FISA – Obama, the Democrats and the Mass Media Betray US Again

This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com and uncoverthenews.com on July 13th, 2008

In the year 2006, well before the new century was more than a decade old, the American people decided they´d had enough of the Republicans´ shenanigans. Specifically, they´d had enough of George W. Bush and his administration lying us into war, violating the constitution and doing its best to shred that fine document, the legacy of our founding fathers. Before the November election, there seemed to be an electricity in the air. People were fed up then and were ready to elect new faces, new ideas, into congress to force change in the direction of the old regime, something George Bush continuously refused to do. I was not so positive. In fact, and my writing suggested this, I was more or less certain we were going to get more of the same old, same old.

My friend and coworker Valentine was far more optimistic than I was. He told me he felt that once the Democrats were in power they would impeach the president. I told him I didn´t believe that. As much as I would have liked to believe and as much as I feel that if any president ever deserved impeachment, George Bush is that president, I didn´t think anything was going to be done about his reign of terror. I told Valentine as much. When he asked me why I felt as I did, I explained to him that not only were the Democrats and Republicans cut from the same cloth, two sides of the same coin, so to speak, but that Nancy Pelosi, that all powerful congresswoman from California, had said as much when she proclaimed that impeachment was off the table.

Valentine was quick to defend his new hope. He certainly didn´t want to give into pessimism as I had already done. He told me that she (Nancy Pelosi) was just playing politics and that once the Democrats took over the pressure would build, she´d change her tune, impeachment proceedings would begin, worries of a new war with Iran would subside, flowers would bloom, children would frolic and play, the world would be set to rights and all would be harmonious in the universe. "I hope you´re right," I told Valentine as I returned to my bench to work. It was all I could do at the time. I did hope he was right, but in my heart there wasn´t much hope. I understood that Valentine was a hopeless dreamer like I am, but he was putting his faith in politicians who had already proven themselves to be unreliable and corruptible at best and criminal at worst. I put my faith in the common man, which may not be much better, but at least the vast majority of common folk are honest, hard working people.

And so the Democrats became the majority in both the House and Senate and we waited for something to happen. We waited for change to come. It never did. Just like the Republicans before them, the Democrats kept the status quo. Just like the Republicans before them, the Democrats continued to disrespect, disregard and disobey the Constitution. And what did our magnificent "free press" and the mass media have to say about all this? Nothing of consequence. They may report the facts briefly so that they can claim they´re not being negligent in their duty to disseminate accurate information, but their commentary for the most part continues to sound like cheerleading for one team or the other and drastically fails to bring any sort of meaningful dialogue of the truly important issues to the forefront of American political discourse. This is as true today as it was in 2006 and long before. The mass media sold out the American electorate long ago and continues its betrayal to this day. The Democrats, having decided to go along with their unprincipled leadership, failed to follow through on the public´s mandates to end the war in Iraq, prosecute or at least indict those in the executive who so gravely abused their power, and restore constitutional restraints to a federal government gone amuck in their zeal to find boogiemen hiding in closets across this nation.

It´s been nearly two years now and still nothing has changed. Nothing has been accomplished. The government continues to grow. Our troops remain in harm´s way in a country we never should have attacked or at least should have left long ago after the defeat of its military. It should be obvious to most by now that the Democrats have once again betrayed us, as political parties have done time and time again. But, they had a chance to rectify at least some of that not too long ago. Just last week they had a chance to vote down a piece of legislation that would validate Bush´s actions and leave unaccountable those who would violate the rules of the Constitution. This bill, the new "FISA Amendments Act", should have easily been defeated since the Democrats have control of both the House and the Senate. But it was not. The House passed it a couple of weeks ago and last week the Senate passed it by a large margin. Many Democrats flocked to the Republicans´ side and once again betrayed those who voted them into office by passing this piece of legislation which completely disregards the fourth amendment. They have, in essence, told us that they think it´s okay for federal agents to spy on all of us without warrants, and it seems as if they´re trying to give their friend, President George W. Bush, and his cronies a pass on an unconstitutional, impeachable, unconscionable, and unnecessary offense which was committed long before any act of Congress was implemented. And so Democrats who were hoping for restoration of civil liberties are once again ignored and excluded by their own party.

Most surprising of all, or perhaps not so surprising, was the vote of one Barack Obama. Here is a man running for president that promises change. I have before wondered what kind of change he offers. Perhaps we can get a glimpse at that now. He voted for the "FISA Amendments Act." He voted to keep the powers to spy on Americans without warrant. He voted to continue a campaign which will chill the bones of those who disagree with government policy. His vote was perhaps the most important as so many of his fellow Democrats voted according to his leadership. This is not change. With this vote, Mr. Obama shows us his true nature. He cares not for the individual. He cares not for those who simply wish to live in freedom. He is a collectivist. He will abuse his power. He is no better than any other politician pretending to care while he attempts to force the common man, AKA the little folk, deeper into servitude. Mr. Obama, who in the past voted against a similar bill, has flip-flopped on this issue and so who knows on what other issues he may suddenly have a change of mind? Perhaps Mr. Obama believes he will almost certainly one day be president and he wishes to keep such an awesome power so that one day he too may punish his political adversaries.

Now the question becomes, "What will the mass media have to say about all this?" Apparently not much. They seem to have kept pretty quiet about all this and have decided to focus on other issues that maybe aren´t quite as important. I doubt very much that we´ll hear Kieth Oberman deride Mr. Obama as he so often and effectively does with Mr. Bush. When Mr. Bush violates the Constitution, it´s bad, but not so if Mr. Obama does. After all, Barack Obama is a Democrat and Kieth likes Democrats. They can do no wrong. They will set the world to rights. Once they get into office, harmony will be restored to the universe. If you believe that, well, I wouldn´t hold my breath if I were you. The betrayal is complete. We´re on our own. One can only hope that at some point there becomes an outcry so loud that those in power cannot ignore it. Until such a time, I wish the best of luck to you.

The Tyranny of Seatbelt Laws

This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com and uncoverthenews.com on July 6th, 2008

In Illinois there is a law that says one must wear their seatbelt when driving their car. Should a member of a state sanctioned gang known as the police pull you over and find you are not wearing your seatbelt, they are instructed to write a citation instructing you to either mail your tribute to one of their collection agencies or report to one of their superiors should you decide you don´t agree with their "law" and you don´t want to pay them their extortion because you feel doing so would be unjust. Of course, should you decide to do the latter, the cards are stacked against you as it is their system that would be put on trial and they are not about to admit that their system is fundamentally flawed. And shame on you, citizen, for daring to question the system. These seatbelt laws simply create more victimless crimes that do nothing except steal money from those who are victimized by government enforcers looking for violators, and in the worst case scenarios can destroy an individual´s life.

Now, Illinois is not the only state in this nation that has created these unconstitutional seatbelt laws. In fact, the only state that doesn´t have a seatbelt law is New Hampshire, and I applaud them for having the courage to stand up to the federal government and tell them "No, we will not subject our citizens to such intrusive laws simply to receive your bribe money," but that is an article in itself. This is an article about a friend of mine named Jon who one day decided to stand up to this gang of thugs known as the government and did his best to defeat this behemoth against impossible odds. It is an article about how we have lost our freedoms, even in the smallest of matters, and how too few of us care.

Personally, I wear a seatbelt. I have always worn my seatbelt, and certainly since long before legislators decided to make a law forcing me to. But if I decided not to wear one for whatever reason, I don´t think it´s right that I be forced to wear one by government mandate. What right have they to determine the level of risk I am willing to take with my life? What right have they to tell me how to conduct my affairs whilst driving in my car, which is my private property? In fact, I remember that when the law was passed I almost decided to stop wearing my seatbelt just to say "screw ´em," but I didn´t. I know quite a number of people who felt the same way I did. Yet I just kept wearing my seatbelt, kept obeying like all the good little sheep, only vaguely aware that a tiny bit of my freedom had been taken away, that a tiny portion of my ability to determine what is best for me had been delegated to strangers, that a smidgeon of my private, personal life had been intruded upon by faceless bureaucrats working for the heartless state.

But, as many people would say, what difference does all that matter? They pass these laws for your own good. The same can be said for a myriad of other laws. After all, citizen, you are too stupid and juvenile to look after yourself. You can´t possibly make such tough decisions on your own, without the government´s help. Besides, we live in a democracy, right? And what the majority says, what the majority wants must be correct. But we don´t live in a democracy, we live in a republic, and I urge those of you who don´t know the difference to learn on your own what the differences are. One of the purposes of a republic is to keep the majority from abusing minorities. Majority rule is not always fair and just, in fact many times it´s very tyrannical. It has been referred to as the tyranny of the majority. This nation was set up at its inception to protect the ultimate minority, the individual. It was supposed to be set up in such a fashion as to prevent the government, or the majority, from infringing upon the God given rights of the individual. Seatbelt laws are a perfect example of how these fine concepts have been forgotten and discarded by so many living in this nation.

These concepts were not lost on Jon, however. He received a citation for not wearing his seatbelt and decided he was going to try to fight it. He wasn´t a sheep. He wasn´t just going to simply follow the herd, grumble a little, pay the extortionists and just go merrily on his way without so much as uttering a protest. He wasn´t going to just stand there while the shepherd known as government grabbed him and had its way with him. He would challenge the law, and challenge the legality of how such laws are enforced. Sure, he would have to do so in their courts arguing with their judges and follow their convoluted words, but his voice would speak out against what they were doing and he would be heard.

Now, Jon made a mistake. It was a simple mistake most of us would make. When he went to court the first time he was asked to plead and he pled not guilty. By doing so he more or less admitted that the court had purview and could judge him on whether or not he was guilty of this particular crime. Of course, many of us would have done the same believing that we are not guilty of committing a crime when in reality what we want to do is challenge the validity of a certain law and the proper function of the court in regards to that law. He had no real understanding of what he was doing, or even what the charges were against him, yet the judge asked him to enter a plea. This is actually true of most of us, that we have no real understanding of courtroom procedure, as the legislators and lawyers of this nation have so perverted the English language when writing these laws as to make them nearly impossible to understand. There´s a reason most people refer to such language as legalese. If you´re mad about the Hispanics not wanting to learn English, you should be livid about lawyers and judges who don´t wish to use it. Jon got a continuance.

The next time Jon went to court he was not allowed to make his arguments. He was not allowed to challenge the law. He was not allowed to challenge the court´s jurisdiction over him. When he asked his questions the judge told him he was dangerously close to a contempt of court charge. He had pled not guilty and all the judge was interested in was seeing the evidence that he was in fact not guilty and hearing from witnesses. But that wasn´t what Jon´s case was about. He didn´t believe a crime had been committed. There was no victim. There was no harm done to another. There was no property damaged. The judge didn´t care. He proclaimed Jon guilty and demanded the fine be paid. If the fine wasn´t paid, he threatened Jon with a charge of contempt of court and jail time. This is an example of how lives get ruined by a law that seems so simple, that is supposed to protect people from themselves, and yet all it does is steal from innocent people who believe they should be the ones to determine for themselves what safety measures to take while driving, making them victims of the heartless state. And where there are victims, there is crime.

And what of this contempt charge? What of this tool the courts use to be able to silence dissent without so much as even pretending to care? Have not the courts earned our contempt by upholding such blatantly unconstitutional laws? Is it not despicable how they victimize the public with extortionist schemes meant to pick the pockets of the citizenry? The courts are allowed to show contempt for the individuals it drags before it with impunity, but God forbid they should show the contempt the courts deserve or they will be thrown in a cold cell for as long as it takes to break them. It´s even conceivable that one could be declared an enemy combatant by showing such disdain for these extortionists and be thrown in some hell hole in some foreign land and then tortured until one screams "The courts in the United States of America are the best courts in the world! Now please stop!" and then breaks down in tears. This is certainly not fair or just. This is certainly not why these courts were set up. And then they wonder why people hold them in contempt? This is just another way for them to infringe upon one´s first amendment rights. They can´t even follow their own laws yet they expect us to.

And so they threatened to throw my friend Jon into jail for not wearing his seatbelt. He buckled and paid the fine. What would you have done? Jon told me that he believed it was his duty to challenge tyrannical laws. If only more people felt like him, if only more people would refuse to roll over and simply pay their fines without challenging those who wish to rule over us. If only more people would use the courts as a tool to challenge unfair, unjust, unconstitutional laws rather than as a simple venue to determine whether someone is guilty or not guilty of a crime that should never have been a crime in the first place. If just a few more people would take a stand then maybe things would start to change. Maybe those who would rule over us would start to realize that we are thoughtful, powerful human beings that no longer wish to be pushed around. Maybe they would start to treat us like adults who can make their own decisions rather than as children who need their hands held and constant guidance along the way. And speaking of children, it is they who are the real losers the longer these tyrannical laws remain valid in our system. They are being indoctrinated and becoming used to this government tyranny, and it is they who may never know the true meaning and the joy of freedom and liberty. Perhaps we could all learn something from Jon. Perhaps it is the duty of every freedom loving American to challenge tyrannical laws. If you don´t wish to do it for yourself, perhaps you can do it for the children.

Ron Paul, America´s Best Hope, Not the Last

This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com and uncoverthenews.com on June 23rd, 2008

As most Ron Paul supporters know, he has suspended his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. This has upset many people I know, a couple of my coworkers specifically. Valentine seemed especially upset with this and came in Tuesday morning with his head hung low and in poor spirits because he felt Ron Paul had let him down. He told me he now had no one to vote for and that he felt the country was doomed, as did his daughter. This led to a long and convoluted discussion about politics American style and prodded me into sitting down to write another article though I thought I´d be taking the summer off to complete a couple of books I´ve been working on and to find a better paying job. I hope my words can be of some comfort to at least a couple of people.

I think perhaps Valentine´s attitude may have sprung somewhat from some Ron Paul supporters themselves. I´ve seen quite a number of websites and blogs supporting Ron Paul who refer to him as "America´s last hope." I doubt this is the case. I think Ron Paul is America´s best hope if freedom is to be achieved at a national level, but he is certainly not the last hope. To say so would be a defeatist attitude. And yet this is what many people seem to believe. Perhaps the powers that be would prefer those who support liberty in our lifetimes to think that way. Perhaps there are those in this world who seek power over others, who seek to control even the minutia in people´s lives, who wish people to believe that the defeat of one man means the end of a movement. I believe that if such people exist then they are sorely mistaken. Ron Paul and his revolution are not a means to an end, but a vehicle which has started a movement that will continue even though that vehicle may have stopped short of the final destination.

Oh sure, having a liberty minded president would be a great thing. We would quickly be out of all wars and foreign entanglements and would be able to use the resources saved to defend our borders and prop up some of the federal government welfare programs – which are quickly becoming insolvent – that people have come to depend on until such a time as they can be phased out and market solutions implemented. We could look forward to a national debate on the nature of money and the harm a central bank can do to an economy. The people of the nation could finally come to understand the fraudulence inherent in the Federal Reserve System and see how it fleeces the middle class and the poor through the inflation tax. Many secrets would likely be exposed and shown as the illegal scams they are rather than as necessary for national security. Unconstitutional laws that have pervaded our society over the past decade would be debated in the open and would likely be shown to the public as a means to subdue rather than protect the common man. The media would more or less have to cover Ron Paul honestly if he was president, after all, it would be hard to ignore the president. And, hopefully, if they were to continue to try to minimize him and his message of freedom, they would ultimately be ignored by a people who once again care about the principles of freedom and liberty above all else. That is, after all, the foundation of the America that is supposed to be.

And so Valentine was worried he had no one to vote for. He so wanted to vote for Ron Paul for president and now it would impossible. He´d have to vote for one of the authoritarian statists, one of the collectivists that the two major parties decided to run. He would have to vote for an evil he did not wish to vote for. I asked him why and he explained that he felt like voting for a third party was a waste of a vote. I´ve addressed this argument in other articles and I´m not going to get into that here, nor did I get into that with Valentine either. I simply asked him why he wouldn´t just write in Ron Paul, if that´s who he wanted to vote for. He explained that he had heard that Illinois is going to take the option for write-in votes off the ballot. I don´t know if that´s true and I hope it´s not, but even if it is I asked Valentine, "So?" This rather flustered the old guy and I´m afraid I´m not as good at explaining things using the spoken word as I am with the written. I went on and on about freedom and how we as individuals have to exercise our personal responsibility and I think I may have been more confusing than helpful.

Who are they to limit my choices when voting for president? Who are they to say I can´t vote for this person or that person? If I want to vote for Ron Paul for president because I feel he represents my point of view, my beliefs, and because he believes in the concepts of our founding fathers and defends the constitution and its principles, than by God that´s what I´m going to do. If they decide not to leave a space for a write-in vote, than I´ll just write Ron Paul´s name across the damn ballot and give it to them that way. If they want to call that a spoiled ballot, so what? How can I be sure they´re even going to count my vote when we have to use their damned electronic machines that any teen-aged computer geek worth his salt could hack? If they can´t look at that ballot and figure out who I voted for what good are they anyway? They know who I voted for, and what I voted for, whether they want to admit it or not. I vote for an end to the evil of empire. I vote for a return to the principles of our founding fathers. I vote for adherence to the constitution by those who abuse their powers and ignore its tenets. I vote for a return to a republican form of government. I vote for the freedom that at one time was America and the liberty its citizenry once enjoyed.

A Ron Paul presidency was (and as far as I´m concerned still is) our nation´s best hope to once again regain the freedom, prosperity and world envy it once had, but it certainly is not our last hope. If there´s anything Ron Paul´s candidacy taught us, it should have taught us that we can only depend upon ourselves. We, the people of this nation, are America´s last hope. It is up to those of us who understand freedom and its implications to keep explaining to those who believe in the holiness of the state that government is the problem, not the solution. It is up to us to explain to them that government is force, insidious and brutal, exercised against the populace. I´ve taken the time to read Ron Paul´s book and it is a good primer for those who are uninitiated as to the true nature of freedom. For those of us who have been aware for some time as to the real nature of America´s political elite, it is a refresher course, well worth the read to remind us of what we are striving to regain.

There are plenty of other movements that are occurring in which the seeker of freedom can take part in. There is the Free State Project which strives to bring liberty lovers together in one state, New Hampshire. There is DownsizeDC.org which strives to pass common sense laws that will help reduce the mammoth sized federal government. There is the Ron Paul meetup groups which continue to exist despite their candidate´s announcement that he will suspend his campaign. Latest of all, there is Ron Paul´s Campaign for Liberty which was launched on the same night he announced his withdrawal and which seeks to find and elect liberty loving candidates into congress, where the real power of the state should reside. I´m sure there are many other organizations promoting liberty springing up across our nation and that this list is in no way exhaustive. All these movements seek to restore adherence to the constitution, smaller central government and the freedoms we once enjoyed. They are all worthy of our attention and hopefully they will continue to grow and prosper as more and more people find and begin to understand the message of freedom.

Ron Paul is not America´s last hope, but he remains her best hope. Still, there are many, many hopeful voices across the country that are ready to do whatever it takes to regain freedom and are willing to show that individual leadership and responsibility spring from respecting the liberties God endowed in all men. More and more people in our nation are beginning to understand this and are starting to shun the establishment. More and more people are joining the revolution and expressing their displeasure with the status quo. We are winning this battle peacefully. Each person that learns the truth of freedom is like a raindrop added to the storm. It is becoming more and more difficult for the established powers to maintain the levies of ignorance that hold back the floodwaters of liberty. When those levies burst, only those on the high ground will be safe, and from my point of view it seems that the establishment has chosen some very low ground to stand upon.

The Death of the Libertarian Party

This article was originally posted in americanchronicle.com on May 27th, 2008

Over the Memorial Day weekend the Libertarian Party picked a candidate to run for president. In doing so, it managed to rid itself of any significance it had ever had. The presidential candidate it picked was a conservative named Bob Barr, a former Republican whose voting record on issues of personal freedom is horrendous. His running mate, one Mr. Wayne Allen Root, is an even worse choice when it comes to one who believes in the principles of liberty and non initiation of force. Of all the candidates running, the Libertarian Party managed to pick perhaps the least libertarian of all the candidates, and they managed to do so at a time when the American people are just starting to understand the true meaning of freedom and liberty and are starting to yearn for people of honesty and principle to lead them once again. Now it seems the Libertarian Party has sold itself out to a couple of power lusting politicians in the hopes of gaining a few new members and some more money. It has now taken a sharp right turn and disenfranchised all the honest, hard working people who made the party one embracing freedom for a few dollars more.

Now admittedly my involvement with the Libertarian Party is quite limited, but my interest in the party spans many years. Back in the mid eighties I was introduced to the Libertarian Party and the principles of liberty by a neighbor of mine. At first I thought their ideas were too radical, but then I began to realize that forcing people to conform to your beliefs as government has a tendency to do is not only wrong, it’s anti-American. I began to understand that this nation was set up in an effort to protect the principles of libertarianism, the principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, non-intervention, and non-initiation of force, so that these principles could grow and flourish. I realized that instead a sort of stealthy collectivism had been creeping into our society for decades, a “my side’s right and your side’s wrong” mentality had pervaded our culture and pitted one group against another. Libertarianism bridged gaps on both sides with its uncompromising philosophies of right and wrong. At that time the Libertarian Party encompassed and embraced those principles and fielded political candidates that did the same. They gave the voter someone and something he could vote for rather than someone he could vote against or something considered the lesser of two evils.

As the independent voter I have always been I give myself greater latitude to vote not for a candidate based on party loyalties and platforms, but one who has proven themselves to be honest and principled and who cares for the people they represent instead of the corporate entities and special interests that woo them with campaign contributions. It is of vital importance to me that a candidate understand that the United States Constitution recognizes individual rights and puts great emphasis on the state not infringing upon those rights, it does not recognize group rights and indeed our founding fathers seemed to realize that the superseding of group rights over individual rights would lead to a very dangerous tyranny, the tyranny of the majority. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats ever seemed to get that right, as they always wanted to tread on someone’s rights in one way or another. I would often look to the Libertarian Party to present me with a candidate I could vote for.

In the 1998 Illinois gubernatorial race that changed. As an Illinoisan I had the choice between the criminal George Ryan and the socialist Glenn Poshard, neither of which I wanted to vote for, or the Libertarian candidate. I had my mind made up long before the election who I was going to vote for, but just a few weeks before the election, if memory serves me, the Libertarian Party decided to pull its candidate for governor and endorsed Poshard. I was angry. As I recall, I actually took the time to write a letter to the party expressing my anger. I felt they had abandoned me and left me no one to vote for. I ended up voting for Lawrence Redmond, the Reform Party candidate who I knew little about, but I absolutely refused to vote for other of the two major party candidates who I knew were unprincipled. At that point the Libertarian Party was on life support for me, as I realized they had compromised their principles in an effort to play politics and gain power rather than remaining significant by maintaining its hold as the party that honored the principles that made this nation great.

During the 2000 presidential elections the Libertarian Party nominated Harry Browne and in 2004 they nominated Michael Badnarik. Both these men were principled admirable candidates who I voted for. Their candidacies made it possible for me to forgive the Libertarian Party for their earlier faux pas in Illinois. But now they have selected a ticket I cannot possibly support and I don’t see how any principled libertarian could. By doing so they have cast aside their own principles, the philosophies that gave them any significance whatsoever, in favor of accepting more unprincipled people into their fold in a lustful bid to gain more money and power. They have torn the heart out of their party, and nothing survives long without a heart.

The Libertarians could have nominated the likes of Mary Ruwart or Steve Kubby or any of a number of other candidates who embody the spirit of freedom better than Bob Barr or Wayne Allen Root. Bob Barr abandoned his own party rather than trying to change it from the inside as he should have, what makes anyone think he won’t abandon the Libertarian Party if things don’t go his way? The freedom movement has now lost a powerful ally. It would have been nice if there had been a true libertarian to vote for alongside of Republican candidate Ron Paul to give us a choice between the greater of two goods. Instead, it looks like the way things are shaping up for the 2008 presidential election we’re going to have to pick between the lesser of three evils, not just two. It looks like freedom lovers are going to have to go it on their own for now, but we always have and we remain resilient. We know better than anyone that in order to remain free one must fend for oneself. To me, at least, the Libertarian Party is dead. May it rest in peace.

The Presumptive Republican Nominee and That Other Guy.

This article was originally published in americanchronicle.com on May 28th, 2008

I’ve noticed lately that the media has taken to calling John McCain the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. It’s a strange sort of twist considering that a couple months ago they seemed so certain that McCain was the Republican presidential nominee. It wasn’t so long ago that the media was crowing that all other Republican candidates had dropped out. Yet today we suddenly hear again and again that McCain is the presumptive nominee. Why the change of heart? Why is the language suddenly so blatantly changed? Why do we need to “presume” McCain is the nominee when supposedly no one else is running? Perhaps it is time for the media to stop presuming and to start reporting on the reality of the situation.

There is another guy running to become the Republican nominee for president. The mass media seems almost frightened to speak his name. It’s like, to them, the man is Voldemort. His name must not be spoken for fear of what might happen. And yet why be so frightened of a name? Why not report on this mystery candidate who makes it necessary for them to presume McCain to be the Republican candidate for president rather than know it as a certainty?

Perhaps we can glean an answer by looking at the way the mass media reports on the Democrats who are still running for president. I think it would be fair to say that Barack Obama could be called the presumptive Democrat Party nominee. He has nearly enough delegates to take the primary. Instead, they keep harping on the battle between him and Hillary Clinton. They praise her for her tenacity or chastise her for splitting the party. They report that Hillary made a gaff when she spoke about this or that someone Barack Obama knows is spouting hateful remarks. They speak about nothing of any substance. The issues have a tendency to be put into the background. Mostly they report on personality traits. They dwell on Obama’s “flowery rhetoric” or Clinton’s extensive experience, none of which matters as we march in lock step toward bigger government, socialism and a complete loss of freedom.

It seems to me that Hillary and Obama more or less want to implement the same policies. They are both in favor of socialized medicine. They both want to take the power of medical decisions out of your hands and put it in the hands of the state. They both want to regulate the decisions doctors can make on your behalf. This seems to be their main issue. Neither one seems to have real solutions to the financial crisis we are undergoing. They both seem to want to raise taxes, albeit only on the rich. They both are trying to buy the votes of the poor by promising to increase the welfare state and institute government sanctioned wealth redistribution schemes. Both seem to think that government solutions are the only solutions and that we common folk would be unable to straighten things out on our own and so they don’t want to give us the chance.

Both Democrats are supported by corporate lobbyists and special interests. That is where most of their money in the form of campaign contributions comes from. It seems to me that when one has to depend on someone for their political survival, one has a tendency to cater to that someone. The mass media reports on Obama’s commercialized claim that he represents change as if that’s fact. In his speeches he praises himself as a bringer of change and unification. Yet the only changes he advocates are those that are contrary to the principles of freedom and liberty that made our nation great and prosperous. The only unification he offers is that of thoughtless, virulent personality worship that could lead to the persecution of those who would disagree with his programs.

John McCain really isn’t too different from Hillary and Obama. Issue for issue Mr. McCain almost seems as much a Democrat as either of the two presidential candidates still running for that party. The only issue on which he really differs much is the war issue. On that issue, Mr. McCain has chosen the losing side. The American public has grown weary of spending our children’s lives and our nation’s treasure on a regrettable war that seems to have only benefited those with political clout. Combine that with his admitted lack of knowledge in economics and you have a recipe for disaster for the Republican Party in November.

Once again with McCain it seems the mass media is reporting more on his personality traits than on anything of any real substance. The bulk of his campaign contributions come mainly from special interest groups and corporate backers just like his rivals in the Democrat Party. Some of these same entities have major investments in the mass media. It seems as if the powers that be don’t want any serious discussion of real solutions to our nation’s problems taking place where the majority of the public has easiest access to them. It appears that they wish the presidential elections to be a popularity contest between two corporate bought and paid for candidates rather than a platform where ideologies can be discussed and ideas for how to better the circumstances of all Americans can be presented. And so they have picked McCain to be the presidential representative from the Republican Party and they continue to hide another Republican who is still in the race by refusing to even mention his name.

Who is this other candidate? Who is this man who causes McCain to be referred to as the presumptive Republican nominee? Who is this man whose ideas have proven in the past to be the path to prosperity? Who is this man who dares to speak of freedom and personal responsibility rather than of government regulations and entitlements? Who is this man of principle who has never given up on the idea of smaller federal government? Who is this candidate who wishes to do away with the income tax? Who is this candidate who wishes to give money back to the people by doing away with the Federal Reserve and thus the hidden inflation tax, or at least bring sensibility beck to our monetary system by allowing competing currencies to exist? In case you haven’t guessed, this man is Dr. Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas who never withdrew from the Republican Party’s presidential nomination process. His popularity continues to grow despite the mass media’s attempts to marginalize and ignore him. His popularity continues to grow despite that the media does not report he is a war hero, or a polished orator, or a politician with a great many years of experience. His popularity continues to grow even though the media continuously has painted him as an unelectable candidate. Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps there is more to Ron Paul than meets the eye. Or perhaps it’s his ideas that are popular. Perhaps the people of this country are growing tired of the same old same old and want to try something different for a change, something that hasn’t been tried in this country for decades. Or, as Dr. Ron Paul would say, perhaps it’s because freedom is popular. The time has come for the people of this nation to start electing people of substance to lead instead of personalities. The time has come for the people of this nation to start looking seriously at that other guy, the one the media does not want you to notice.

Gay Marriage, Socialism and Freedom

This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on May 18th, 2008

Recently California’s Supreme Court ruled that gay people could marry each other. Personally, I don’t see what the big deal is. Why do you need to ask permission from the government to live with someone in a manner you both see fit? I lived with the same woman for nineteen years without asking permission from the government, or from anyone else but her for that matter. We raised five children together, without the permission of the authorities. We even had *gasp* sex together without permission from the government control freaks. When we broke up it was quite amicable and once again we involved no government agencies and therefore avoided handing our power over to others. My situation is proof that two reasonable people can live together as a couple for many, many years and then split up without government involvement.

Just for the record, I couldn’t care less about gay marriage. To me it is a non-issue. If two men or two women want to shack up together, share expenses, hold and kiss each other and snuggle together, have sex with each other, and share the burdens and joys of day to day life together, that’s their business and nobody else’s. Even if they want to raise children together it shouldn’t matter to anyone else so long as they provide a loving, caring home. What difference does that make to anyone else? They are not hurting others. They are not forcing others to bend to their wills. They are not destroying or stealing someone else’s private property. There is no crime taking place and what goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults should only concern those who are engaging in the activities. If two people, gay or otherwise, want to contract with each other in terms of living arrangements, that is up to them. If they want to do so with God or some other supernatural entity as their witness, that is up to them and their church. Government has no business getting involved in marriages or in people’s private lives in general.

I don’t believe all this hype about gay marriage ruining family values. People have been gay for millennia. Many gay people have said they were born that way and I’ve no reason to disbelieve them. The thought of kissing a man, of falling in love with him deeply and passionately as I would a woman, disgusts me. I can’t come to grips with the concept in my head. You see, I was born a heterosexual. I remember thinking about pretty girls in that manner when I was very young, long before I reached puberty. You could never have “taught” me to be gay. I helped keep my family together and raised my children because of the person I am, not because of my sexuality. I don’t see why the same couldn’t be true for someone who’s gay. No, it’s not gay marriage or gay anything that’s ruining family values in America. If anything, it’s government involvement in the institution of marriage and the politicians’ lust for control and power over people’s private lives that is.

I considered myself married for nineteen years. I was faithful to my wife and did everything a husband would be expected to do. I did so without a “license” from the state. I suppose I’m lucky I never got caught by the authorities, else I might have gotten a ticket for being married without a license. You might think I’m being sarcastic about that last statement. You might think the government would never ticket anyone for living with another without a license, but you never know what kind of silliness these legislators might come up with next. You never know what kind of laws they might come up with, what kind of fees and fines they might force upon an unsuspecting public just to keep their ship of state afloat.

It seems fitting that Massachusetts and California, two of the most socialist states in the Union, should be the first two to recognize gay marriage. That’s what socialism is about, control. They want you to have no choice in what you do, in either your private or business life. They want to make sure they get their cut no matter what the business is, where it takes place, or how the money is exchanged. Licensing is just another way for them to make money and they’ll happily grant one to anyone willing to jump through their hoops and pay their fees. And they hold a monopoly on granting licenses, so they can refuse to grant licenses to anyone they want for any reason they want. In any case, I never needed permission from the state to conduct my personal affairs. I needed no one to tell me who I could cohabitate or have children with. I just did what nature has meant for people to do since the dawn of time. That’s what free people do.

I always figured if anyone knew about tyranny, gay people did. I figured that if anyone had any idea of what freedom truly meant, it would be gay people, for they’ve had to endure social ostracism and the tyranny of the majority for thousands of years. Why they would suddenly start begging the state to give them permission to enter into personal agreements together is beyond me. Why they would cry to the state to “recognize” their unions instead of just living their lives as they see fit confounds me. If it’s so they can get their piece of the socialist pie and receive money that’s been stolen from others than they are just accessories to a crime and guilty of helping to give extortionists legitimacy. They are actually helping to perpetuate the same tyranny that has been oppressing them for ages. If you act like a slave, you will be treated like one. If you act like a child asking a parent for permission, then the government will happily act like the parent.

It’s time for all of us, gay or straight, Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, or Native peoples, male or female, to start acting like free individuals. Only then will we be treated like free individuals. Only then will government remove their fingers from our private lives and remove the mandates they have set before us. We need the government out of the marriage business. If you want licensing, then have churches, private doctors or psychiatrists handle them, not the cold, faceless bureaucracy that has a monopoly on it right now. Let the marketplace determine the demand for such services. Of course, free people will soon begin to understand that they need no one’s permission to live freely and so demand for such services might soon disappear. It’s no big deal. After all, people were engaging in sexual relationships long before the first government formed and will continue to engage in such relationships long after the last government folds.

Ron “Speed Racer” Paul

This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on May 18th, 2008

When I was a child, my friends and I used to rush home from school to watch the next installment of the cartoon “Speed Racer.” It was my favorite cartoon. For whatever reason, I was always anxious to see how Speed would get out of the trouble he was in at the end of the last episode and what new problems awaited him. I remember these as happy times. I was spending time with my friends. After the program, we would often go outside and run around like kids do, but for that half hour we were totally engrossed with Speed Racer’s world. This is why I was both excited and apprehensive when I found out Hollywood was making a movie about Speed Racer. I was excited because of the childhood memories I had that I hoped the movie would live up to. I was apprehensive because I know Hollywood can often times take such childhood memories and create huge disappointments.

I’m about to discuss the plot of the movie “Speed Racer” and give away the ending, so if you plan on seeing it and you don’t wish to know these things yet, I suggest you stop reading now.

I took my kids to see the movie “Speed Racer” last weekend. I thought it was very well done. My kids, aged sixteen and fourteen, also liked it, telling me as we walked out of the theater that it was much better than they thought it was going to be. Of course, I guess they thought it was going to be some kind of hokey, lame, cartoonish movie with no substance. Admittedly, it could have been so, just some action movie about some race car driver trying to win races just for the glory of it. Surprisingly, it was the plot and depth of character which made this movie such a gem. I could relate to the principles the characters were trying to adhere to and the temptation presented to get them to forsake their principles.

As a child, speed falls in love with the sport of racing because his family is so involved with the sport. He sees it as an honorable competition where certain rules of conduct are adhered to and certain principles maintained. He grows up to become a talented racer, like his brother was. As such, a manufacturer of automobile parts tries to recruit him to his team. Having a winning racing team is good for business. Speed refuses explaining that he prefers to stay independent. It becomes obvious that he believes that racing is a sport where fair play still prevails. It is at this point he discovers that the sport of racing is phony, that a system was set up where all winners for years had been determined before the race was run. Speed returns home depressed and dejected, feeling helpless.

The rest of the movie details how Speed Racer battles the evil liars, cheaters and scum that have infiltrated the racing industry. He does this in a principled manner using only tricks that are defensive in nature and counteract the offensive, aggressive cheats the dirtier racers use. During the course of this movie, he even exposes the cheaters for all the world to see. He shows the world that it isn’t only winning that’s important, but that integrity, fairness and honesty are as important.

In the end, Speed Racer wins despite the odds stacked against him. He does so with an independent spirit and without compromising his principles. The audience cheers as the underdog takes the trophy. It leaves the viewer with a good feeling and believing that a man of principle, no matter how naive he may seem, can still come out on top without selling himself out. Perhaps this isn’t the easiest way to make it in today’s world, but it’s still quite possibly the best if at the end of the day you want to go to bed feeling good about yourself.

This movie reminded me of Ron Paul and his candidacy. The establishment seems to have done everything in their power to keep Ron Paul from winning. They have marginalized him to the best of their ability and still he continues to hang in and refuses to quit no matter the odds against him. There are a couple of obvious differences between Ron Paul and Speed Racer, however. Of course there is the fact that Speed Racer was destined to win his races because that’s how the writers wrote the script. Those who are writing the script in the presidential race did not plan on having Dr. Paul stick around for so long. They wanted their guy to have sealed the victory by now. They are now scrambling to rewrite the rules they have previously lived by to further assure their man’s ultimate victory. Those who are writing the script for the presidential race are the cheaters and they want the man who has sold himself out to the powers that be to win. In the movie Speed Racer, the media covering the races he was in were fair and impartial. They helped Speed Racer expose the corruption and cheating. In the presidential race, the media is on the side of those in power and seek to stifle and minimize any exposure of corruption and cheating that may surface. The odds are most certainly stacked against Ron Paul.

Americans certainly seem to love an underdog when it comes to the movies. They applaud and appreciate it when someone like Speed Racer beats the odds and wins. If only it could be like that in the presidential race. Here is a true to life underdog they can rally around. If only Americans would appreciate more the man of principle, integrity, honesty and honor. If only they would embrace the man who has proven himself to be the champion of the Constitution and a true advocate of smaller government. His supporters have done an excellent job of following his example, but they need support also. Perhaps there is a way something can be done to at least restore the integrity of the Republican Party, but even that seems unlikely. Still, it would be nice to see Ron Paul accomplish more than just becoming an also ran. It would be nice to see an underdog actually win something in real life, just like in the movies. If such a thing is to be accomplished, then his supporters must not give up. They must maintain that fighting spirit and remain faithful to the cause of freedom. Hopefully, there are still some surprises in store for us before this race comes to an end.