasn´t waffled. He hasn´t flip-flopped. One knows where he stands on any given issue. He has almost always voted in accordance with the Constitution, unlike other politicians who treat their oaths to the Constitution with about as much seriousness as they treat their oaths to their wives, which isn´t much. He can not and will not be bought by special interests. He is the defender of the Constitution, not a pretender who pays the Constitution lip service but votes for unconstitutional laws. He has a record of voting for smaller government. He has a record of promoting individualism rather than collectivism.
Ron Paul cares. He cares about people. He cares about principle. He cares about this nation of ours. There are very few politicians that care beyond their own egos. Most politicians could care less about anything other than getting elected, gaining power, and taking care of their friends, family and contributors. Ron Paul wants to give everyone the best chance to take care of themselves by taking power from government and empowering the individual. This is not only the right thing to do, it´s the constitutional thing to do. Most politicians are only interested in gaining power over others.
he above qualities are easily identifiable in Ron Paul to those who pay attention. Ron Paul is no sexy movie star type. He doesn´t pay an army of image makers and stylists to primp and preen him. He´s not the son of a general or some other important political figure. He´s not a silver tongued minister that has learned to make his congregation swoon when speaking of things he doesn´t believe in or making promises he will not keep. He´s not some billionaire that can purchase an adoring following (and votes). With Ron Paul, what you see is what you get. He´s a real person for real people, not some wannabe transposing themselves over the fantasies of what people believe their leaders should be. Ron Paul is the genuine article. Many people from all cultures can see this, and that´s one reason Dr. Paul has a worldwide appeal.
It has been pointed out to me that Dr. Paul is lacking form. This is probably true. He may not be the most physically attractive candidate, but he has substantive ideas and has kept his soul intact. Americans in particular seem to be attracted to form over substance. Perhaps this is why seventy percent of us can be against the war in Iraq, yet ninety percent of us, Democrats and Republicans, have so far in the primaries voted for candidates that support wars of aggression. They are not looking at what their candidates stand for, what they have voted for. They are simply voting for the candidate that looks the best, or smiles the nicest, or makes the best sounding promises. Ron Paul is the only candidate with any substance, and there are many in nations around the world that realize this even if most Americans don´t.
Finally, there is the message. As I stated in an earlier article, Ron Paul is secondary to his message. He knows it as well as anyone else. This message of freedom, liberty and individual responsibility achieved through smaller, less intrusive government is one that resonates with people of all cultures. It´s a message that spurred the massive immigration that occurred when this country was first born. It´s the message that drove those fleeing the tyranny of the European monarchies to our shores. This is why Ron Paul is gaining popularity around the globe. People understand freedom. It´s popular. There are still many who haven´t been exposed to this message. No matter what happens this campaign season, no matter how far Ron Paul decides to take his campaign, we must strive to keep delivering this message. Freedom is always better than tyranny. Removing liberty to gain security never works. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. These truisms have been proven throughout history, and we must keep teaching them for they are lessons easily forgotten. The light of truth will shine upon us and guide us from the darkness of the cave. Those of us who understand these concepts should try the help those who are struggling to understand them. The Ron Paul pandemic is about spreading an idea that was first planted long ago in a land known as America. It is about an idea that needs to come to fruition and should be harvested across the globe. When this finally happens, perhaps then mankind will gain the peace, freedom and hope for the future as should be the birthright of all human beings.
Whether you like him or not, Ron Paul has become a worldwide phenomenon. His banners fly in the skies over US cities. His signs are springing up alongside our nation´s highways. Bumper stickers are appearing on cars, it seems almost spontaneously. Certain days of commemoration are set up to donate on his behalf. His supporters show up in droves to wave signs and inform the uninformed of Ron Paul´s message of peace, hope and freedom. He even has a blimp to rival Goodyear´s paid for by private citizens to help spread his rEVOLution. It is a spontaneous campaign that depends not upon a flashy candidate who attracts supporters through his cult of personality, but rather depends on the supporters to follow their own gut feelings on how to best spread the message of the campaign. It is exactly this kind of spontaneity, this kind of freedom to act as one sees necessary, attracting many Ron Paul supporters not only in this nation, but in countries across the planet.
One might ask, what is it about Ron Paul that causes such excitement and devotion? After all, he appears to be just a nice 72 year old grandfatherly type gentleman. He´s not particularly well spoken or sexy. In fact, with the rampant ageism prevalent in our society, I´m surprised he gets any support at all. I like to say that it´s the message, but certainly there must be more to it than that. Well, I have to admit there probably is. Ron Paul´s message is the most powerful asset of his campaign as he propels it forward, but there are some things about Ron that make him appealing to a variety of people.
Ron Paul is honest. Some in the media have tried to paint him as a racist, an old accusation that was cleared up long ago and should clearly ring out as propaganda in the minds of anyone paying attention. He has some strange heroes (Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks) for a racist. Some have called him an isolationist, again playing upon the fears of those who worry that some powerful nation is suddenly going to be amassing troops to invade the continent. This is also a disingenuous notion as Dr. Paul simply wants to stop policing the world, not stop doing honest business with it. He wants America to lead by example, something anyone with adult thought patterns realizes is the best way to influence others. I´m sure I won´t convince the paranoid few, but there´s a good chance that if the United States stopped acting so belligerent and demanding to the rest of the world, maybe the rest of the world wouldn´t hate the United States so much. Listen to what Ron Paul says. It makes sense. Watch him carefully as he speaks. One can tell how honest he is just as easily as one can tell how dishonest and manipulative other politicians are. You will never see him crying or feigning emotion in answer to a question in order to garner support. The passion he expresses is genuine.
Ron Paul is principled. One can go back twenty years and look at his voting record. He hasn´t waffled. He hasn´t flip-flopped. One knows where he stands on any given issue. He has almost always voted in accordance with the Constitution, unlike other politicians who treat their oaths to the Constitution with about as much seriousness as they treat their oaths to their wives, which isn´t much. He can not and will not be bought by special interests. He is the defender of the Constitution, not a pretender who pays the Constitution lip service but votes for unconstitutional laws. He has a record of voting for smaller government. He has a record of promoting individualism rather than collectivism.
Ron Paul cares. He cares about people. He cares about principle. He cares about this nation of ours. There are very few politicians that care beyond their own egos. Most politicians could care less about anything other than getting elected, gaining power, and taking care of their friends, family and contributors. Ron Paul wants to give everyone the best chance to take care of themselves by taking power from government and empowering the individual. This is not only the right thing to do, it´s the constitutional thing to do. Most politicians are only interested in gaining power over others.
he above qualities are easily identifiable in Ron Paul to those who pay attention. Ron Paul is no sexy movie star type. He doesn´t pay an army of image makers and stylists to primp and preen him. He´s not the son of a general or some other important political figure. He´s not a silver tongued minister that has learned to make his congregation swoon when speaking of things he doesn´t believe in or making promises he will not keep. He´s not some billionaire that can purchase an adoring following (and votes). With Ron Paul, what you see is what you get. He´s a real person for real people, not some wannabe transposing themselves over the fantasies of what people believe their leaders should be. Ron Paul is the genuine article. Many people from all cultures can see this, and that´s one reason Dr. Paul has a worldwide appeal.
It has been pointed out to me that Dr. Paul is lacking form. This is probably true. He may not be the most physically attractive candidate, but he has substantive ideas and has kept his soul intact. Americans in particular seem to be attracted to form over substance. Perhaps this is why seventy percent of us can be against the war in Iraq, yet ninety percent of us, Democrats and Republicans, have so far in the primaries voted for candidates that support wars of aggression. They are not looking at what their candidates stand for, what they have voted for. They are simply voting for the candidate that looks the best, or smiles the nicest, or makes the best sounding promises. Ron Paul is the only candidate with any substance, and there are many in nations around the world that realize this even if most Americans don´t.
Finally, there is the message. As I stated in an earlier article, Ron Paul is secondary to his message. He knows it as well as anyone else. This message of freedom, liberty and individual responsibility achieved through smaller, less intrusive government is one that resonates with people of all cultures. It´s a message that spurred the massive immigration that occurred when this country was first born. It´s the message that drove those fleeing the tyranny of the European monarchies to our shores. This is why Ron Paul is gaining popularity around the globe. People understand freedom. It´s popular. There are still many who haven´t been exposed to this message. No matter what happens this campaign season, no matter how far Ron Paul decides to take his campaign, we must strive to keep delivering this message. Freedom is always better than tyranny. Removing liberty to gain security never works. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. These truisms have been proven throughout history, and we must keep teaching them for they are lessons easily forgotten. The light of truth will shine upon us and guide us from the darkness of the cave. Those of us who understand these concepts should try the help those who are struggling to understand them. The Ron Paul pandemic is about spreading an idea that was first planted long ago in a land known as America. It is about an idea that needs to come to fruition and should be harvested across the globe. When this finally happens, perhaps then mankind will gain the peace, freedom and hope for the future as should be the birthright of all human beings.
Smoking Bans and Collectivism
This article was originally published at uncoverthenews.com on Jan. 13th, 2008
I quit smoking on Oct. 14th, 1996. I did so cold turkey. Everyone was amazed that I was able to quit after smoking one and a half to two packs a day for fifteen years. I´ve stayed quit for over eleven years now. Since I´ve quit I´ve felt much healthier. I´ve gotten rid of a bad cough. I´m able to smell and taste my food better. I just feel better about myself. I personally don´t like smoke. It stinks. It makes my clothes stink. I don´t really like smoke filled rooms or breathing in second hand smoke. It could lead to problems breathing. Some may think that someone like myself might welcome a ban on smoking in all buildings accessible to the general public. Some may think that after one quits smoking one becomes a smoking Nazi and would preach the wonders of quitting to those still addicted to the filtered leaf. Not I. It is not my business if someone else wants to smoke. That is, was and always will be up to the individual.
I got into a discussion at a party with a group of people who liked to go to a specific dance club where I expressed my disdain for smoking bans. They told me they loved the smoking ban and I wouldn´t win the argument. You may ask why someone like me, an ex smoker with no love for the habit, would be against a smoking ban. The answer is simple. It´s a matter of freedom. I´m not talking about the freedom to smoke, or the freedom to be in a smoke free environment, or the freedom of someone to work smoke free, or any of those peripheral issues. I am talking about the freedom for a business owner to decide for himself how to run his business. I´m talking about the freedom for an individual to be able to decide for himself what rules should be followed on his private property. Those with whom I was discussing these matters were only worried about themselves. They were non smokers and so they were happy the dance place they liked to go to was now smoke free. Of course, they didn´t think about the fact that they were bringing the force of government down upon a business owner for running his business the way he wanted. They weren´t innovative enough to come up with new ideas as to how to handle the situation, such as opening their own non smoking dance floor down the street to compete, or boycotting the business to put financial pressure on the business owner who may have come up with a solution on his own if he started losing money. There are other ways to bring about change without passing laws that can end up creating unintended consequences. They never considered the other guy, only their own selfish interests.
It may have surprised these people when I decided to frame the discussion in that manner. They, like many other Americans, were probably expecting an utterance of some kind of "group think" mentality, something to the effect of the rights of smokers to put whatever substance they want into their bodies. This they would have countered with the rights of non-smokers to be able to go out to places without having to put up with second hand smoke. This is the kind of collectivist mentality many of us have been taught by the public school system. This kind of "us vs. them" mentality is the kind of thing governments like to foster to keep groups at odds with each other so they can step in as sort of a referee and exercise power. The collectivist mentality is exactly what the founders of this country were trying to protect against when they crafted the Bill of Rights. It is the type of mentality that allows for government entities (including corporations which are creations of government and should never, ever be considered persons or guaranteed the rights inherent in the individual) to be able to confiscate private property for no good reason or under the guise of eminent domain. Groups of people do not have rights, only individuals have rights, the rights nature´s god grants all human beings. What in the current vernacular is considered to be "rights" of certain groups are in actuality privileges.
Of course smokers have the right to smoke, but only when they have permission of the owner of the private property they are on. Non-smokers have the right to not frequent establishments that give the smoker permission to do so on their property. They have the right to choose to spend their money at an establishment that prohibits smoking. But this issue has never been about the right to smoke or not to smoke, it´s been about who decides and about the abdication of personal responsibility. This issue is about control. When the government makes the decision that no one is allowed to smoke in private businesses they have taken away the rights of an individual to make his own decision regarding his business and granted privileged status to a group of people known as non smokers. The non smokers, upon condoning this behavior, have accepted the status of higher privilege and have abdicated their responsibility to shop around for a market solution to a perceived problem. They are, in essence, becoming infantilized and crying to mommy government to please help protect them from the big, bad smokers. The government, for its part, has shown its authoritarian nature which stems from the collectivist mentality. Collectivism, in the end, always seems to lead to an authoritarian government. All the rationalizing and equivocating in the world will not change the fact that private business owners are no longer allowed to make their own business decisions regarding a legal substance under threat of fines and maybe even jail time. To me, this is a sad and disturbing turn of events.
I don´t smoke and I think it´s a nasty habit. I wish no one smoked. It´s not good for anybody. But I´m not about to tell people how to live their lives. What works for me won´t necessarily work for you. I will not advocate prohibition of any kind. Time and again throughout history we have seen how prohibition does not work and leads only to the destruction of lives and human suffering. The smoking ban will be no different. It is just another step in granting the government more power and control over the individual. There have already been unintended consequences by making such laws. Some businesses that cater to smokers have closed, costing laborers their jobs. Patrons who smoke may simply decide to stay home from now on and so businesses will lose revenue. More heinous yet, what is to happen in the future? Whenever the government obtains more power, they are loath to give the power back to the people and begin actively seeking even more control over the populace. We have opened the door to government telling us what we can and cannot do in our private businesses, how long until they decide what can and can´t be done in our homes? After all, they are just trying to protect the public. What good is mommy government if it doesn´t try to protect us all, even if only from ourselves?
I quit smoking on Oct. 14th, 1996. I did so cold turkey. Everyone was amazed that I was able to quit after smoking one and a half to two packs a day for fifteen years. I´ve stayed quit for over eleven years now. Since I´ve quit I´ve felt much healthier. I´ve gotten rid of a bad cough. I´m able to smell and taste my food better. I just feel better about myself. I personally don´t like smoke. It stinks. It makes my clothes stink. I don´t really like smoke filled rooms or breathing in second hand smoke. It could lead to problems breathing. Some may think that someone like myself might welcome a ban on smoking in all buildings accessible to the general public. Some may think that after one quits smoking one becomes a smoking Nazi and would preach the wonders of quitting to those still addicted to the filtered leaf. Not I. It is not my business if someone else wants to smoke. That is, was and always will be up to the individual.
I got into a discussion at a party with a group of people who liked to go to a specific dance club where I expressed my disdain for smoking bans. They told me they loved the smoking ban and I wouldn´t win the argument. You may ask why someone like me, an ex smoker with no love for the habit, would be against a smoking ban. The answer is simple. It´s a matter of freedom. I´m not talking about the freedom to smoke, or the freedom to be in a smoke free environment, or the freedom of someone to work smoke free, or any of those peripheral issues. I am talking about the freedom for a business owner to decide for himself how to run his business. I´m talking about the freedom for an individual to be able to decide for himself what rules should be followed on his private property. Those with whom I was discussing these matters were only worried about themselves. They were non smokers and so they were happy the dance place they liked to go to was now smoke free. Of course, they didn´t think about the fact that they were bringing the force of government down upon a business owner for running his business the way he wanted. They weren´t innovative enough to come up with new ideas as to how to handle the situation, such as opening their own non smoking dance floor down the street to compete, or boycotting the business to put financial pressure on the business owner who may have come up with a solution on his own if he started losing money. There are other ways to bring about change without passing laws that can end up creating unintended consequences. They never considered the other guy, only their own selfish interests.
It may have surprised these people when I decided to frame the discussion in that manner. They, like many other Americans, were probably expecting an utterance of some kind of "group think" mentality, something to the effect of the rights of smokers to put whatever substance they want into their bodies. This they would have countered with the rights of non-smokers to be able to go out to places without having to put up with second hand smoke. This is the kind of collectivist mentality many of us have been taught by the public school system. This kind of "us vs. them" mentality is the kind of thing governments like to foster to keep groups at odds with each other so they can step in as sort of a referee and exercise power. The collectivist mentality is exactly what the founders of this country were trying to protect against when they crafted the Bill of Rights. It is the type of mentality that allows for government entities (including corporations which are creations of government and should never, ever be considered persons or guaranteed the rights inherent in the individual) to be able to confiscate private property for no good reason or under the guise of eminent domain. Groups of people do not have rights, only individuals have rights, the rights nature´s god grants all human beings. What in the current vernacular is considered to be "rights" of certain groups are in actuality privileges.
Of course smokers have the right to smoke, but only when they have permission of the owner of the private property they are on. Non-smokers have the right to not frequent establishments that give the smoker permission to do so on their property. They have the right to choose to spend their money at an establishment that prohibits smoking. But this issue has never been about the right to smoke or not to smoke, it´s been about who decides and about the abdication of personal responsibility. This issue is about control. When the government makes the decision that no one is allowed to smoke in private businesses they have taken away the rights of an individual to make his own decision regarding his business and granted privileged status to a group of people known as non smokers. The non smokers, upon condoning this behavior, have accepted the status of higher privilege and have abdicated their responsibility to shop around for a market solution to a perceived problem. They are, in essence, becoming infantilized and crying to mommy government to please help protect them from the big, bad smokers. The government, for its part, has shown its authoritarian nature which stems from the collectivist mentality. Collectivism, in the end, always seems to lead to an authoritarian government. All the rationalizing and equivocating in the world will not change the fact that private business owners are no longer allowed to make their own business decisions regarding a legal substance under threat of fines and maybe even jail time. To me, this is a sad and disturbing turn of events.
I don´t smoke and I think it´s a nasty habit. I wish no one smoked. It´s not good for anybody. But I´m not about to tell people how to live their lives. What works for me won´t necessarily work for you. I will not advocate prohibition of any kind. Time and again throughout history we have seen how prohibition does not work and leads only to the destruction of lives and human suffering. The smoking ban will be no different. It is just another step in granting the government more power and control over the individual. There have already been unintended consequences by making such laws. Some businesses that cater to smokers have closed, costing laborers their jobs. Patrons who smoke may simply decide to stay home from now on and so businesses will lose revenue. More heinous yet, what is to happen in the future? Whenever the government obtains more power, they are loath to give the power back to the people and begin actively seeking even more control over the populace. We have opened the door to government telling us what we can and cannot do in our private businesses, how long until they decide what can and can´t be done in our homes? After all, they are just trying to protect the public. What good is mommy government if it doesn´t try to protect us all, even if only from ourselves?
New Hampshire Obviously Doesn’t Want Change, Do You?
This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on Jan. 9th, 2008
The votes have been counted from the New Hampshire primary. McCain has been declared the winner of the Republican primary and Clinton has been declared the winner on the Democrat side. I sit in a state of disbelief. Lately in this campaign season I’ve heard much about change. I’ve heard Barak Obama talk about being the candidate of change. Hillary Clinton has claimed she is the one who could change things. Mike Huckabee has claimed he is the outsider that can march into Washington DC and deliver change. What change would they deliver? Would they end the wars we are involved in and bring our troops home as soon as possible? Would they change monetary policy and bring us a dollar backed by something, anything besides debt, a dollar that would not inflate, a dollar that would not end up worthless if I was to save one? Would they stop the insane printing of money? Would they introduce sound fiscal policy? Would they cut the federal government down to proper size? Would they restore the guarantees protecting our human rights as guaranteed by our constitution? Would they protect our borders? Would they get the government out of our lives and let us live as we want to live, or will they continue to exert more and more control over us until their control is total?
Ron Paul is the only candidate with definitive policies to deliver substantive change to our political system. McCain, Clinton, Giuliani, Edwards, Romney, Huckabee and Obama all promise more war in Iraq, more death for our men, more genocide for the Iraqis, more destruction and irradiation of southwest Asia, and more money (your tax dollars at work) for their comrades in the military industrial complex. This is not change. They refuse to get our ships out of the Persian Gulf and will most likely end up going to war with Iran. This is not change. They will not rescind any of the unconstitutional laws passed by this congress and George W. Bush. They will not protect our borders. They will continue to print money to pay for their wars until it isn’t worth the paper it's printed on or the ink that colors it. This is not change. These candidates represent the same old, same old. They do not represent the common man. They are criminals trashing the highest law in the land and not caring one iota for anyone other than themselves, their friends and contributors. One wonders if they ever even bothered to read the constitution, let alone if they understand its meaning.
New Hampshire calls itself the “Live Free or Die” state. After these results, I must laugh at that motto. The citizens of New Hampshire obviously need a little lesson in the meaning of freedom. I guess they are no different than any other citizens in these Socialist States of America. Just in terms of the issue of the wars, there are several other candidates besides any of the Democrats or Republicans who ended up on the top in New Hampshire. I’ve seen polls that claim nearly 70% of Americans oppose the war and yet 90% of the voters casting ballots in New Hampshire cast them for candidates who voted for the war and who have no clear cut strategy or timeline to get out of Iraq. Ron Paul isn’t the only anti-war candidate, Kucinich and Gravel also call for the immediate withdraw of our troops from Iraq. The candidates who finished first in New Hampshire have not only waffled on withdraw of our troops from Iraq, but they have also refused to take the option of attacking Iran off the table. Iran poses no security threat to the United States and attacking them would be immoral and illegal under international law. Why is it that in the “Live Free or Die” state, where change is being called for, did the candidates for change do so poorly? Is it the herd mentality at work? Assuming there was no election fraud, and there may have been some but probably not much, then it is difficult to say exactly what happened. One would have thought that in such a state more voters would have done their homework. Either that, or the people have been fooled and believe that they actually did vote for anti-war candidates. Or, the people of New Hampshire are actually in favor of American hegemony and hence in favor of the war. In any case, the results are discouraging.
If Americans choose to continue to vote for the status quo, then so be it. Clinton or McCain, Obama or Huckabee, Edwards or Romney, there is no real difference between any of these people. They all want big government, the bigger the better. They all want to keep extorting money from you. They all want to control your life. They all want power. If the people voting for these big government politicians want to submit to that and remain subservient to the state, that’s fine with me. If they don’t mind sending their children overseas to fight in foreign wars for the profits of the huge corporations influencing our government officials, that’s their business. I hope they don’t mind if I opt out of their little program. Then again, if I decide to opt out, I might end up dead or imprisoned as the force of the state is applied to make me cooperate against my will. Perhaps when people see their neighbors being taken away and imprisoned for deciding how to run their own lives, perhaps then they’ll finally get it. Freedom doesn’t come cheap, and yet the price one pays for service to the state is much more expensive. The state may destroy your life if you seek freedom, but it will destroy your grandchildren’s lives if you choose servitude.
Let us hope the other states vote for real change as the primaries continue. For my part, if Ron Paul eventually loses, I will keep spreading the word of freedom the best I can while I’m able to. A movement has begun and there isn’t much that can be done to stop the snowball as it rolls downhill. The more people who hear and understand the message of freedom, the more they will demand liberty and the harder it will become for those who seek control to stop the snowball. This movement may stall at times, there are those who will try to censor the message, but freedom and liberty are ideas that have survived for hundreds of years. They are ideas that live in the hearts of men. They are ideas carried in the spirit of human kind. These ideas will not die so long as human beings walk upon this earth.
The votes have been counted from the New Hampshire primary. McCain has been declared the winner of the Republican primary and Clinton has been declared the winner on the Democrat side. I sit in a state of disbelief. Lately in this campaign season I’ve heard much about change. I’ve heard Barak Obama talk about being the candidate of change. Hillary Clinton has claimed she is the one who could change things. Mike Huckabee has claimed he is the outsider that can march into Washington DC and deliver change. What change would they deliver? Would they end the wars we are involved in and bring our troops home as soon as possible? Would they change monetary policy and bring us a dollar backed by something, anything besides debt, a dollar that would not inflate, a dollar that would not end up worthless if I was to save one? Would they stop the insane printing of money? Would they introduce sound fiscal policy? Would they cut the federal government down to proper size? Would they restore the guarantees protecting our human rights as guaranteed by our constitution? Would they protect our borders? Would they get the government out of our lives and let us live as we want to live, or will they continue to exert more and more control over us until their control is total?
Ron Paul is the only candidate with definitive policies to deliver substantive change to our political system. McCain, Clinton, Giuliani, Edwards, Romney, Huckabee and Obama all promise more war in Iraq, more death for our men, more genocide for the Iraqis, more destruction and irradiation of southwest Asia, and more money (your tax dollars at work) for their comrades in the military industrial complex. This is not change. They refuse to get our ships out of the Persian Gulf and will most likely end up going to war with Iran. This is not change. They will not rescind any of the unconstitutional laws passed by this congress and George W. Bush. They will not protect our borders. They will continue to print money to pay for their wars until it isn’t worth the paper it's printed on or the ink that colors it. This is not change. These candidates represent the same old, same old. They do not represent the common man. They are criminals trashing the highest law in the land and not caring one iota for anyone other than themselves, their friends and contributors. One wonders if they ever even bothered to read the constitution, let alone if they understand its meaning.
New Hampshire calls itself the “Live Free or Die” state. After these results, I must laugh at that motto. The citizens of New Hampshire obviously need a little lesson in the meaning of freedom. I guess they are no different than any other citizens in these Socialist States of America. Just in terms of the issue of the wars, there are several other candidates besides any of the Democrats or Republicans who ended up on the top in New Hampshire. I’ve seen polls that claim nearly 70% of Americans oppose the war and yet 90% of the voters casting ballots in New Hampshire cast them for candidates who voted for the war and who have no clear cut strategy or timeline to get out of Iraq. Ron Paul isn’t the only anti-war candidate, Kucinich and Gravel also call for the immediate withdraw of our troops from Iraq. The candidates who finished first in New Hampshire have not only waffled on withdraw of our troops from Iraq, but they have also refused to take the option of attacking Iran off the table. Iran poses no security threat to the United States and attacking them would be immoral and illegal under international law. Why is it that in the “Live Free or Die” state, where change is being called for, did the candidates for change do so poorly? Is it the herd mentality at work? Assuming there was no election fraud, and there may have been some but probably not much, then it is difficult to say exactly what happened. One would have thought that in such a state more voters would have done their homework. Either that, or the people have been fooled and believe that they actually did vote for anti-war candidates. Or, the people of New Hampshire are actually in favor of American hegemony and hence in favor of the war. In any case, the results are discouraging.
If Americans choose to continue to vote for the status quo, then so be it. Clinton or McCain, Obama or Huckabee, Edwards or Romney, there is no real difference between any of these people. They all want big government, the bigger the better. They all want to keep extorting money from you. They all want to control your life. They all want power. If the people voting for these big government politicians want to submit to that and remain subservient to the state, that’s fine with me. If they don’t mind sending their children overseas to fight in foreign wars for the profits of the huge corporations influencing our government officials, that’s their business. I hope they don’t mind if I opt out of their little program. Then again, if I decide to opt out, I might end up dead or imprisoned as the force of the state is applied to make me cooperate against my will. Perhaps when people see their neighbors being taken away and imprisoned for deciding how to run their own lives, perhaps then they’ll finally get it. Freedom doesn’t come cheap, and yet the price one pays for service to the state is much more expensive. The state may destroy your life if you seek freedom, but it will destroy your grandchildren’s lives if you choose servitude.
Let us hope the other states vote for real change as the primaries continue. For my part, if Ron Paul eventually loses, I will keep spreading the word of freedom the best I can while I’m able to. A movement has begun and there isn’t much that can be done to stop the snowball as it rolls downhill. The more people who hear and understand the message of freedom, the more they will demand liberty and the harder it will become for those who seek control to stop the snowball. This movement may stall at times, there are those who will try to censor the message, but freedom and liberty are ideas that have survived for hundreds of years. They are ideas that live in the hearts of men. They are ideas carried in the spirit of human kind. These ideas will not die so long as human beings walk upon this earth.
Ron Paul Promises Nothing
This article was originally published by americanchronicle.com on Jan. 7th, 2008
Politicians make a lot of promises to a lot of people. That’s just the nature of the beast. They pander to the lowest common denominator in order to try to get votes. The politicians in this presidential contest are no different. They make promises they may or may not be able to keep. They promise to give to the people what they think the people want, a chicken in every pot, if you will. They realize that people who are starving will cast a vote for someone who promises them food, even if that person is not a farmer and knows nothing about the business of providing food to the population. It does not matter to them that in order to deliver their promise they will have to steal the chickens from one who has worked all his life to acquire them. Nor does it matter to them if they are unable to deliver on their promise so long as there is someone else to blame, and there is always someone else to blame. These politicians will promise what they believe their constituents want to hear, and if they find they are wrong they will turn and promise the opposite. They are not concerned with principle, only with obtaining votes. The only exception to this rule is Ron Paul. Ron Paul promises nothing. He states his positions and sticks to them, and he has the voting record to prove it.
Some presidential candidates, particularly the Democrats, have promised free health care to those who can’t afford to pay. This is called socialized medicine. What they haven’t told you is that this system has proven to be flawed in many other countries. What many may not realize is that they are being promised something for nothing, and one can hardly ever get something for nothing. Someone has to pay. Free health care is not really free and we will all be forced to pay through higher taxes. But that’s not the only problem. Once in charge of your health care, the government would start removing your options. In an effort to keep costs down they would regulate what procedures you could and couldn’t have and what treatments could be prescribed. Waiting times for certain procedures would probably increase to the point where some might start to die as they wait their turn. Incentives for doctors would be removed as competition between health care providers would be non existent as the government homogenized the system. Choices would be fewer, customer service would suffer, and the costs would increase rather than decrease, only we wouldn’t realize this because the government would be stealing from all of us equally to pay for it. This is the promise of free health care, the promise the Democrats are touting. Ron Paul promises nothing of the sort. He wishes to get the government out of health care, allow freedom in the health marketplace, and let you and your doctor determine how to best take care of your health.
More disturbing than this, however, is what the Republicans are promising. They are simply promising more of the same. They are promising to keep our present wars going until sometime in the future. They are promising more death and destruction. Ron Paul promises nothing of the sort. He promises we will have nothing to do with wars of aggression. He promises we will have nothing to do with entangling alliances. The founders of the United States of America felt this way. That is because they knew way back then that many wars were not fought for meritorious reasons. Even back then wars enriched the elite at the cost of the children and fathers of the lower classes. The only honorable war is the war fought in defense.
I watched on Youtube a couple nights ago a rerun of a Fox News debate where Mike Huckabee discussed honor. He asserts that we cannot leave Iraq until we can leave with honor. When he spoke of the importance of honor it was reminiscent of the Japanese soldiers’ doctrine in WWII. It makes one wonder if Mike Huckabee understands the meaning of the word honor. The war in Iraq has lost all credibility since the lies justifying our involvement have been exposed and any pretext of self defense removed. What honor is there in killing civilians trying to protect their homes? What honor is there in continuing to pollute their country with depleted uranium? What honor is there in fighting with the most sophisticated modern weapons against a people using the most basic and simply trying to regain self determination? What honor is there in destroying lives and property for a few to profit? None of this is worthy of praise. The only vestige of honor we have left to save is the honor of leaving to let the Iraqi people tend to their own business. The only action worthy of praise now is to apologize for our mistakes and leave Iraq and its natural resources to its people. When we leave, at least it can be said that we are finally doing the right thing. Is honor more important than doing the right thing? It seems to me that Mike Huckabee confused the word honor with the word pride. It is long past time for us as a society to forget about pride and realize that the people of Iraq do not want our soldiers occupying their land, just as we would not want foreign troops on our soil. Ron Paul does not promise victory, he promises nothing more than our troops returning home with their lives and limbs intact.
The Republicans also promise to keep taxing you. They make promises about cutting taxes and saving programs like Medicare and Social Security, but they make it clear that they want to keep taxing you. They call for tax reform and implementation of programs such as the FairTax, but that is still taxation. They have made promises as to how they will help the people of this country economically, most of the promises have no real substance. Ron Paul promises he will do all he can to eliminate the IRS and the income tax and replace it with, nothing. He promises to do his best to shrink federal bureaucracies down to, nothing. He promises that he will do his best to make sure the federal government provides nothing for you, but it will also take nothing from you. In this way you will be better able to determine for yourself how you wish to spend, or save your money. He even promises that he will do his best to see to it that our current form of fiat money is replaced with nothing except gold and silver backed currencies, which is something of value unlike the promises backing the Federal Reserve Notes. In that way the value of your money will be maintained and may even increase as time goes by, rather than decreasing. Think about how much money you need to retire today as opposed to how much one may have needed even two decades ago. No other candidate running for president even touches upon that issue.
Never before has the promise of nothing meant so much. All the other candidates running for president in both major parties promise to maintain the status quo. They will do nothing to end the corruption that has rotted Washington DC to its core. They will do nothing to restore the rights taken from the American people by the regime now in power. They will do nothing to bring peace to the world and have promised to maintain foreign policies that may drag us into even more devastating conflicts. Ron Paul may promise nothing to everyone, but his candidacy has already delivered real change, and his presidency would deliver a trend toward freedom at the very least. The foreign policies he would pursue would show the world that a revolution can be won in a peaceful manner and that we can all live together in this world without fighting for domination over each other. This is something worthy of praise. This is something we can honor.
Politicians make a lot of promises to a lot of people. That’s just the nature of the beast. They pander to the lowest common denominator in order to try to get votes. The politicians in this presidential contest are no different. They make promises they may or may not be able to keep. They promise to give to the people what they think the people want, a chicken in every pot, if you will. They realize that people who are starving will cast a vote for someone who promises them food, even if that person is not a farmer and knows nothing about the business of providing food to the population. It does not matter to them that in order to deliver their promise they will have to steal the chickens from one who has worked all his life to acquire them. Nor does it matter to them if they are unable to deliver on their promise so long as there is someone else to blame, and there is always someone else to blame. These politicians will promise what they believe their constituents want to hear, and if they find they are wrong they will turn and promise the opposite. They are not concerned with principle, only with obtaining votes. The only exception to this rule is Ron Paul. Ron Paul promises nothing. He states his positions and sticks to them, and he has the voting record to prove it.
Some presidential candidates, particularly the Democrats, have promised free health care to those who can’t afford to pay. This is called socialized medicine. What they haven’t told you is that this system has proven to be flawed in many other countries. What many may not realize is that they are being promised something for nothing, and one can hardly ever get something for nothing. Someone has to pay. Free health care is not really free and we will all be forced to pay through higher taxes. But that’s not the only problem. Once in charge of your health care, the government would start removing your options. In an effort to keep costs down they would regulate what procedures you could and couldn’t have and what treatments could be prescribed. Waiting times for certain procedures would probably increase to the point where some might start to die as they wait their turn. Incentives for doctors would be removed as competition between health care providers would be non existent as the government homogenized the system. Choices would be fewer, customer service would suffer, and the costs would increase rather than decrease, only we wouldn’t realize this because the government would be stealing from all of us equally to pay for it. This is the promise of free health care, the promise the Democrats are touting. Ron Paul promises nothing of the sort. He wishes to get the government out of health care, allow freedom in the health marketplace, and let you and your doctor determine how to best take care of your health.
More disturbing than this, however, is what the Republicans are promising. They are simply promising more of the same. They are promising to keep our present wars going until sometime in the future. They are promising more death and destruction. Ron Paul promises nothing of the sort. He promises we will have nothing to do with wars of aggression. He promises we will have nothing to do with entangling alliances. The founders of the United States of America felt this way. That is because they knew way back then that many wars were not fought for meritorious reasons. Even back then wars enriched the elite at the cost of the children and fathers of the lower classes. The only honorable war is the war fought in defense.
I watched on Youtube a couple nights ago a rerun of a Fox News debate where Mike Huckabee discussed honor. He asserts that we cannot leave Iraq until we can leave with honor. When he spoke of the importance of honor it was reminiscent of the Japanese soldiers’ doctrine in WWII. It makes one wonder if Mike Huckabee understands the meaning of the word honor. The war in Iraq has lost all credibility since the lies justifying our involvement have been exposed and any pretext of self defense removed. What honor is there in killing civilians trying to protect their homes? What honor is there in continuing to pollute their country with depleted uranium? What honor is there in fighting with the most sophisticated modern weapons against a people using the most basic and simply trying to regain self determination? What honor is there in destroying lives and property for a few to profit? None of this is worthy of praise. The only vestige of honor we have left to save is the honor of leaving to let the Iraqi people tend to their own business. The only action worthy of praise now is to apologize for our mistakes and leave Iraq and its natural resources to its people. When we leave, at least it can be said that we are finally doing the right thing. Is honor more important than doing the right thing? It seems to me that Mike Huckabee confused the word honor with the word pride. It is long past time for us as a society to forget about pride and realize that the people of Iraq do not want our soldiers occupying their land, just as we would not want foreign troops on our soil. Ron Paul does not promise victory, he promises nothing more than our troops returning home with their lives and limbs intact.
The Republicans also promise to keep taxing you. They make promises about cutting taxes and saving programs like Medicare and Social Security, but they make it clear that they want to keep taxing you. They call for tax reform and implementation of programs such as the FairTax, but that is still taxation. They have made promises as to how they will help the people of this country economically, most of the promises have no real substance. Ron Paul promises he will do all he can to eliminate the IRS and the income tax and replace it with, nothing. He promises to do his best to shrink federal bureaucracies down to, nothing. He promises that he will do his best to make sure the federal government provides nothing for you, but it will also take nothing from you. In this way you will be better able to determine for yourself how you wish to spend, or save your money. He even promises that he will do his best to see to it that our current form of fiat money is replaced with nothing except gold and silver backed currencies, which is something of value unlike the promises backing the Federal Reserve Notes. In that way the value of your money will be maintained and may even increase as time goes by, rather than decreasing. Think about how much money you need to retire today as opposed to how much one may have needed even two decades ago. No other candidate running for president even touches upon that issue.
Never before has the promise of nothing meant so much. All the other candidates running for president in both major parties promise to maintain the status quo. They will do nothing to end the corruption that has rotted Washington DC to its core. They will do nothing to restore the rights taken from the American people by the regime now in power. They will do nothing to bring peace to the world and have promised to maintain foreign policies that may drag us into even more devastating conflicts. Ron Paul may promise nothing to everyone, but his candidacy has already delivered real change, and his presidency would deliver a trend toward freedom at the very least. The foreign policies he would pursue would show the world that a revolution can be won in a peaceful manner and that we can all live together in this world without fighting for domination over each other. This is something worthy of praise. This is something we can honor.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Plots, Assassinations and the Devious Worlds of History and Politics
This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on Jan. 3rd, 2007
I’ve made a few observations while on this trip called life and some of them I’ve found quite curious. One of the things I’ve noticed when it comes to political assassinations is that it seems only politicians who are popular with the general public are targeted. I could go through a laundry list of victims, John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert, Martin Luther King, and John Lennon to name a few, but I think you get the picture. Time and again well loved public figures have been taken from us while persons of power despised by the majority are able to go about their public business without fear. It’s enough to make one wonder.
I’ve also noticed that those assassinated tend to be advocates of non-violent change, peace and love. These men were oft times heard espousing the virtues of such radical concepts of freedom, liberty, respect for fellow human beings, and concern for the rights of the individual. For these kinds of ideas and for the concern they show for mankind, they are thanked with a bullet or two. How very sad it is that such evil can exist, that such magnanimous leaders can be so easily lost. History is full of honest, principled leaders working for the betterment of the human condition that manage to get themselves killed. One of the more well known stories of this type of thing happening took place about two thousand years ago and involved a man in a place called Galilee that went around telling everyone we should be nice to each other. Yet isn’t it strange that unpopular, tyrannical leaders hardly ever seem to get assassinated. Perhaps this is because they expect it and are so wary of their surroundings they always keep themselves well protected. That could be an explanation I suppose, but I somehow think there’s more to it than that.
There’s something else rather odd that I’ve noticed about many assassinations. Isn’t it strange that so many of these killings are carried out by some lone nutcase that seems to have social development problems? You’d think that someone looking for attention would want to do something that would make him a hero to a majority of people rather than do something to make him hated by millions. I’m sure that some would argue these assassins thought they were doing something that would glorify them, after all they were crazy, yet it seems these people are quite intelligent and sober on another level. After all, they seem to be able to plot these schemes all by themselves. Surely an assassin with the intelligence to act alone, speak to no one and plot such actions would realize how hated he would be as a consequence and might reconsider. It makes one wonder why no such loner has acted against an unpopular personage in a position of power, especially given the success rate of the lone gunman against well protected (and not so well protected) powerful individuals. It seems that whenever an attempt is made on some tyrannical leader (such as Hitler or Stalin) it is some vast conspiracy and many conspirators are put to death.
Assassinations are seldom what they seem. History has shown that often times the investigations and the explanations given for the event are more convoluted than reported. In fact, it seems to me that many assassinations benefit a power base that is threatened by a freedom movement. The Federal Reserve would lose its monopoly of printing fiat money should the government reestablish its constitutional duty to print money based on a gold standard or even if competing money was introduced into the banking system. The CIA would lose power should civil liberties be honored, the constitution followed and the government be made more transparent. The military industrial complex would suffer greatly should war be ended and troops brought home. I’m certain there are other powerful benefactors I haven’t mentioned, but it seems these same powers or those who have ties to them are often in charge of the follow up investigations. Too often in hindsight one can point at a few specific persons in high positions on panels investigating these assassinations and find a conflict of interest or two. This makes any conclusion reached by such panels or investigators dubious at best.
It is said that history is written by the victors. This is more or less true. Those who maintain power have thus far been able to create an aura of legitimacy around themselves. They have used this to bury or minimize important facts they don’t want reported. I would guess that there are many people who have gotten away with crimes too terrible and numerous to mention. These are the types of people who rule when secrecy is allowed to cover government dealings and fear grips the populace. Yet justice is never done as these devious powers are allowed to write history. Justice, as blind as she is, cannot see what deeds are left unpunished. As each year passes they become more emboldened. These powerful individuals stay back in the shadows and continue to plot, becoming more brazen as they begin to believe they are above the very law they claim to protect. This power they hold, a power that lurks in the darkness and seeks to stamp out all that would oppose it, is the danger all must be wary of, but there is a weapon to use against it.
It is the light of truth this power is afraid of. It is the torch of freedom those who yield this power fear most, for if they lose control over the lives of others, they have no power. In liberty will we as a society find the means to avert this danger. When we as a society shed our fears and demand to be freed, to be allowed to interact not through coercion but on a voluntary basis, not through force but through honest dealings, when we demand to be allowed to live our lives as we see fit, to be allowed to make mistakes, to innovate, to learn, to love, to hate, to achieve, to play, and to just be ourselves, then the plotters will be removed from the halls of centralized government and go off to grumble in some corner of the world about bygone days. When freedom’s light shines, the deviants are exposed. When we come to the understanding that our founding documents were penned by freedom loving men not so the government could protect us, but so we could protect ourselves from the government, maybe then we will live in a land where we no longer have to worry about plots. When everything is in the open, history writes itself, for we are all allowed to record it, and since there are no victors, no one is defeated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)