This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on Nov. 4th, 2008.
Many average Americans, indeed many average citizens around the world, are beginning to wonder exactly what is happening with the world economy. They are worried as they see their savings shrink. They are worried as they hear about the credit crisis. They are worried as they see institutions fail financially. They are worried as they see their financial markets shrink. Some have begun demanding that government help out failing banking systems while others have questioned the wisdom of such demands. Indeed, governments worldwide have stepped in and started spending other people´s money on helping out the richest of the rich. Even as the United States government and its agents in the Federal Reserve throw hundreds of billions at the largest banks to try to "thaw the frozen credit markets," markets continue to fail most likely due to sour economic data and lack of confidence.
So why should this be? It all seems so convoluted. There´s all this talk of toxic debt, bad mortgages and unfathomable derivatives. What does it all mean? Well, there are some things that are interesting to consider. First off, when money is created as a function of debt, the interest that is needed to pay off that debt is never created. Second off, debt money is really nothing except perhaps a promise of what might be. It is not something that has already been created. It is a non existent construct, something that has yet to be brought into the world. It is nothing. When money is created from nothing, and then paid back, it fades back into nothing. It was created on a computer for a bank as an asset and when paid back is taken off the bank´s books. It cannot be loaned out again and new money must be created again from something that might be. In such a system, debt can never be completely paid off and a vicious cycle is created.
One can, in a way, sum up what is happening by making an example of one´s own personal finances. Mine would make a good example as they are extremely screwed up at the moment, just like the finances of this nation seem to be. The difference is, for me there is a light at the end of the tunnel providing I keep working hard, for the nation things may be a little different.
In the course of raising five children and trying to better my circumstances through education, I have, as you can imagine, accumulated quite a bit of debt. For years I lived beyond my means. Now that circumstances permit and my children have grown, I have scaled back on my living expenses. My income hasn´t increased in the last five years and prices have gone up, but I have found ways to live within my means and I´m starting to pay down my debt. One thing I know for sure, I will not fall into the trap of using credit again. If I can´t afford something, I will not buy it until I have saved enough money for it. In fact, I´m keeping my purchases to a minimum and paying as much as I can on my credit card debt until it´s paid off and I owe no one. Perhaps it´s time for the government to do the same.
In my situation, I basically feel like I own nothing. In fact, as long as one is in debt, one might as well own nothing. Anyone you are indebted to can come along and appeal to some "judge" to let them take possession of your things to satisfy the debt. In this way they end up owning what you once considered yours, but in fairness it was really theirs all along. Anyone you are indebted to can come along and appeal to some "judge" to let them take a portion of your pay until your debt is satisfied. In this way they can end up owning you and your labor. Debt can be just as onerous for a nation to have. I believe that just about everyone would prefer to own their stuff rather than be in debt. I believe most everyone would like to feel secure in the belief that their belongings and effects cannot be legally taken from them by any agent of the state or any other entity laying claim to said belongings. So long as one keeps oneself out of debt, so long as one is beholden to no one else, this should be so. What´s mine is mine, what´s yours is yours, what´s theirs is theirs and as long as we enter into no binding contracts no entity should be able to lay legal claim to another entity´s property.
The finances of nations can be similar. If a government spends beyond its means, say to maintain an empire, it must borrow money and go into debt. Those to whom the nation is indebted might start to feel they own anything that can be considered public. If the government defaults on its obligations, they might seek remedy by trying to lay claim to public lands, roads, buildings or other assets. Banks and other influential lending institutions to which insolvent governments are beholden can threaten to take such properties if certain demands aren´t met. These demands can include things like turning over the rights to natural resources and collecting more taxes from the populace. In this way they claim more than just public properties, they claim the labor of the populace. They claim rights to the nation´s people. If the government refuses to submit to such demands, the banks or other lenders can threaten to destroy the nation´s economy and many feel they can successfully carry out such a threat.
This is how the elite gain control, through threats and coercion. They are in control of the money, its printing, who its loaned to, how much interest will be paid, etc. This is true in not only the United States, but in every country in the world. They probably have most of the world´s gold. They probably have a good chunk of the world´s silver and other precious metals stored away. They´ve most likely hoarded as much as they can get away with. That way, as they print more and more fiat currency and drive down the value of those moneys, they maintain their own worth. These people protect only their own interests and their friends. They don´t care about the common folk and would not hesitate to lay claim to the people themselves, looking upon you as nothing more than a slave to service their needs. This is true worldwide.
One fallacy that is used against the people of the world is that wealth is something that is limited. Many believe there is only so much wealth in the world and that they must fight and scrape for their "fair" share. When one comes to realize that wealth is infinite, that it is created from resources, then one takes his first step onto a path towards independence. Real wealth isn´t the money that´s printed, real wealth is the land food is grown on, or the house on that land, or the television set in that house. Real wealth is created by human ingenuity and human ingenuity operates best when it is unregulated by government and allowed the liberty to freely innovate, market, compete and associate with others. This is true in all realms, including the realm of money and money creation.
The banks and lenders are merging their way into virtual monopolies. Our government and governments around the world have facilitated this by giving the biggest financial institutions huge amounts of money, hence indebting their people, and then calling these giveaways bailouts or rescues. This is leading to a centralization of monetary power that can amount to a ruling class in charge of the economy of the entire world. Such a situation makes it all the easier for corruption to take place. Such a situation would not be beneficial to the common man and would likely lead to greater police state tactics and greater injustices to those of us who are not politically connected. That is the nature of centralization of power, for power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Such a situation can be avoided if smaller banks are allowed to compete by issuing their own moneys. These moneys can be backed by precious metals or other forms of real wealth. People should be allowed to decide for themselves which moneys they want to trust and use and which they don´t. For instance, a man might decide he wants to use notes from Tinybank which is backed by copper rather than notes from the Federal Reserve which is backed by America´s credit rating. Of course, that would mean getting rid of legal tender laws. Yes, this might make it a little more difficult to determine the worth of certain pieces of paper, but it also makes it more difficult for the banks issuing the money to dupe the populace.
Alternatively, we could use the laws on the books to bring those with too much economic power to heel. We as a society could demand that those who benefit from this 700 billion dollar bailout pay back the public using gold and silver (at the market price equal to the price of gold or silver at the time it was given to the institution.) We could then use those metals to back US treasury notes in a manner consistent with the constitution. In this way we could slowly phase out the Federal Reserve and go back to constitutional money which the government could loan out and profit upon as the private owners of the Federal Reserve are now doing. The interest collected could be used to run a much scaled down federal government. The dollar would stabilize and remain strong, making saving money more practical and desirable. Such a situation would likely cause the world to follow suit.
Whichever way would be chosen, it is obvious that the current system has failed us. It continues to fail us even as we try to stem the tide. Our politicians have refused to listen to the demands of their constituents. They passed their plans despite the wishes of the people. They are most likely not going to be held accountable for their actions. They have also failed us. Yet this is the real change we need, some kind of change in the way the monetary system is run. We´ve had enough of monopoly and corruption. It´s time to demand better not only for the citizens of the United States, but for freemen around the world.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Election is Over, We Lost, Time For Revolution
This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on Nov. 1st, 2008.
Yes, I know, the election is still a couple of days away. It doesn´t matter. Perhaps I´m a little cynical, but I believe this election was decided long ago, maybe even as long as two years ago. At the very least, about a year ago we were already hearing about John McCain and this newcomer named Barack Obama as likely candidates for their respective parties. Even as Ron Paul was surging in the polls and gaining support of the masses, we were being told by the corporate media that he was unelectable. We saw others like Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton also put forward as possible candidates. The best choices, those candidates most opposed to war and in favor of preserving government´s recognition of individual rights, were quickly marginalized by the powers that be and their media lapdogs.
Only now, in the closing days of the election, have I started to hear either of the candidates make any kind of argument even remotely relating to the innate human desire for freedom and self reliance. Only recently has John McCain come out to accuse Barack Obama of being a socialist and a proponent of wealth redistribution. This is not an inaccurate description of the Democrat candidate and yet, given John McCain´s voting record, this is like the pot calling the kettle black. Mr. McCain has certainly voted for his share of social programs that steal money from this nation´s working class.
Both the Democrat and the Republican candidates can be classified as collectivists. Both have policies that disregard the rights of individuals in favor of the state. They both seek power over others in order to further their personal agendas. Neither one of these men have any new ideas, just old ones rehashed for the modern American who likely knows little about history and understands its significance even less. It really doesn´t matter which of these two win, assuming one of the two major party candidates win, they were both picked by virtually the same corporate interests and they´re both beholden to those same special interests and not the people of this great nation.
I don´t believe these are the types of men we need in office right now. I believe we need someone who is willing and able to stand up to all special interests. I believe we need someone who puts the constitution above all else. If either of these two major party candidates win, and I believe one will, the American public loses. In fact, I believe the world loses, for the further socialization of the American Empire dims the already fading vision of the beacon of freedom the world used to flock to.
But, as I stated in the title, I believe the election is already over. After all, the media has been telling us who we were going to vote for all along. We´ve been told who to like and who to dislike. We´ve been told whose ideas were good and whose were "crazy," who was electable and who was unelectable, and who others voters were attracted to. In short, we´ve been told what to think and greatly curtailed in our efforts to think for ourselves.
The issues have become secondary. They are no longer discussing relevant solutions to the problems our nation faces so much as they are discussing personalities and how to best lock down government control over our system. These candidates are not talking about getting rid of taxes all together but who should be taxed more and who the stolen money should go to. They are not talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve and introducing a new monetary system, they are talking about the best way to prop up a system destined to fail by its very nature. They are not talking about pulling our military out of all the countries and bringing them home as a way to save money, they are talking about how we can continue our empire and win wars we shouldn´t be involved in. And they are both talking about how to best grow the government to provide for its citizens, as if the citizens of this nation are all children that can´t provide for themselves, rather than how best to shrink the size of government and let the citizens keep what they earn and provide for their own needs. In short, neither the Republican candidate nor his Democrat counterpart are friends of liberty as both want government involved in every aspect of everyone´s lives rather than allowing the citizenry to live free.
The time has come for the citizenry of this country to start the process of taking it back. We may likely have lost a battle, so what shall we do now? Do we simply give up and accept our fate? Do we simply stay quiet and move along to get along while our nation becomes a cesspool of socialistic corruption? Do we silently bow our heads and ignore the police state as our friends and neighbors become victims of bankrupt political policies? I say no. There remains hope. Freedom and self reliance are states of nature men were meant to live in. Deep down, we all know this. Most of us long for independence. The struggle between collectivism and individualism goes on, as it has for centuries now. We are all sovereigns of our own lives, and it´s time we started acting as such. The more of us who recognize this and live our lives independent of government, the better off everyone becomes.
Peaceful revolution is still possible. We still have the basics necessary to put pressure on those in power to do the right thing. While the executive branch of the federal government may be beyond the reach of the common man, and the senate might be equally entrenched, we can still influence the House of Representatives. Take action. Join groups like Downsizedc.org and Ron Paul´s Campaign for Freedom. Get involved. Pay attention. Make your representative accountable for his actions. Or you can try some peaceful activism and non co-operation.
The justice system can be influenced by citizens acting on juries to rid ourselves of tyrannical laws. We need not make crimes of victimless behavior and we should express this view in the jury box by not convicting our friends and neighbors who engage in victimless crimes. Bench judges may tell you that the bad laws cannot be judged, but that is a lie. It was jury nullification that rid us of prohibition and jury nullification can rid us of other unconstitutional laws. When we start living like freemen, behaving like freemen, and demanding to be respected as freemen by those who would exercise power over us, then we will once again become freemen. Otherwise, we are destined to remain the sheeple those in power long for us to be.
Keep educating your neighbors and anyone else who may think poorly of the concept of freedom. The more who awaken to its light, the more empowered we all become. There has been a stirring in the populace as more and more the whispers of these concepts can be heard in the taverns and other places where people gather. A nation of freemen is not something to be trifled with. Don´t let a small defeat like this election cycle bring you down and fill you with doubt. The peaceful revolution is gaining traction. The sleeping spirit of freedom inside us all is once again flexing its muscle, and those who would try to keep it down may soon find out it is a force to be reckoned with.
Yes, I know, the election is still a couple of days away. It doesn´t matter. Perhaps I´m a little cynical, but I believe this election was decided long ago, maybe even as long as two years ago. At the very least, about a year ago we were already hearing about John McCain and this newcomer named Barack Obama as likely candidates for their respective parties. Even as Ron Paul was surging in the polls and gaining support of the masses, we were being told by the corporate media that he was unelectable. We saw others like Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton also put forward as possible candidates. The best choices, those candidates most opposed to war and in favor of preserving government´s recognition of individual rights, were quickly marginalized by the powers that be and their media lapdogs.
Only now, in the closing days of the election, have I started to hear either of the candidates make any kind of argument even remotely relating to the innate human desire for freedom and self reliance. Only recently has John McCain come out to accuse Barack Obama of being a socialist and a proponent of wealth redistribution. This is not an inaccurate description of the Democrat candidate and yet, given John McCain´s voting record, this is like the pot calling the kettle black. Mr. McCain has certainly voted for his share of social programs that steal money from this nation´s working class.
Both the Democrat and the Republican candidates can be classified as collectivists. Both have policies that disregard the rights of individuals in favor of the state. They both seek power over others in order to further their personal agendas. Neither one of these men have any new ideas, just old ones rehashed for the modern American who likely knows little about history and understands its significance even less. It really doesn´t matter which of these two win, assuming one of the two major party candidates win, they were both picked by virtually the same corporate interests and they´re both beholden to those same special interests and not the people of this great nation.
I don´t believe these are the types of men we need in office right now. I believe we need someone who is willing and able to stand up to all special interests. I believe we need someone who puts the constitution above all else. If either of these two major party candidates win, and I believe one will, the American public loses. In fact, I believe the world loses, for the further socialization of the American Empire dims the already fading vision of the beacon of freedom the world used to flock to.
But, as I stated in the title, I believe the election is already over. After all, the media has been telling us who we were going to vote for all along. We´ve been told who to like and who to dislike. We´ve been told whose ideas were good and whose were "crazy," who was electable and who was unelectable, and who others voters were attracted to. In short, we´ve been told what to think and greatly curtailed in our efforts to think for ourselves.
The issues have become secondary. They are no longer discussing relevant solutions to the problems our nation faces so much as they are discussing personalities and how to best lock down government control over our system. These candidates are not talking about getting rid of taxes all together but who should be taxed more and who the stolen money should go to. They are not talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve and introducing a new monetary system, they are talking about the best way to prop up a system destined to fail by its very nature. They are not talking about pulling our military out of all the countries and bringing them home as a way to save money, they are talking about how we can continue our empire and win wars we shouldn´t be involved in. And they are both talking about how to best grow the government to provide for its citizens, as if the citizens of this nation are all children that can´t provide for themselves, rather than how best to shrink the size of government and let the citizens keep what they earn and provide for their own needs. In short, neither the Republican candidate nor his Democrat counterpart are friends of liberty as both want government involved in every aspect of everyone´s lives rather than allowing the citizenry to live free.
The time has come for the citizenry of this country to start the process of taking it back. We may likely have lost a battle, so what shall we do now? Do we simply give up and accept our fate? Do we simply stay quiet and move along to get along while our nation becomes a cesspool of socialistic corruption? Do we silently bow our heads and ignore the police state as our friends and neighbors become victims of bankrupt political policies? I say no. There remains hope. Freedom and self reliance are states of nature men were meant to live in. Deep down, we all know this. Most of us long for independence. The struggle between collectivism and individualism goes on, as it has for centuries now. We are all sovereigns of our own lives, and it´s time we started acting as such. The more of us who recognize this and live our lives independent of government, the better off everyone becomes.
Peaceful revolution is still possible. We still have the basics necessary to put pressure on those in power to do the right thing. While the executive branch of the federal government may be beyond the reach of the common man, and the senate might be equally entrenched, we can still influence the House of Representatives. Take action. Join groups like Downsizedc.org and Ron Paul´s Campaign for Freedom. Get involved. Pay attention. Make your representative accountable for his actions. Or you can try some peaceful activism and non co-operation.
The justice system can be influenced by citizens acting on juries to rid ourselves of tyrannical laws. We need not make crimes of victimless behavior and we should express this view in the jury box by not convicting our friends and neighbors who engage in victimless crimes. Bench judges may tell you that the bad laws cannot be judged, but that is a lie. It was jury nullification that rid us of prohibition and jury nullification can rid us of other unconstitutional laws. When we start living like freemen, behaving like freemen, and demanding to be respected as freemen by those who would exercise power over us, then we will once again become freemen. Otherwise, we are destined to remain the sheeple those in power long for us to be.
Keep educating your neighbors and anyone else who may think poorly of the concept of freedom. The more who awaken to its light, the more empowered we all become. There has been a stirring in the populace as more and more the whispers of these concepts can be heard in the taverns and other places where people gather. A nation of freemen is not something to be trifled with. Don´t let a small defeat like this election cycle bring you down and fill you with doubt. The peaceful revolution is gaining traction. The sleeping spirit of freedom inside us all is once again flexing its muscle, and those who would try to keep it down may soon find out it is a force to be reckoned with.
The True Nature of Change
This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on Oct. 15th, 2008.
There´s been a lot of talk about change in this year´s presidential campaign. Apparently, both the Democrat and Republican candidates seem to believe they can deliver change to the American people. And, of course, no matter which candidate is elected there will be change. The questions are, how much change and what kind of change?
Change is something that is constant. Everything is always changing. Even the tallest mountain is slowly eroding, or being slowly thrust upward. When you wake up in the morning nothing will be the same. Sure, most things will be familiar, but everything you know will have aged, everything around you will have moved in one way or another, everything will have changed, even if only in some slight way. No matter how one tries to keep things the same, one can never stop change. It is destined to happen.
Talking about change is meaningless. It´s about the most worthless thing one can promise. Change happens, no matter what. A calm sunny day can suddenly change into a stormy one and vice versa. A nation can change from a prosperous one to an impoverished one, and vice versa. To promise change without being more specific as to the type of change and the details of how change is to happen can be dangerous. It´s about as useless as offering hope. Hope for what? Better days, or simply that the pain does not increase? Sometimes the pain can get so bad that people will hope for death. Personally, I hope for smaller, less intrusive government. I don´t see either presidential candidate attempting to cause that change to occur nor offering me any hope that it will.
As far as I can tell, the changes either of the major party candidates offer are equivalent to changing the type of accelerant an arsonist wants to use to burn a building down. They are simply proposing that they modify the rules of the game to the benefit of themselves or their friends rather than changing the game being played for the benefit of all. They will try to make one believe they are doing it to be more fair, or for the good of the country, but in reality they are making it even more certain that the rich will get richer and the poor will stay dependent upon them. They are changing the rules to make it even less likely that independence can be achieved for the individual.
In the long run, change comes down to either making ours an individualist society as the founders of this country dreamed it would be or making it a collectivist society as men like Carl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and their ilk dreamed they could entrap all mankind in. Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain both want to keep marching down the collectivist road we as a society took the first steps upon long ago. Indeed, the only changes they are willing to make are changes in the speed at which we are heading toward a complete collective and the type of socialism that will rule over us.
Neither Obama nor McCain want to change direction, take that fork in the road and start heading down a path toward a more individualist society. Neither one has talked about repealing the unconstitutional, intrusive laws that have been passed since 9/11/2001. Neither one has talked about doing away with the Fed and going back to constitutional money or switching over to a competitive monetary system to get us out from under the thumb of the international gang of banksters. The only change they offer is bigger, more intrusive government. They only offer more theft for the tax payers and more corruption. They only offer more divisions and wider rifts between the classes.
It should be remembered that this nation was built upon the foundation that the individual is the most important component of any group. This is the reason that certain amendments in the Bill of Rights state that government shall not infringe upon individual rights. Groups of people don´t have rights other than those appointed to each individual in that group. When one infringes upon the rights of an individual, it weakens the group. In this way, certain large groups can be whittled down and individuals can be shuffled from one group to another. The larger group might become the privileged group and the smaller group denied a certain right. This type of change shows how a pure democracy does not necessarily promote freedom. On the other hand, if a minority group has enough political power, they can decide to infringe upon the rights of the majority thus becoming a de facto aristocracy. This can be successfully accomplished by using fear, force or threats, either economic, physical or otherwise.
Slowly our society has changed from a republic into a strange political animal ruled by an elite class that tries its best to maintain the façade of a free society even as the foundations of our liberties are eroded away. The propaganda we´ve been exposed to since we were children has done its job for the most part as many people still believe we are the freest nation on earth and our country is the best. Few seem to realize that we long ago stopped being a country and started being an empire and as an empire grows it becomes increasingly difficult to keep the empire and still honor individual freedom. Few seem to recognize the tyranny used to support the pillars of empire. The poorest workers have always suffered in anonymity as the powerful have kept them hidden and built their wealth on their backs. The middle classes and wealthier have allowed for their own wealth to be extorted by the elite and political classes. Even the elite and political classes suffer somewhat as they struggle to keep hidden certain facets of society, afraid of the reaction of the masses should such "secrets" become evident. In effect, everybody has become enslaved to the system that has been set up. The system itself becomes the monster everyone fears. The change needed is to open the system, remove the cancer of force and coercion that government is, and begin to live by the philosophies of individual freedom, voluntary government, self determination and individual responsibility.
Change, but its very nature, can be good or bad. It can be drastic or subtle. It can cause destruction or promote growth. It can combine these characteristics in a myriad of ways and cause unforeseen consequences. Yet as a society we continue to choose change that has proven in the past to lead to destruction and dire consequences. We need to be careful about the change we choose. We need to evaluate the choices we make and try to steer toward change that has proven to promote prosperity and growth. We need to change back to what we were at one time, a society that promoted liberty of the individual and honored personal choice. That is how we became a prosperous nation and that is how we can continue to be one.
There´s been a lot of talk about change in this year´s presidential campaign. Apparently, both the Democrat and Republican candidates seem to believe they can deliver change to the American people. And, of course, no matter which candidate is elected there will be change. The questions are, how much change and what kind of change?
Change is something that is constant. Everything is always changing. Even the tallest mountain is slowly eroding, or being slowly thrust upward. When you wake up in the morning nothing will be the same. Sure, most things will be familiar, but everything you know will have aged, everything around you will have moved in one way or another, everything will have changed, even if only in some slight way. No matter how one tries to keep things the same, one can never stop change. It is destined to happen.
Talking about change is meaningless. It´s about the most worthless thing one can promise. Change happens, no matter what. A calm sunny day can suddenly change into a stormy one and vice versa. A nation can change from a prosperous one to an impoverished one, and vice versa. To promise change without being more specific as to the type of change and the details of how change is to happen can be dangerous. It´s about as useless as offering hope. Hope for what? Better days, or simply that the pain does not increase? Sometimes the pain can get so bad that people will hope for death. Personally, I hope for smaller, less intrusive government. I don´t see either presidential candidate attempting to cause that change to occur nor offering me any hope that it will.
As far as I can tell, the changes either of the major party candidates offer are equivalent to changing the type of accelerant an arsonist wants to use to burn a building down. They are simply proposing that they modify the rules of the game to the benefit of themselves or their friends rather than changing the game being played for the benefit of all. They will try to make one believe they are doing it to be more fair, or for the good of the country, but in reality they are making it even more certain that the rich will get richer and the poor will stay dependent upon them. They are changing the rules to make it even less likely that independence can be achieved for the individual.
In the long run, change comes down to either making ours an individualist society as the founders of this country dreamed it would be or making it a collectivist society as men like Carl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and their ilk dreamed they could entrap all mankind in. Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain both want to keep marching down the collectivist road we as a society took the first steps upon long ago. Indeed, the only changes they are willing to make are changes in the speed at which we are heading toward a complete collective and the type of socialism that will rule over us.
Neither Obama nor McCain want to change direction, take that fork in the road and start heading down a path toward a more individualist society. Neither one has talked about repealing the unconstitutional, intrusive laws that have been passed since 9/11/2001. Neither one has talked about doing away with the Fed and going back to constitutional money or switching over to a competitive monetary system to get us out from under the thumb of the international gang of banksters. The only change they offer is bigger, more intrusive government. They only offer more theft for the tax payers and more corruption. They only offer more divisions and wider rifts between the classes.
It should be remembered that this nation was built upon the foundation that the individual is the most important component of any group. This is the reason that certain amendments in the Bill of Rights state that government shall not infringe upon individual rights. Groups of people don´t have rights other than those appointed to each individual in that group. When one infringes upon the rights of an individual, it weakens the group. In this way, certain large groups can be whittled down and individuals can be shuffled from one group to another. The larger group might become the privileged group and the smaller group denied a certain right. This type of change shows how a pure democracy does not necessarily promote freedom. On the other hand, if a minority group has enough political power, they can decide to infringe upon the rights of the majority thus becoming a de facto aristocracy. This can be successfully accomplished by using fear, force or threats, either economic, physical or otherwise.
Slowly our society has changed from a republic into a strange political animal ruled by an elite class that tries its best to maintain the façade of a free society even as the foundations of our liberties are eroded away. The propaganda we´ve been exposed to since we were children has done its job for the most part as many people still believe we are the freest nation on earth and our country is the best. Few seem to realize that we long ago stopped being a country and started being an empire and as an empire grows it becomes increasingly difficult to keep the empire and still honor individual freedom. Few seem to recognize the tyranny used to support the pillars of empire. The poorest workers have always suffered in anonymity as the powerful have kept them hidden and built their wealth on their backs. The middle classes and wealthier have allowed for their own wealth to be extorted by the elite and political classes. Even the elite and political classes suffer somewhat as they struggle to keep hidden certain facets of society, afraid of the reaction of the masses should such "secrets" become evident. In effect, everybody has become enslaved to the system that has been set up. The system itself becomes the monster everyone fears. The change needed is to open the system, remove the cancer of force and coercion that government is, and begin to live by the philosophies of individual freedom, voluntary government, self determination and individual responsibility.
Change, but its very nature, can be good or bad. It can be drastic or subtle. It can cause destruction or promote growth. It can combine these characteristics in a myriad of ways and cause unforeseen consequences. Yet as a society we continue to choose change that has proven in the past to lead to destruction and dire consequences. We need to be careful about the change we choose. We need to evaluate the choices we make and try to steer toward change that has proven to promote prosperity and growth. We need to change back to what we were at one time, a society that promoted liberty of the individual and honored personal choice. That is how we became a prosperous nation and that is how we can continue to be one.
Big Bailout, Shafting the Honest Folk
This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on Oct. 6th, 2008.
Were you paying attention? Did you hear them speaking? Did you listen to what they were saying? Perhaps you did, but I can say this, I don´t believe they listened to you. In fact, they more or less proved they don´t care about you one iota, unless you happen to be one of their wealthy friends.
The 700 billion dollar bailout congress passed on Oct. 3rd, 2008 has ballooned and will continue to do so. It will go to the banks and to the lobbyists who support the cabal in Washington, DC. Though it is your money to be stolen from you in the form of taxes, when it comes back to you it will do so in the form of loans where you will have to pay interest to borrow your own money. By the time these loans are paid back, the banks will have "earned" most likely many times the original amount in interest. The common man once again gets screwed. Our progeny has been sold out. Most of you likely already realized this. Most of us common folk realized this, judging from the amount of calls, emails, etc. received in the House of Representatives. Yet none of that mattered.
Both Barack Obama and John McCain proved that they were nothing more than yes men for the moneyed interests. Neither one of these so called men are leaders. If one of these men had been a leader, he´d have spoken out against this bill. If one had done that, he´d have likely sewn up the presidential election right there. Both these men are afraid of speaking out against these special interests. Both are afraid of challenging the power of the Fed and the various moneyed lobbyists. This latest incident, this "credit crisis" proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither one of these men is ready to deliver any kind of significant change. This incident makes any kind of comparison of Barack Obama to John F. Kennedy laughable. John F. Kennedy at least spoke out against the Fed, secret societies, and other powerful entities influencing government. Obama merely talks about "change" and "hope" as if simply talking about them will make things better and McCain simply parrots Obama and hides behind the skirts of a feisty woman in hopes she´ll win him the election. It breaks my heart to think 100 million honest, hard working people will waste their votes on one of these two undeserving men instead of voting for another choice.
The Senate showed just how despicable it was during this farce. They decided to override all proper legislative procedures and introduce into the house their version of the bill using a legislative "trick" to put pressure on the peoples´ representatives to pass a bad bill. Like Mr. Stranger Danger trying to entice a child into his car, they loaded the bill with a bunch of "treats" in an effort to get the people of this country to climb on board. Perhaps the common folk of this country weren´t foolish enough to climb into such a vehicle, we were taught better than to trust a stranger with candy, but the majority of our representatives apparently couldn´t resist the temptation.
On the other side of the coin, the banking industry was trying to frighten us into submission. They were threatening economic holocaust should the bill not pass. They were threatening a total collapse of our entire economy if the bill should fail. We were supposed to shake and quake in fear and submit to their demands. They acted as if the economy depended upon a few big banks distributing money. They acted as if they were the ones in control of the economy instead of the markets being free and left to obey the dictates of supply and demand. Perhaps they are right as they have built a fraudulent system predicated upon their ability to extend credit rather than a system based upon honest money that one has already earned. Though the people on Main Street America (a phrase those in power have recently been using) were not frightened by the scare tactics of the moneyed interests, our representatives apparently were.
Now I believe in the people of this great nation of ours and I believe that we would continue to do business with each other even if the credit system collapsed, but I´ve also no doubt that those in power with all that money could indeed do great damage to our economy if they so wished. If this is so, wouldn´t it make more sense to take the credit issuing system out of the hands of private interests like the Federal Reserve and integrate it back into the Treasury Department so at the very least the people don´t have to pay interest when they borrow their own money? The Constitution of this great nation spells out that the coinage of money is, after all, the purview of the House of Representatives. Why should we entrust our system of money and credit to those who would use it as a means to blackmail us?
But that is another point perhaps to be revisited upon on another day. Right now, I´m more concerned with the total breakdown of our system of governance. It starts with the leadership. We are supposed to take their advice into consideration. In this case, we did, and the people decided they didn´t like the advice they were being given by an administration that has constantly lied to us. It trickled down to the Senate whose members can perhaps get passes because it can be argued that they are supposed to be looking after the best interests of the state they represent, not necessarily the people of that state. It is a weak argument, but a valid one. It is in the House of Representatives, where the members are supposed to carry out the will of their constituents, not their own personal will, that the breakdown was most evident.
By all accounts, something happened in congress that was unprecedented during the last few days. Many people actually took the time to write, email or phone their congress critters in the hopes that this time their voices would be heard and someone would pay attention to them. The people of this country overwhelmingly told their congressmen to vote against this bailout bill. They did what they were supposed to do. They participated in the system that is supposed to represent the will of the people. But instead of being listened to, the people found that their pleas fell upon too many deaf ears. Even the Representatives in the people´s house no longer care what the people have to say. Even they are beholden to the moneyed interests.
Perhaps Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, best illustrates the disdain for the people these Representatives seem to have. The powerful, magnificent, all knowing Nancy Pelosi reportedly said that the people of her district were uninformed when asked about the overwhelming numbers who had taken the time to write, email or phone her concerned that she would vote "yes" for a bailout bill and asking that she vote "no." She didn´t care what the people of her district thought or felt. This almighty, omnipotent being knew better than her lowly, uninformed subjects. She wasn´t going to put aside her own feelings and vote the will of the people she represents, which is supposed to be her job. She wasn´t even going to try to slow down the passage of the bill so that she could explain to the people in her district why she felt the bill was necessary and try to change their minds. To her, it wasn´t important that they understand, as long as she did. No, she´d simply vote against the will of the people of her district and call them ignorant. The same was true for all the other congressmen who followed her lead and voted for the bailout.
I hope you were paying attention. I hope everyone was paying attention. It became obvious to me years and perhaps even decades ago that voting, especially at the federal level, didn´t much matter in the grander scheme of things and that it seemed no matter who ran for office only puppets of the moneyed interests somehow managed to gain office. Whenever a principled politician ran against an establishment candidate it seemed the game was rigged in favor of the establishment candidate. Somehow, despite years of abuse and obvious power brokering, a vast majority of incumbents manage to get re-elected. I´m hoping against hope it will be different this year. I´m hoping to see every congress critter who voted for this bill voted out of office, no matter his party, no matter how you feel about party politics. It would be nice to see such vacancies taken by principled men and women of third parties, but simply voting out those 263 members who voted for this bill against the will of the people of their districts would send a very powerful message, and I have the feeling that in order to accomplish this they will have to be overwhelmingly voted out.
Watching the events of last week has given me hope, and I believe it has given many other freedom loving individuals hope as well. Even though we seemingly lost a very important battle, I at least have seen some encouraging happenings. The people of this great nation of ours are awakening. They have grown sick and tired of the very powerful and the very wealthy manipulating our system of government. They have shown they want to take the government back and make it fairer for all. They have shown they want to take part in the decision making processes. They have shown they care. They did things the way they were supposed to do things in order to create peaceful change, and they were still frustrated, so now it becomes necessary to speak at the voting both. I can only hope the polls aren´t rigged. If they are, then God help us all.
In 1962 in a speech at the White House, John F. Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Let us hope his words are not prophetic. Let us hope that there is no one behind the scenes making peaceful revolution impossible.
Were you paying attention? Did you hear them speaking? Did you listen to what they were saying? Perhaps you did, but I can say this, I don´t believe they listened to you. In fact, they more or less proved they don´t care about you one iota, unless you happen to be one of their wealthy friends.
The 700 billion dollar bailout congress passed on Oct. 3rd, 2008 has ballooned and will continue to do so. It will go to the banks and to the lobbyists who support the cabal in Washington, DC. Though it is your money to be stolen from you in the form of taxes, when it comes back to you it will do so in the form of loans where you will have to pay interest to borrow your own money. By the time these loans are paid back, the banks will have "earned" most likely many times the original amount in interest. The common man once again gets screwed. Our progeny has been sold out. Most of you likely already realized this. Most of us common folk realized this, judging from the amount of calls, emails, etc. received in the House of Representatives. Yet none of that mattered.
Both Barack Obama and John McCain proved that they were nothing more than yes men for the moneyed interests. Neither one of these so called men are leaders. If one of these men had been a leader, he´d have spoken out against this bill. If one had done that, he´d have likely sewn up the presidential election right there. Both these men are afraid of speaking out against these special interests. Both are afraid of challenging the power of the Fed and the various moneyed lobbyists. This latest incident, this "credit crisis" proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither one of these men is ready to deliver any kind of significant change. This incident makes any kind of comparison of Barack Obama to John F. Kennedy laughable. John F. Kennedy at least spoke out against the Fed, secret societies, and other powerful entities influencing government. Obama merely talks about "change" and "hope" as if simply talking about them will make things better and McCain simply parrots Obama and hides behind the skirts of a feisty woman in hopes she´ll win him the election. It breaks my heart to think 100 million honest, hard working people will waste their votes on one of these two undeserving men instead of voting for another choice.
The Senate showed just how despicable it was during this farce. They decided to override all proper legislative procedures and introduce into the house their version of the bill using a legislative "trick" to put pressure on the peoples´ representatives to pass a bad bill. Like Mr. Stranger Danger trying to entice a child into his car, they loaded the bill with a bunch of "treats" in an effort to get the people of this country to climb on board. Perhaps the common folk of this country weren´t foolish enough to climb into such a vehicle, we were taught better than to trust a stranger with candy, but the majority of our representatives apparently couldn´t resist the temptation.
On the other side of the coin, the banking industry was trying to frighten us into submission. They were threatening economic holocaust should the bill not pass. They were threatening a total collapse of our entire economy if the bill should fail. We were supposed to shake and quake in fear and submit to their demands. They acted as if the economy depended upon a few big banks distributing money. They acted as if they were the ones in control of the economy instead of the markets being free and left to obey the dictates of supply and demand. Perhaps they are right as they have built a fraudulent system predicated upon their ability to extend credit rather than a system based upon honest money that one has already earned. Though the people on Main Street America (a phrase those in power have recently been using) were not frightened by the scare tactics of the moneyed interests, our representatives apparently were.
Now I believe in the people of this great nation of ours and I believe that we would continue to do business with each other even if the credit system collapsed, but I´ve also no doubt that those in power with all that money could indeed do great damage to our economy if they so wished. If this is so, wouldn´t it make more sense to take the credit issuing system out of the hands of private interests like the Federal Reserve and integrate it back into the Treasury Department so at the very least the people don´t have to pay interest when they borrow their own money? The Constitution of this great nation spells out that the coinage of money is, after all, the purview of the House of Representatives. Why should we entrust our system of money and credit to those who would use it as a means to blackmail us?
But that is another point perhaps to be revisited upon on another day. Right now, I´m more concerned with the total breakdown of our system of governance. It starts with the leadership. We are supposed to take their advice into consideration. In this case, we did, and the people decided they didn´t like the advice they were being given by an administration that has constantly lied to us. It trickled down to the Senate whose members can perhaps get passes because it can be argued that they are supposed to be looking after the best interests of the state they represent, not necessarily the people of that state. It is a weak argument, but a valid one. It is in the House of Representatives, where the members are supposed to carry out the will of their constituents, not their own personal will, that the breakdown was most evident.
By all accounts, something happened in congress that was unprecedented during the last few days. Many people actually took the time to write, email or phone their congress critters in the hopes that this time their voices would be heard and someone would pay attention to them. The people of this country overwhelmingly told their congressmen to vote against this bailout bill. They did what they were supposed to do. They participated in the system that is supposed to represent the will of the people. But instead of being listened to, the people found that their pleas fell upon too many deaf ears. Even the Representatives in the people´s house no longer care what the people have to say. Even they are beholden to the moneyed interests.
Perhaps Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, best illustrates the disdain for the people these Representatives seem to have. The powerful, magnificent, all knowing Nancy Pelosi reportedly said that the people of her district were uninformed when asked about the overwhelming numbers who had taken the time to write, email or phone her concerned that she would vote "yes" for a bailout bill and asking that she vote "no." She didn´t care what the people of her district thought or felt. This almighty, omnipotent being knew better than her lowly, uninformed subjects. She wasn´t going to put aside her own feelings and vote the will of the people she represents, which is supposed to be her job. She wasn´t even going to try to slow down the passage of the bill so that she could explain to the people in her district why she felt the bill was necessary and try to change their minds. To her, it wasn´t important that they understand, as long as she did. No, she´d simply vote against the will of the people of her district and call them ignorant. The same was true for all the other congressmen who followed her lead and voted for the bailout.
I hope you were paying attention. I hope everyone was paying attention. It became obvious to me years and perhaps even decades ago that voting, especially at the federal level, didn´t much matter in the grander scheme of things and that it seemed no matter who ran for office only puppets of the moneyed interests somehow managed to gain office. Whenever a principled politician ran against an establishment candidate it seemed the game was rigged in favor of the establishment candidate. Somehow, despite years of abuse and obvious power brokering, a vast majority of incumbents manage to get re-elected. I´m hoping against hope it will be different this year. I´m hoping to see every congress critter who voted for this bill voted out of office, no matter his party, no matter how you feel about party politics. It would be nice to see such vacancies taken by principled men and women of third parties, but simply voting out those 263 members who voted for this bill against the will of the people of their districts would send a very powerful message, and I have the feeling that in order to accomplish this they will have to be overwhelmingly voted out.
Watching the events of last week has given me hope, and I believe it has given many other freedom loving individuals hope as well. Even though we seemingly lost a very important battle, I at least have seen some encouraging happenings. The people of this great nation of ours are awakening. They have grown sick and tired of the very powerful and the very wealthy manipulating our system of government. They have shown they want to take the government back and make it fairer for all. They have shown they want to take part in the decision making processes. They have shown they care. They did things the way they were supposed to do things in order to create peaceful change, and they were still frustrated, so now it becomes necessary to speak at the voting both. I can only hope the polls aren´t rigged. If they are, then God help us all.
In 1962 in a speech at the White House, John F. Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Let us hope his words are not prophetic. Let us hope that there is no one behind the scenes making peaceful revolution impossible.
Taxing the Middle Class Into Oblivion
This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on Oct. 3rd, 2008.
A friend of mine, Jon, initiated a conversation with me the other day. He wanted to tell me a story. You see, he had recently received his property tax bill. Of course, his taxes had gone up. It seems the government had his house appraised and felt it was worth more than it had been last year. Never mind that his neighbor´s homes that have been for sale haven´t been selling, except those that were sold at bargain basement prices. Never mind that his neighborhood has half a dozen abandoned homes, something of a recent phenomenon. That didn´t matter to the county government who assessed his property and levied those taxes. They base their judgments on something other than reality. After all, Jon is still living in his house, but apparently on their land. They want their yearly tribute and they couldn´t care less what the reality of the neighborhood is, or what the reality of his financial situation is.
Jon called the local agency in charge of extorting money from the area peasants and lodged a complaint. He wanted to know why they were demanding so much when property values had obviously gone down. They told him they felt the value of his "land" had increased due to their hard work to make sure the area maintained the amenities that buyers in the real estate market would look for when shopping for a new home. Never mind that those buyers are now more or less non existent. Jon asked what they would say if he hired an unbiased assessor to assess his property to prove that its value had fallen precipitously. According to Jon, the agency flunky who had answered the phone laughed into it and told him that his taxes would never go down. He explained that they needed his money for their schools, and roads, and police, and fire department, etc. and that his taxes were destined to increase in perpetuity. This left Jon fuming.
Jon proceeded to go across the street to a neighbor´s house where a group of five men had already gathered. They were drinking beer and talking amongst themselves, as sometimes neighbors around here still do. Jon brought up the issue by asking these neighbors of his if they had gotten their tax bills. This opened up a can of worms as he quickly found out that all the neighbors had indeed received notices telling them their houses were worth more than they knew them to be worth and increasing the amount of tribute they needed to deliver to those sitting on the throne of county government. All six men were now fuming together. Someone actually had the nerve to mention the word revolution in a rather loud tone. He said something like "The people of this nation are going to have to have a revolution soon." This left the others speechless as they all just stood in silent agreement and contemplation for an awkward moment.
The neighborhood where this took place is inhabited by mostly blue collar tradesmen and lower income professionals. They are hurting. They are plumbers, mechanics, electricians, carpenters, roofers, computer programmers, etc. Some of these men haven´t had work in some time. Others have had less work than before. Others have been working without raises for years. Meanwhile, their costs have gone up. The cost of electricity and gas for heating has gone up. The cost of gasoline, as everyone knows, has gone way up. The cost of food has gone up. But most of these men have had no corresponding increase in their income, or are making even less than they were a few years ago. Take this into account and it´s little wonder why there´s a mortgage crisis going on. Then, to top it off, the government, those who claim they want to represent and help the little guy, the individual, the government goes and assesses even more taxes to an already financially overburdened middle class. Is it any wonder such talk is becoming common? Those in government, at all levels, prove time and time again they don´t care about you or me, they only care about themselves, their power, and taking our money.
Unlike business, the government doesn´t talk about scaling back. They don´t talk about decreasing salaries, or postponing projects, or scrapping them outright, or cutting unnecessary waste from their budgets, or any of the cost cutting measures a business would have to take to stay afloat. They know people will be forced to pay for their services, regardless of whether anyone uses them, and so they continue to grow their budgets and put the cost on the common man. Now the common folk are really beginning to feel the pinch and many are becoming very angry. They certainly no longer feel represented.
It wasn´t long after Jon had finished telling me his story that I read an article online. I didn´t read much of the article, but the headline used stuck out at me. It intimated that tax payers were going foot the bill anyway, regardless of whether congress passes a bailout package or not. I saw the headline and I got to thinking, are there those who don´t pay taxes? Is someone intimating there that there are two classes of people, those who pay taxes and the privileged who don´t? Or perhaps this headline meant that the individuals pay taxes and the banks receive them? Maybe it would have been more accurate for the headline to read "Middle Class America Will Foot the Bill for Bankers´ Follies No Matter What." Whatever the case, I felt my blood start to boil. My fate and the fate of my fellow countrymen could very well be in the hands of a group of incompetent politicians and blood sucking, money hungry bankers. It just doesn´t seem right. I guess that´s what we get for letting those same politicians infringe upon our rights.
The system we have is failing. We need to let the institutions that are going to fail do just that. We need to just let it happen and have faith that we the people, not the politicians or the bankers, can innovate and adapt to the changing conditions. A bailout will simply delay the inevitable and cost more than it should. The politicians believe that the common man is stupid, that he doesn´t know what this is about and what´s good for him. They need to give the common man more credit than that. Even I realize when it´s time to stop borrowing and start scaling back so that the debt can get paid off. We need real solutions, like an infusion of sound money and banking practices into the system. It´s time to get rid dead wood and start anew. If the politicians can´t see that, perhaps we should all simply stop paying our taxes and start paying each other for the products and services we need and use. After all, they are trying to tax the middle class out of existence, perhaps we should not pay the tributes they demand and force them out of existence first.
A friend of mine, Jon, initiated a conversation with me the other day. He wanted to tell me a story. You see, he had recently received his property tax bill. Of course, his taxes had gone up. It seems the government had his house appraised and felt it was worth more than it had been last year. Never mind that his neighbor´s homes that have been for sale haven´t been selling, except those that were sold at bargain basement prices. Never mind that his neighborhood has half a dozen abandoned homes, something of a recent phenomenon. That didn´t matter to the county government who assessed his property and levied those taxes. They base their judgments on something other than reality. After all, Jon is still living in his house, but apparently on their land. They want their yearly tribute and they couldn´t care less what the reality of the neighborhood is, or what the reality of his financial situation is.
Jon called the local agency in charge of extorting money from the area peasants and lodged a complaint. He wanted to know why they were demanding so much when property values had obviously gone down. They told him they felt the value of his "land" had increased due to their hard work to make sure the area maintained the amenities that buyers in the real estate market would look for when shopping for a new home. Never mind that those buyers are now more or less non existent. Jon asked what they would say if he hired an unbiased assessor to assess his property to prove that its value had fallen precipitously. According to Jon, the agency flunky who had answered the phone laughed into it and told him that his taxes would never go down. He explained that they needed his money for their schools, and roads, and police, and fire department, etc. and that his taxes were destined to increase in perpetuity. This left Jon fuming.
Jon proceeded to go across the street to a neighbor´s house where a group of five men had already gathered. They were drinking beer and talking amongst themselves, as sometimes neighbors around here still do. Jon brought up the issue by asking these neighbors of his if they had gotten their tax bills. This opened up a can of worms as he quickly found out that all the neighbors had indeed received notices telling them their houses were worth more than they knew them to be worth and increasing the amount of tribute they needed to deliver to those sitting on the throne of county government. All six men were now fuming together. Someone actually had the nerve to mention the word revolution in a rather loud tone. He said something like "The people of this nation are going to have to have a revolution soon." This left the others speechless as they all just stood in silent agreement and contemplation for an awkward moment.
The neighborhood where this took place is inhabited by mostly blue collar tradesmen and lower income professionals. They are hurting. They are plumbers, mechanics, electricians, carpenters, roofers, computer programmers, etc. Some of these men haven´t had work in some time. Others have had less work than before. Others have been working without raises for years. Meanwhile, their costs have gone up. The cost of electricity and gas for heating has gone up. The cost of gasoline, as everyone knows, has gone way up. The cost of food has gone up. But most of these men have had no corresponding increase in their income, or are making even less than they were a few years ago. Take this into account and it´s little wonder why there´s a mortgage crisis going on. Then, to top it off, the government, those who claim they want to represent and help the little guy, the individual, the government goes and assesses even more taxes to an already financially overburdened middle class. Is it any wonder such talk is becoming common? Those in government, at all levels, prove time and time again they don´t care about you or me, they only care about themselves, their power, and taking our money.
Unlike business, the government doesn´t talk about scaling back. They don´t talk about decreasing salaries, or postponing projects, or scrapping them outright, or cutting unnecessary waste from their budgets, or any of the cost cutting measures a business would have to take to stay afloat. They know people will be forced to pay for their services, regardless of whether anyone uses them, and so they continue to grow their budgets and put the cost on the common man. Now the common folk are really beginning to feel the pinch and many are becoming very angry. They certainly no longer feel represented.
It wasn´t long after Jon had finished telling me his story that I read an article online. I didn´t read much of the article, but the headline used stuck out at me. It intimated that tax payers were going foot the bill anyway, regardless of whether congress passes a bailout package or not. I saw the headline and I got to thinking, are there those who don´t pay taxes? Is someone intimating there that there are two classes of people, those who pay taxes and the privileged who don´t? Or perhaps this headline meant that the individuals pay taxes and the banks receive them? Maybe it would have been more accurate for the headline to read "Middle Class America Will Foot the Bill for Bankers´ Follies No Matter What." Whatever the case, I felt my blood start to boil. My fate and the fate of my fellow countrymen could very well be in the hands of a group of incompetent politicians and blood sucking, money hungry bankers. It just doesn´t seem right. I guess that´s what we get for letting those same politicians infringe upon our rights.
The system we have is failing. We need to let the institutions that are going to fail do just that. We need to just let it happen and have faith that we the people, not the politicians or the bankers, can innovate and adapt to the changing conditions. A bailout will simply delay the inevitable and cost more than it should. The politicians believe that the common man is stupid, that he doesn´t know what this is about and what´s good for him. They need to give the common man more credit than that. Even I realize when it´s time to stop borrowing and start scaling back so that the debt can get paid off. We need real solutions, like an infusion of sound money and banking practices into the system. It´s time to get rid dead wood and start anew. If the politicians can´t see that, perhaps we should all simply stop paying our taxes and start paying each other for the products and services we need and use. After all, they are trying to tax the middle class out of existence, perhaps we should not pay the tributes they demand and force them out of existence first.
Bailout Blues – Bumming Billions
This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on Sept. 29th, 2008.
I went on a tirade the other day. I told my coworker that just this once I was abandoning my libertarian principles of non initiation of force and doing no harm. There are men in this world, men who have all the money and all the power, who just keep taking and taking from the common folk. They just want more and more. They want it all. Total control. They want everything down to the soul of the lowliest human being in the most destitute situation. And they most likely believe it is their birthright to own and control such things. Most likely they believe they are somehow better than us. Now they have the gall to ask for our help in rescuing them from their own mismanagement and poor decision making, and our great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren will likely still be paying for it when they are old and gray if we allow this rescue to take place. It was these men I ranted against.
I wanted to see justice done. I wanted to see these men publicly hung in the most painful manner and beaten to death, just to send a message. I wanted to see the men responsible for this banking mess, this "credit crisis," this financial fiasco punished in the most severe way possible. And I wasn´t talking about the CEOs of the firms that are going under. I wasn´t talking about the huge banks that are bleeding green ink due to the so called mortgage crisis. I´m talking about the big boys in charge. I´m talking about the private individuals who own the Federal Reserve system and all the central bankers worldwide. I´m also talking about the politicians who help them swindle the general populace of not only the United States, but of the entire world with their fiat currencies. I´m talking about any politician who would now argue in favor of such a bailout, the continued failed policies of the past and the continued subjugation of the American people. It´s time for these men who pull the strings and manipulate the money supply to answer for their fraud, and it´s time for them to pay, and to pay dearly.
These rich men sitting high atop their perches looking down on us do not deserve their positions of power. They do no real work. The offer no real product or service the market needs. They simply connive and deceive the populations of the world for their own gain. The shell games they play to suck the money from your pocket and mine can no longer hold our attention. They have been robbing the US citizens of our real wealth for nearly a century now. It is time for them to give back the real wealth of our nation and we should happily return their "notes" to them. I think we can find something to replace such paper, something of real value, something like some precious metals or notes backed by precious metals that would represent the real labor of real men rather than the debt of a population.
And even if those men responsible were to suffer such harsh consequences, even if they were rounded up and thrown into a dungeon somewhere, that still would not be enough. Their fortunes were made on the backs of the working class, since the money they loan was created from nothing and backed by nothing of any real value and the interest they kept for their personal coffers was earned by real people providing real labor, goods and services. They should be the ones paying to keep their failed institutions afloat. Their personal wealth should be returned to those institutions they claim we need so badly. Their assets should be forfeit and they should be made to work to earn their keep in this world just like the rest of us poor slobs. Let´s see just how long these trillionaire bankers could last on the street. Let´s see how they´d last as a waiter, a taxi driver, a pizza deliverer, a garbage collector, or some other laborer. Let´s see if they could even learn a trade and become a tradesman. Let´s see how they´d do in business if they had any real competition. I have the feeling it wouldn´t be too well if they handled their personal finances they way they handle the financing of a nation. Perhaps they´d be able to make few dollars begging on the streets and at least give a couple of people the satisfaction of knowing they´ve helped a fellow human being that day.
All this ranting got me to thinking, what would really happen if we just let these institutions fail anyway? Surely these dire warnings these bankers spew forth are just scare tactics. Certainly people aren´t going to stop doing business just because some financial institutions fail. There will still be demand for food, clothes, travel, housing, etc. Any void left in the marketplace would soon be filled, and then we´ll all start moving forward again. Supply and demand simply need to come to a stable balance.
The bank I had my car loan with recently went under. I didn´t get to stop paying my car loan. The car didn´t magically become mine just because the bank no longer existed. Nobody came and took my car saying it was to be liquidated. Another bank bought the loan and started demanding payments from me. The same is true of mortgages. People who have been paying their mortgages for years will not suddenly own their homes outright just because their bank folds. Their loan will be picked up by another institution and they´ll keep paying like they´ve always done. Those who aren´t able to afford their mortgages will still not be able to afford their mortgages with a new institution and those loans will still likely go into default unless some private bank renegotiates the loan terms with them. I should not be forced to subsidize their mistake just because some financial institution is going to fail.
I´ve heard of a couple of interesting things happening during the recent attempts to bailout these financial institutions. The first is a Rasmussen poll that stated only seven percent of Americans polled supported the bailout. Now polls can vary widely and this has much to do with how questions are asked, and some polls contradict the one I just sited, but the people I´ve talked with overwhelmingly object to bailing out the rich bankers. And I do actually talk to real working class people everyday, unlike the elitists in Washington DC who hardly take the time to actually discuss these matters with us "little folk." It wouldn´t surprise me if the seven percent number was correct. The other thing I heard that was interesting was that our congress critters were receiving letters three hundred to one objecting to the proposed bailout. It looks as if the common man perhaps knows something those supposed omnipotent politicians don´t.
One thing I´m certain of is that the politicians couldn´t care less about what you and I think. They don´t care about the common man. They are more concerned with their friends and supporters on Wall Street and in the banks. The people overwhelmingly object to bailouts and the politicians continue to discuss the best way to go about bailing out the banks. During the debates neither Barack Obama nor John McCain spoke about not bailing out the banks. Neither one of those two jamokes mentioned attacking the root cause of the current financial debacle and abolishing the Fed. They couldn´t care less about the Constitution, our freedoms, our businesses or our families, they only care about maintaining control and the status quo for those already in power. These are not the type of men we need in leadership positions. These are not the type of men who represent the common man, the hard working middle class people who are the backbone of this country. Still, it doesn´t matter what we think, there will be a bailout come Hell or high water.
I doubt very much I´m going to get my wish. I doubt very much I´ll see these millionaire congressmen and senators behind bars. I doubt I´ll see those in the Bush administration who engaged in unconstitutional activities sufficiently punished, ever. They´ll all go along on their merry way and live the life of luxury all their crimes netted them while I and my family continue to struggle day by day to make ends meet. They´ll continue to support their billionaire bums who will continue to beg for more money from the common man. They´ll continue to rob me of my rightful income that I earned through my hard work and labor in the form of taxation. They´ll continue to force me through said taxation to pay for services I don´t use, such as bailing out financial institutions that should rightfully fail. They´ll continue to make laws infringing upon my God given rights and continue to grow government rather than reduce its size. I can only hope that the polls I read were correct and the vast majority of people do indeed find these bailouts as objectionable as I find them. I can only hope that in six weeks when it comes time to vote the people remember who it was that argued for these bailouts and who it was that voted for them. Then I hope the people vote those responsible for this mess out of office. Let´s break the back of this duopoly. At least that would be a step in the right direction.
I went on a tirade the other day. I told my coworker that just this once I was abandoning my libertarian principles of non initiation of force and doing no harm. There are men in this world, men who have all the money and all the power, who just keep taking and taking from the common folk. They just want more and more. They want it all. Total control. They want everything down to the soul of the lowliest human being in the most destitute situation. And they most likely believe it is their birthright to own and control such things. Most likely they believe they are somehow better than us. Now they have the gall to ask for our help in rescuing them from their own mismanagement and poor decision making, and our great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren will likely still be paying for it when they are old and gray if we allow this rescue to take place. It was these men I ranted against.
I wanted to see justice done. I wanted to see these men publicly hung in the most painful manner and beaten to death, just to send a message. I wanted to see the men responsible for this banking mess, this "credit crisis," this financial fiasco punished in the most severe way possible. And I wasn´t talking about the CEOs of the firms that are going under. I wasn´t talking about the huge banks that are bleeding green ink due to the so called mortgage crisis. I´m talking about the big boys in charge. I´m talking about the private individuals who own the Federal Reserve system and all the central bankers worldwide. I´m also talking about the politicians who help them swindle the general populace of not only the United States, but of the entire world with their fiat currencies. I´m talking about any politician who would now argue in favor of such a bailout, the continued failed policies of the past and the continued subjugation of the American people. It´s time for these men who pull the strings and manipulate the money supply to answer for their fraud, and it´s time for them to pay, and to pay dearly.
These rich men sitting high atop their perches looking down on us do not deserve their positions of power. They do no real work. The offer no real product or service the market needs. They simply connive and deceive the populations of the world for their own gain. The shell games they play to suck the money from your pocket and mine can no longer hold our attention. They have been robbing the US citizens of our real wealth for nearly a century now. It is time for them to give back the real wealth of our nation and we should happily return their "notes" to them. I think we can find something to replace such paper, something of real value, something like some precious metals or notes backed by precious metals that would represent the real labor of real men rather than the debt of a population.
And even if those men responsible were to suffer such harsh consequences, even if they were rounded up and thrown into a dungeon somewhere, that still would not be enough. Their fortunes were made on the backs of the working class, since the money they loan was created from nothing and backed by nothing of any real value and the interest they kept for their personal coffers was earned by real people providing real labor, goods and services. They should be the ones paying to keep their failed institutions afloat. Their personal wealth should be returned to those institutions they claim we need so badly. Their assets should be forfeit and they should be made to work to earn their keep in this world just like the rest of us poor slobs. Let´s see just how long these trillionaire bankers could last on the street. Let´s see how they´d last as a waiter, a taxi driver, a pizza deliverer, a garbage collector, or some other laborer. Let´s see if they could even learn a trade and become a tradesman. Let´s see how they´d do in business if they had any real competition. I have the feeling it wouldn´t be too well if they handled their personal finances they way they handle the financing of a nation. Perhaps they´d be able to make few dollars begging on the streets and at least give a couple of people the satisfaction of knowing they´ve helped a fellow human being that day.
All this ranting got me to thinking, what would really happen if we just let these institutions fail anyway? Surely these dire warnings these bankers spew forth are just scare tactics. Certainly people aren´t going to stop doing business just because some financial institutions fail. There will still be demand for food, clothes, travel, housing, etc. Any void left in the marketplace would soon be filled, and then we´ll all start moving forward again. Supply and demand simply need to come to a stable balance.
The bank I had my car loan with recently went under. I didn´t get to stop paying my car loan. The car didn´t magically become mine just because the bank no longer existed. Nobody came and took my car saying it was to be liquidated. Another bank bought the loan and started demanding payments from me. The same is true of mortgages. People who have been paying their mortgages for years will not suddenly own their homes outright just because their bank folds. Their loan will be picked up by another institution and they´ll keep paying like they´ve always done. Those who aren´t able to afford their mortgages will still not be able to afford their mortgages with a new institution and those loans will still likely go into default unless some private bank renegotiates the loan terms with them. I should not be forced to subsidize their mistake just because some financial institution is going to fail.
I´ve heard of a couple of interesting things happening during the recent attempts to bailout these financial institutions. The first is a Rasmussen poll that stated only seven percent of Americans polled supported the bailout. Now polls can vary widely and this has much to do with how questions are asked, and some polls contradict the one I just sited, but the people I´ve talked with overwhelmingly object to bailing out the rich bankers. And I do actually talk to real working class people everyday, unlike the elitists in Washington DC who hardly take the time to actually discuss these matters with us "little folk." It wouldn´t surprise me if the seven percent number was correct. The other thing I heard that was interesting was that our congress critters were receiving letters three hundred to one objecting to the proposed bailout. It looks as if the common man perhaps knows something those supposed omnipotent politicians don´t.
One thing I´m certain of is that the politicians couldn´t care less about what you and I think. They don´t care about the common man. They are more concerned with their friends and supporters on Wall Street and in the banks. The people overwhelmingly object to bailouts and the politicians continue to discuss the best way to go about bailing out the banks. During the debates neither Barack Obama nor John McCain spoke about not bailing out the banks. Neither one of those two jamokes mentioned attacking the root cause of the current financial debacle and abolishing the Fed. They couldn´t care less about the Constitution, our freedoms, our businesses or our families, they only care about maintaining control and the status quo for those already in power. These are not the type of men we need in leadership positions. These are not the type of men who represent the common man, the hard working middle class people who are the backbone of this country. Still, it doesn´t matter what we think, there will be a bailout come Hell or high water.
I doubt very much I´m going to get my wish. I doubt very much I´ll see these millionaire congressmen and senators behind bars. I doubt I´ll see those in the Bush administration who engaged in unconstitutional activities sufficiently punished, ever. They´ll all go along on their merry way and live the life of luxury all their crimes netted them while I and my family continue to struggle day by day to make ends meet. They´ll continue to support their billionaire bums who will continue to beg for more money from the common man. They´ll continue to rob me of my rightful income that I earned through my hard work and labor in the form of taxation. They´ll continue to force me through said taxation to pay for services I don´t use, such as bailing out financial institutions that should rightfully fail. They´ll continue to make laws infringing upon my God given rights and continue to grow government rather than reduce its size. I can only hope that the polls I read were correct and the vast majority of people do indeed find these bailouts as objectionable as I find them. I can only hope that in six weeks when it comes time to vote the people remember who it was that argued for these bailouts and who it was that voted for them. Then I hope the people vote those responsible for this mess out of office. Let´s break the back of this duopoly. At least that would be a step in the right direction.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
A Vote For Chuck Baldwin is Not Wasted
This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on Sept. 27th, 2008
A couple of weeks ago I wrote an article about Ron Paul´s ability to raise money and Bob Barr´s failure to do so. In the course of that article I expressed my impressions of some of the other third party candidates in a not too favorable light. This was also an expression of my frustration and anger at the system which removed the candidate I most supported, the candidate I feel would provide the best leadership for this nation. In my mind Ron Paul is still the most principled, viable candidate put forth by any political party in this election season, but I begin to question the wisdom of my plan to write him in on a ballot where it almost certainly would go unnoticed. The thought of writing "This ballot intentionally left blank" as a protest and a show that I reject the government´s rule over me and no longer consent to be part of the system seemed an even better alternative, but the ballot is anonymous and so I must wonder if it would really accomplish anything at all except maybe give some bureaucrat a good laugh. This left me to re-examine the choices I had left.
I explained my impressions of other third party candidates in an earlier article and promised I´d dedicate an article to Chuck Baldwin. This is mainly because of the pro Chuck Baldwin emails I received after I wrote the first article. Many of his supporters were adamant that he is a strict constitutionalist, but I had my reservations. I was under the impression that he advocated government intrusions into our bedrooms. I was under the impression that he was in favor of federal laws that would try to moderate personal behavior. Perhaps this was due to his being a pastor of a Baptist church. Perhaps it was due to the Constitution Party´s platform. In any case, I was shown that my impressions were mistaken.
There were a couple particular Chuck Baldwin supporters who wrote me very articulate and persuasive emails. They were very polite in asking me to explain in greater detail my misgivings and then in responding to explain their positions and point out my misconceptions. I told one respondent that I felt he was a good writer and that he should publish his point of view in an online publication or blog. Mr. Baldwin has been largely ignored by the mainstream media and his campaign just hasn´t attracted the type of attention Ron Paul´s campaign managed. I believe this is because Ron Paul is a part of the establishment, like it or not, although the establishment does everything it can to keep his voice from being heard. Mr. Baldwin, like all third party candidates, faces an unfair system geared toward keeping the powerful establishment in power and a biased media geared toward doing its best to silence any other significant points of view. This, in my humble opinion, is the sad truth of our modern political process.
Politics is a dirty business. I don´t know if this has always been true, but it´s certainly been true for much of mankind´s written history. It attracts people of questionable character. It attracts those who wish to wield power over others. This is just the nature of the beast. That is one reason I find it difficult to trust anyone involved in politics. It is easy to smear a candidate. It is easy to accuse him of being crazy, a theocrat, a neocon, a bigot, an extremist of some sort or any number of undesirable things and many people will hear such accusations and believe them without question. I am not beyond such failings, for I am as human as anyone else. Ron Paul had to overcome such obstacles in his run and did an excellent job of it when he was given the opportunity. It is difficult to overcome such labels if one is never given the opportunity to explain one´s positions to a large audience. Third party candidates will not get the chance to participate in debates with Obama and McCain, will not get news coverage every time they open their mouths to speak like the two establishment candidates and will not get the exposure the establishment puppets have the privilege of receiving. This is not only unfair and unfortunate, but it also leaves voters believing they have to choose between two undesirable choices, to put it nicely.
I had a correspondence with a woman named Teri Owens. She is the State Secretary for the Constitution Party of Ohio. She was quite polite and I felt honored that she respected my opinion enough to make the effort to change it. I told her specifically that I had thought Mr. Baldwin supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman and that he wanted to ban stem cell research in the United States. I pointed to Mr. Baldwin´s own campaign website as evidence of this. She assured me that he wasn´t for such an amendment and pointed me to a quote of his where he spoke against the constitutional amendment. She also pointed out that he was simply against funding stem cell research with federal dollars (something I agree with) not against the private sector pursuing such research and using their own money to do so.
I answered Ms. Owens´ email with a request for links to videos and articles to help clarify Mr. Baldwin´s positions. I also asked her what his position was on the war on drugs as I had heard he was a big drug warrior. More specifically, I asked her about his position on medical marijuana. Ms. Owens happily provided these. Here are some excerpts from her email:
"Here is what Chuck has to say about the "drug war":
"I believe that as president, I would have the responsibility to keep drugs from crossing the borders, and I would do ever[y]thing in my power to keep drugs out of America. Once they come into the country, drug enforcement falls under the rubric of law enforcement, and the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government for domestic law enforcement. That is the responsibility of the state and local communities. So I believe that the drug war has been used by the federal government many times excessively, to the point where individual rights have been abridged and abrogated. I think the propensity for overreach is too great."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/351
(Author´s note: This means he would do away with the DEA, which is an improvement to what the two "major" party candidates would do, as they would do nothing)
With Regard to Medical Marijuana
This also falls within the jurisdiction of the states and you can see from his response that he recognizes the limitations of the Federal government. Here is a clip:
"I think that's a states' issue. I don't think the federal government should have anything to do with that...I think those are states issues and I respect that."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaZ2retiNdk
"The federal government has no Constitutional provision to regulate or restrict the freedom of the people to have access to medical care, supplies or treatments. We advocate, therefore, the elimination of the federal Food and Drug Administration, as it has been the federal agency primarily responsible for prohibiting beneficial products, treatments, and technologies here in the United States that are freely available in much of the rest of the civilized world."
http://2008election.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=1692
With Regard to Marriage:
In the same interview with The New American Magazine referenced above, Chuck Baldwin states:
"I support DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act."
The Defense of Marriage Act used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a "same sex" marriage license issued in another state. The other side of that coin is that if a state chooses to recognize same sex marriage, Baldwin admits there is nothing that he, as President or the Federal government in general is "Constitutionally" permitted to do about it.
"If a federal Marriage Amendment was enacted all that would do would [be to] authorize the Supreme Court to meddle with it, and by the time the Supreme Court would be done with it, it could be something far more monstrous than what the pro-life and pro-family people would want. I don't think that's a good idea. I don't think that's a necessary approach."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
With Regard to Embryonic Stem Cell Research
"Only those duties, functions, and programs specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution should be funded. We call upon Congress and the President to stop all federal expenditures which are not specifically authorized by the U. S. Constitution, and to restore to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has usurped." " (end quote)
One of the wonderful things about Ron Paul´s presidential campaign was his ability to spread the message of liberty to so many. He was already a popular congressman in Texas and already had a reputation on capital hill being known as "Dr. No." He had a twenty year voting record under his belt and so his supporters could be certain he meant what he said. He was able to get into the debates and grappled with the establishment candidates extremely well. The common folk of this country came to know and support him because he was genuine, not because he made promises to them or tried to make them feel good. He didn´t pretend to be their savior. He simply remained honest and delivered the same message he had delivered for decades. And the Republicans rebuked him for that. Mr. Chuck Baldwin does not have that luxury. He has no voting record for us to look at. I looked at the Constitution Party´s platform and made some assumptions about him, but that was not fair. He doesn´t necessarily agree with the Constitution Party´s platform on all issues. Certainly Ron Paul didn´t agree on the Republican Party´s platform on all issues and I didn´t judge him because he is a Republican. I now chose to show the same courtesy to Mr. Baldwin. In some spots his stances might not be clear, and I believe that some of his words are carefully chosen to obfuscate in order to attract the maximum amount of voters, but that is the nature of politics. If one is willing to forgive these minor transgressions than certainly one would consider voting for Mr. Baldwin. Ron Paul has now endorsed him, and that certainly has a lot of pull in my book. One thing is definite, Chuck Baldwin is a superior choice to either Barack Obama or John McCain, or for that matter any of the socialist third party candidates we are presented with.
I´m still uncertain as to exactly what I will do when it comes to voting this November. As I´ve been shown these last couple of weeks, there´s always room to reconsider if one is willing. This world is in constant flux and one never knows what information may be revealed in the next few weeks. For right now, Chuck Baldwin is high on my list of possibilities.
A couple of weeks ago I wrote an article about Ron Paul´s ability to raise money and Bob Barr´s failure to do so. In the course of that article I expressed my impressions of some of the other third party candidates in a not too favorable light. This was also an expression of my frustration and anger at the system which removed the candidate I most supported, the candidate I feel would provide the best leadership for this nation. In my mind Ron Paul is still the most principled, viable candidate put forth by any political party in this election season, but I begin to question the wisdom of my plan to write him in on a ballot where it almost certainly would go unnoticed. The thought of writing "This ballot intentionally left blank" as a protest and a show that I reject the government´s rule over me and no longer consent to be part of the system seemed an even better alternative, but the ballot is anonymous and so I must wonder if it would really accomplish anything at all except maybe give some bureaucrat a good laugh. This left me to re-examine the choices I had left.
I explained my impressions of other third party candidates in an earlier article and promised I´d dedicate an article to Chuck Baldwin. This is mainly because of the pro Chuck Baldwin emails I received after I wrote the first article. Many of his supporters were adamant that he is a strict constitutionalist, but I had my reservations. I was under the impression that he advocated government intrusions into our bedrooms. I was under the impression that he was in favor of federal laws that would try to moderate personal behavior. Perhaps this was due to his being a pastor of a Baptist church. Perhaps it was due to the Constitution Party´s platform. In any case, I was shown that my impressions were mistaken.
There were a couple particular Chuck Baldwin supporters who wrote me very articulate and persuasive emails. They were very polite in asking me to explain in greater detail my misgivings and then in responding to explain their positions and point out my misconceptions. I told one respondent that I felt he was a good writer and that he should publish his point of view in an online publication or blog. Mr. Baldwin has been largely ignored by the mainstream media and his campaign just hasn´t attracted the type of attention Ron Paul´s campaign managed. I believe this is because Ron Paul is a part of the establishment, like it or not, although the establishment does everything it can to keep his voice from being heard. Mr. Baldwin, like all third party candidates, faces an unfair system geared toward keeping the powerful establishment in power and a biased media geared toward doing its best to silence any other significant points of view. This, in my humble opinion, is the sad truth of our modern political process.
Politics is a dirty business. I don´t know if this has always been true, but it´s certainly been true for much of mankind´s written history. It attracts people of questionable character. It attracts those who wish to wield power over others. This is just the nature of the beast. That is one reason I find it difficult to trust anyone involved in politics. It is easy to smear a candidate. It is easy to accuse him of being crazy, a theocrat, a neocon, a bigot, an extremist of some sort or any number of undesirable things and many people will hear such accusations and believe them without question. I am not beyond such failings, for I am as human as anyone else. Ron Paul had to overcome such obstacles in his run and did an excellent job of it when he was given the opportunity. It is difficult to overcome such labels if one is never given the opportunity to explain one´s positions to a large audience. Third party candidates will not get the chance to participate in debates with Obama and McCain, will not get news coverage every time they open their mouths to speak like the two establishment candidates and will not get the exposure the establishment puppets have the privilege of receiving. This is not only unfair and unfortunate, but it also leaves voters believing they have to choose between two undesirable choices, to put it nicely.
I had a correspondence with a woman named Teri Owens. She is the State Secretary for the Constitution Party of Ohio. She was quite polite and I felt honored that she respected my opinion enough to make the effort to change it. I told her specifically that I had thought Mr. Baldwin supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman and that he wanted to ban stem cell research in the United States. I pointed to Mr. Baldwin´s own campaign website as evidence of this. She assured me that he wasn´t for such an amendment and pointed me to a quote of his where he spoke against the constitutional amendment. She also pointed out that he was simply against funding stem cell research with federal dollars (something I agree with) not against the private sector pursuing such research and using their own money to do so.
I answered Ms. Owens´ email with a request for links to videos and articles to help clarify Mr. Baldwin´s positions. I also asked her what his position was on the war on drugs as I had heard he was a big drug warrior. More specifically, I asked her about his position on medical marijuana. Ms. Owens happily provided these. Here are some excerpts from her email:
"Here is what Chuck has to say about the "drug war":
"I believe that as president, I would have the responsibility to keep drugs from crossing the borders, and I would do ever[y]thing in my power to keep drugs out of America. Once they come into the country, drug enforcement falls under the rubric of law enforcement, and the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government for domestic law enforcement. That is the responsibility of the state and local communities. So I believe that the drug war has been used by the federal government many times excessively, to the point where individual rights have been abridged and abrogated. I think the propensity for overreach is too great."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/351
(Author´s note: This means he would do away with the DEA, which is an improvement to what the two "major" party candidates would do, as they would do nothing)
With Regard to Medical Marijuana
This also falls within the jurisdiction of the states and you can see from his response that he recognizes the limitations of the Federal government. Here is a clip:
"I think that's a states' issue. I don't think the federal government should have anything to do with that...I think those are states issues and I respect that."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaZ2retiNdk
"The federal government has no Constitutional provision to regulate or restrict the freedom of the people to have access to medical care, supplies or treatments. We advocate, therefore, the elimination of the federal Food and Drug Administration, as it has been the federal agency primarily responsible for prohibiting beneficial products, treatments, and technologies here in the United States that are freely available in much of the rest of the civilized world."
http://2008election.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=1692
With Regard to Marriage:
In the same interview with The New American Magazine referenced above, Chuck Baldwin states:
"I support DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act."
The Defense of Marriage Act used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a "same sex" marriage license issued in another state. The other side of that coin is that if a state chooses to recognize same sex marriage, Baldwin admits there is nothing that he, as President or the Federal government in general is "Constitutionally" permitted to do about it.
"If a federal Marriage Amendment was enacted all that would do would [be to] authorize the Supreme Court to meddle with it, and by the time the Supreme Court would be done with it, it could be something far more monstrous than what the pro-life and pro-family people would want. I don't think that's a good idea. I don't think that's a necessary approach."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
With Regard to Embryonic Stem Cell Research
"Only those duties, functions, and programs specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution should be funded. We call upon Congress and the President to stop all federal expenditures which are not specifically authorized by the U. S. Constitution, and to restore to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has usurped." " (end quote)
One of the wonderful things about Ron Paul´s presidential campaign was his ability to spread the message of liberty to so many. He was already a popular congressman in Texas and already had a reputation on capital hill being known as "Dr. No." He had a twenty year voting record under his belt and so his supporters could be certain he meant what he said. He was able to get into the debates and grappled with the establishment candidates extremely well. The common folk of this country came to know and support him because he was genuine, not because he made promises to them or tried to make them feel good. He didn´t pretend to be their savior. He simply remained honest and delivered the same message he had delivered for decades. And the Republicans rebuked him for that. Mr. Chuck Baldwin does not have that luxury. He has no voting record for us to look at. I looked at the Constitution Party´s platform and made some assumptions about him, but that was not fair. He doesn´t necessarily agree with the Constitution Party´s platform on all issues. Certainly Ron Paul didn´t agree on the Republican Party´s platform on all issues and I didn´t judge him because he is a Republican. I now chose to show the same courtesy to Mr. Baldwin. In some spots his stances might not be clear, and I believe that some of his words are carefully chosen to obfuscate in order to attract the maximum amount of voters, but that is the nature of politics. If one is willing to forgive these minor transgressions than certainly one would consider voting for Mr. Baldwin. Ron Paul has now endorsed him, and that certainly has a lot of pull in my book. One thing is definite, Chuck Baldwin is a superior choice to either Barack Obama or John McCain, or for that matter any of the socialist third party candidates we are presented with.
I´m still uncertain as to exactly what I will do when it comes to voting this November. As I´ve been shown these last couple of weeks, there´s always room to reconsider if one is willing. This world is in constant flux and one never knows what information may be revealed in the next few weeks. For right now, Chuck Baldwin is high on my list of possibilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)