Ron Paul and Chocolate Ice Cream

This article was originally published on Dec. 26th, 2007 at americanchronicle.com

The other day I sat down to my computer with a big bowl of chocolate ice cream to catch up on the latest Ron Paul news. He had received 6.3 million dollars in contributions from over 50,000 donors in one day. This was huge news. Since that time the mainstream media has found it hard to ignore Ron Paul. He has been reported on more than ever. The word is spreading even to those who do not use the Internet. He was given an entire hour on Glen Beck’s show. He was interviewed by Tim Russert on Meet the Press. There are some who would say that the media has played some dirty tricks on Ron Paul to minimize his impact and to try to make him look like he’s still not a viable candidate, but any kind of media exposure this big is bound to be good. Unlike other politicians who can get on these media programs and show just how disingenuous they are (i.e. saying things like “I never inhaled”), Ron Paul always comes across as honest and the genuine article simply because he is and he’s not afraid to say what he feels even though it might not be a popular opinion and might cost him votes. No matter how hard these media talking heads try to attack his stances, the message he delivers is powerful and it breaks through the muck.

You know, as I look through some of these articles and watch some of these videos, I’m really enjoying my ice cream. I love chocolate ice cream. I realize I’m a little overweight. My kids remind me of that all the time. Yeah, I know ice cream isn’t real good for me. I probably should be watching my diet a little better. I know I should exercise more, but there’s so little time in the day. Maybe I could find a healthier frozen confection. I do like frozen fruit bars, but there’s just something about ice cream. Chocolate ice cream is my favorite. It’s just so darn creamy and tasty. It’s such a treat to eat while I’m catching up on current events.

Glen Beck likes to claim he’s a libertarian. I just don’t know about that. I personally don’t see how anyone can be a libertarian and support the war in Iraq. One of the main tenets, if not the main one, of libertarianism is no initiation of force. Iraq is a preemptive war, not one of defense. This is especially true after the lies that got us into the war were exposed. But, if Mr. Beck wants to consider himself a libertarian, I suppose that’s ok. He does, after all, agree with Ron Paul that the government needs to be much smaller. He also gave Ron Paul a fair interview, in my opinion. I saw the scrolling “Paul is dead” quote and heard the various concerns about it, and while I feel it was disturbing to notice something that could be taken as an attempt at some sort of subliminal message, I’m not so sure that such a big deal should be made of it. There is the possibility that such a thing was put there just to illicit a reaction so that the media could point at those Ron Paul supporters who would mention it and accuse them of being “paranoid conspiracy theorists.” Mr. Beck did, after all, mention that Ron Paul supporters had threatened him so even this self proclaimed libertarian seems to be trying to paint Ron Paul supporters as crazy. Can he even be sure that the threats came from actual Ron Paul supporters, or did they just say they were Ron Paul supporters? In any case, Ron Paul did quite a job at delivering the message of freedom to Mr. Beck’s audience and I’m certain such exposure is helping his name recognition.

This chocolate ice cream is great. I wonder if maybe I’m addicted to it. As I eat it, I wonder about my health. Healthcare is on the minds of many Americans these days. I know many of the presidential candidates have come out with their healthcare plans. Hillary Clinton is especially concerned with healthcare. I seem to remember that she was trying to sell government healthcare to the American people when her husband was in office. It seems that all the candidates have some sort of plan for healthcare that they would like to implement if they were elected president. They’re all trying to make it an issue. It’s strange that Ron Paul, who is a doctor, isn’t asked about his plan more often. Perhaps because he would like to remove the government from healthcare and let the people, their doctors and the market decide what should be done with healthcare in this nation. All those other candidates seem to think that government should be able to dictate to everyone what their healthcare should be like. They probably realize that chocolate ice cream isn’t good for someone overweight like I am. I doubt that they would ever prohibit the sale of ice cream, though. I mean, just because they would be paying for my healthcare and they’re control freaks doesn’t mean they’d ever be able to dictate to me what my diet should be or anything like that. It’s not like they’re collecting biometric data or anything. It’s not like they’ve collected any medical data on us or passed any medical data laws like HIPPA lately. It’s not like there’d be anywhere in the country where foods like foie gras would be banned. No, to believe that the government would ever infringe upon our freedoms so much as to mandate what we can and can’t eat is just paranoid.

Tim Russert on Meet the Press was much harsher with Ron Paul than Glen Beck was. He seemed to be harping on insignificant issues that occurred in Ron Paul’s past. The questions about the earmarks were particularly bothersome since every congressman partakes in such practices. That doesn’t mean that I approve of the practice, but it is a congressman’s job to represent his district. There’s something slightly distasteful about holding someone’s feet to the fire over something that all his colleagues do and not holding their feet to the fire over the practice as well, and this is especially so when they are doing so because the person being questioned has a reputation of being more principled than the others. It seems to me that Ron Paul’s reputation of being the most principled man in congress and his voting record excuses him of some minor earmarks for his district. He should be given that as he should be given a little wiggle room for his not running as a third party candidate stance. It was a little more difficult for Ron Paul to deliver his message with Mr. Russert interviewing him, but I think he did a good job delivering it once again. He got to mention our recent loss of freedoms, privacy and government intrusion with laws like the Patriot Act taking effect and how his message is resonating with the people of this nation as they become more and more fed up with such abuses of power. As for Mr. Russert’s parting remark, I doubt he meant anything nefarious by it. I often tell people as they are leaving my home to drive safely or to be safe, that doesn’t mean that I am warning them or predicting that something bad will happen to them. It is a simple form of wishing one well as he departs.

That was some good ice cream. I’m glad I live in a country where they still allow me to eat what I please, even though I am overweight. I most certainly hope I will have the freedom to enjoy such treats whenever I want for the rest of my life. I also hope I’ll be able to continue to express my opinion as I see fit without having to worry about going to dissident prison or ending up on some kind of government list, like a no fly list or something. I know I need to exercise more, perhaps in the new year. I mean, after all, except for that small problem I’m a very healthy man. I think I’ll have another bowl. I should be going now, someone’s pounding on my front door. At least I know that, for now, it isn’t the chocolate ice cream – Internet dissident police.

The Will to Be Free, the Strength to Live in Liberty

This article was originally published on Dec. 23rd, 2007 at americanchronicle.com

People are not born free. They are born into a system. These systems are called communities. These communities are usually made up of many smaller units known as families. It is within this unit where most of us are able to exercise the most control. It is within this unit where most will find the most comfort. It is within this unit that most will feel the most security. Within the larger units of community the individual can still exert quite a bit of power, but it takes a little more effort. At this level, friends and neighbors become important. If you are known as a good person, a person whose words and deeds are principled and honest, that should be honored. These are the people that local communities should turn to for advice and leadership. If a person has gained a reputation for dishonest, unprincipled behavior that person should be shunned. Lies should be exposed and breach of trust revealed. These sorts of behaviors should not be tolerated and people who engage in them should be removed from the good graces of community and encouraged to change. When honesty and principle are rewarded the individual is motivated to become honest and principled. This should be maintained to the highest level of national government. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case in today’s United States of America.

In a free society, we need to maintain our freedoms. It has been said that the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. It seems that perhaps we have not been so vigilant. Part of vigilance is to hold tightly to one’s free will, to not entrust our will to another. Yet we have not done this. We have trusted our will to liars. We have trusted our will to crooks. We have trusted our will to those who abuse the powers we grant them. We must reclaim our will if we are to hold those with whom we entrusted the power to represent responsible when they fail to exercise that will. To reclaim our will, we must entrust it with other, more reliable and principled individuals and with ourselves. As a free society, we need to keep a closer eye on our representatives and make sure they are held accountable when the people’s will is ignored, not just trust that they will do the right thing.

When one becomes an adult, he must exercise his will if he wishes to live as a free man. He must make the decisions that affect his life. He must exercise self reliance. He may choose to allow another to make some decisions for him, but as long as he does so voluntarily that’s ok. When another forces one to accept decisions without consulting him, when another person or group of persons remove one’s ability to decide for himself through coercion or threat of force, than one is experiencing a circumstance akin to slavery. When government becomes overbearing and invasive, when it decides to legislate laws contrary to its own rules, the people must stand up for themselves and let those in power know that bullying is not acceptable. Otherwise, we have lost our will to be free. We cannot let fear control our judgment. We mustn’t lull ourselves into the false sense of security that the nanny state offers. The best way to insure our security is to demand openness and accountability in government. No nation is as safe as the nation so seeped in liberty as to hold no secrets.

In 1989 the people of East Germany showed the world what it meant to have the will to be free. The wall came down. The same year a brave young man faced down a column of tanks in Tiananmen square. He showed the world what it meant to have the will to be free and even though the Chinese government murdered thousands at that time and arrested thousands more, who’s to say how many lives he may have saved and what effect his small action had on those in command of the situation? A couple of years later the will of the soviet people was shown as that empire collapsed and many countries realized their independence. These are examples of countries who realized the tyranny they lived under decided to exercise their will to gain their freedom. Yet, as time has passed, we in the supposed freest nation on earth have allowed our own freedoms to be eroded and our constitution to be compromised. Do we need those who have lived under authoritative states to remind us what it takes to be free? We do not yet need to take such drastic actions to be free, and if we play our cards right we never will have to. We simply need to show that we do care. We need to show the establishment that we are paying attention. Electing Ron Paul, champion of the Constitution, for president would go a long way in showing those in power that the people are serious about protecting their God given rights. Electing him and other representatives that share his views would go further.

But showing the will to be free is not enough. We must have the strength to maintain that liberty. For decades we have been apathetic and ignored the warning signs of our impending slide toward collectivism. We did not pay attention as the government grew. We ignored them as they crept deeper and deeper into our everyday lives. We let them get away with crimes too numerous to list, both large and small, without holding them accountable. We let them bypass the constitution, a document written to limit their power and protect the people, too often without consequence. Now we stand on the brink at a time when one wrong step, one small disaster, one terror attack, could possibly lead us into a tyranny that would make those mentioned above look tame. We must have the strength to resist such a slide. We must have the strength of our convictions to say “Enough! We will no longer allow such abuses of our liberties.” If we are to live in liberty, we must be able to stand up to those who would try to frighten us and tell them we are not afraid. We must let them know that we can take care of ourselves and run our own lives. We must let them know that we do not wish to be taken care of any longer. And we must let them know that we will only accept people of honor, honesty, and integrity to lead this nation and represent our interests. When we can do this we will not only be able to live in liberty, but we will have given the rest of the world an example to follow, for history shows that out of freedom and liberty will come prosperity, but out of fear, greed and brutality will come only the ruins of a fallen empire.

The Best Christmas Gifts

This article was originally published on Dec. 19th, 2007 at americanchronicle.com and uncoverthenews.com.

I love stuff. I’ve always loved stuff. I would go as far as to say that I love more than just stuff, I love junk. I love cheap plastic junk that breaks easily and does neat stuff. I’ve loved cheap plastic junk that breaks easily and does neat stuff ever since I was a kid, before it was all made in China. If it was possible, I would probably have the biggest collection of cheap plastic junk that breaks easily and does neat stuff in the world and most of it would probably be broken from being played with too much. When I was a kid I used to spend quite a bit of my money on cheap plastic junk that did neat stuff and broke easily and ended up in the garbage. Nowadays, of course, I can’t really afford to buy cheap plastic junk that breaks easily and does neat stuff simply because I don’t have that kind of disposable income. I need to spend my money on more important things, like food. It’s also nice to have heat this time of year and the company that supplies natural gas seems to want money to deliver it. The same is true of the company that sends electrons down the wires which are utilized by my computer to help me write these articles and deliver them to the Internet. When I get my own place I’d love to be able to supply my own electricity and heat using solar and wind power and stop making monthly payments, but I digress. The point is that right now the acquisition of cheap plastic junk that does neat stuff is very low on my priority list. Even though everything I’ve said so far is true, cheap plastic junk that does neat stuff, or even expensive plastic junk that does really neat stuff, does not make my list of the best Christmas gifts.

When I was a kid, I collected little metal cars called “Hot Wheels.” One Christmas, I asked for a specific "Hot Wheels" racing set and had my heart set on receiving it. Now, I came from a large family, so Santa Claus had to spend a great deal of money to supply us with presents. Of course, this hardly occurred to me when I was a child. I only knew that year after year I had received whatever I asked for from this wonderful and magical stranger, though by this time I was beginning to notice that my parents would act quite oddly at this time of year and spent much more time than usual out shopping. Anyway, to make a long story short, and I’m quite certain that I could embellish this story to rival the movie “A Christmas Story,” but then it wouldn’t quite be factual, but to make a long story short I was quite excited that Christmas morning. I scanned the room and did not see a present for me that was large enough to be the “Hot Wheels” racing set I had asked for. I ripped into my other presents and I probably gave them the proper appreciation, but it was beginning to look like Santa had not brought me the present I had most wanted. I was beginning to panic. Then my mom came down the stairs with a large present. I hadn’t even noticed that she had left the room. She explained that Santa must have accidentally left it in her room. It was for me.

Now I was excited. My heart pounded. I rushed to her. She handed me the present. I tore into the wrapping paper. Before it fell to the ground, before I could tear it all off, my heart sank. I couldn’t believe my eyes. I hadn’t gotten the “Hot Wheels” racing set I had asked for. I had, instead, received the dreaded “Johnny Lightning” racing set. I felt betrayed. How could this have happened? I wanted nothing more at that moment than to be left alone. I ran out of the room screaming something about how much I hated “Johnny Lightning.”

Now, just so everyone’s understanding is complete, this was not just some random reaction. My best friend and I at the time would often get into deep discussions about the virtues of “Hot Wheels” as opposed to the failings of “Johnny Lightning.” If my memory serves me, I believe much of the discussion revolved around the superiority of the “Hot Wheels” power source (the little houses that the cars would pass through had two battery operated rubber wheels that would spin and shoot the cars through) versus the inferior power source of the “Johnny Lightning” (which was a hand operated lever that moved a catch sticking up through a slot which would sling the car up a ramp). I seem to recall that the “Johnny Lightning” cars were also proprietary in that they had a little tab on the bottom so the catch in the track could sling them and this made it a little more difficult to remove the cars from the track and free play on the floor with them, but I could be wrong about that. In any case, my best friend and I had decided long before this happened that we both loved “Hot Wheels” and hated “Johnny Lightning” and we vowed we would only ever own and play with “Hot Wheels.” We both had quite large car collections we were very proud of. How could Santa, who was supposed to be able to see into the heart of a child and know his true desires, how could he have done something so heinous as to bring me the hated “Johnny Lightning” racing set?

So, that was not a good Christmas. The “Johnny Lightning” racing set is also not on my list of the best Christmas gifts. I did learn something on that day, however. I went through a whole range of emotion, from anger and profound disappointment, to realizations that maybe a child that young shouldn’t have to come to. For one thing, I did notice how bad my parents seemed to feel that Santa had not been able to bring the proper car racing set to me. It seems that Santa could be a victim of consumer demand as much as anyone, and I wasn’t the only kid that had wanted the “Hot Wheels” racing set that year. It was in high demand and by the time Santa had gotten around to shopping for my gift, the stores had run out of stock. All that was left were “Johnny Lightning” racing sets as they were not so much in demand, and Santa had decided that something for me was better than nothing. Of course, this was a hard concept for a child to wrap his mind around, especially one that had been so disappointed. My father did let me know in no uncertain terms, however, that I was lucky to receive anything for Christmas and that I should appreciate any present I received. He was a brought up during the depression, after all, and had lost his father at a very young age, so he seldom got anything he asked for when he was a child. This was something I took to heart. By the time my father had finished explaining things to me, my brothers had set up the “Johnny Lightning” racing set and were playing with it. I decided to break my vow and play with the “Johnny Lightning” racing set. After all, it seemed to matter a great deal to my father, and everyone else in my family for that matter, that I appreciate the gift.

If you are waiting for a happy ending to this story, it comes three months later. On my birthday, I was determined that I would appreciate whatever presents I received. After the celebration had ended and I had opened all my presents, I still hadn’t received my “Hot Wheels” racing set, but I had learned my lesson well. I was appreciative of the toys I had received and happily playing with them. Then my dad surprised me and brought the “Hot Wheels” racing set out of hiding. When I saw it, I became the happiest kid in the world. I couldn’t thank him enough. I’m sure I got many hours of enjoyment out of that gift, but I have no idea what happened to that toy. In fact, my whole “Hot Wheels” collection disappeared into the mists of time. I would say that a “Hot Wheels” racing set does not make my list of the best Christmas gifts. Material possessions are very transient. You never know what life will throw your way. What I remember most about Christmas gifts is the love and care that the person who gave it wrapped it in. What I have learned to appreciate is the thoughtfulness behind the gift.

Perhaps many of us need to learn to appreciate what we already have. It is easy to take for granted what we already possess as we rush to acquire more stuff. I hate to sound cliché, but sometimes something is cliché because truth can be cliché. So, in my opinion, the best gifts are seldom material. A hug makes a great gift. I’m not talking about a little how-do-you-do hug, I’m talking about a great big so-glad-you’ve-shown-up bear hug. A kiss or some other show of affection from a significant other means so much more than a new watch or wallet. A little bit of intimacy says “I love you” so much more than even the most expensive power tool. A homemade card from a child says so much more than anything that can be purchased at a store. Friendship is also a great gift. Just being there for emotional support is a gift beyond expression. After all, what do we have if not each other? The man who has everything is woeful if he does not know true friendship. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the need for people to express their love for one another by purchasing stuff, but to me the best gifts are those that give the chance for the person to give of himself/herself. Those are the gifts I, at least, appreciate the most.

If, however, anyone out there wishes to give me a gift to show appreciation and they can’t think of a way they can give of themselves, cash is always a good option. Drop me an email and we’ll make arrangements.

A New Direction in Blogging, an Interview With Matt Colebourne of coComment

This article was originally published on Dec. 18th, 2007 at americanchronicle.com and uncoverthenews.com

I believe I can say with relative impunity that the Internet is not just some fad that will soon fade into history. Nor is it any longer the purview of a few geeks interested only in sharing scientific papers and findings. The Internet has become an integral part of our society. It has become a tool for the common man, a means of commerce, education, and entertainment and a portal to a plethora of alternative sources of news and information. In my humble opinion, the advent of the Internet has spurred a new interest in the cause of freedom. Even as we have watched corruption eat away at the grand institutions we have created in this country, even as we have watched the powerful pass laws that violate individual rights contrary to the founding documents that created this great nation of ours, even as these things have come to pass and they have struggled to tighten their grasp of control over us, new hope as sprung eternal. As the mass media gained in influence and sought to convince the populace that all was well in the halls of government, particularly in the last two decades, a counter influence gained momentum. The Internet has come into its own over the past few years, and one of the opportunities it opens up for all is the opportunity to blog.

Blogs have gained in popularity over the past few years. They give the individual a chance to voice his opinion in this world full of opinions. Blogs are the epitome of free speech. They give the moderator a chance to share what he thinks with the rest of the world and meet some like minded people. But blogs can have their own pitfalls. For instance, what to do about those who disagree? Does one let them air that out on one’s blog or do you moderate them into a cyber black hole? Fortunately, the free market always finds a way to innovate and already many entrepreneurs are coming up with products to help those who own blogs and those who participate on them manage their time and efforts better. Recently I had the honor of interviewing Matt Colebourne, CEO of coComment.com and asked him some pertinent questions. Here’s what he had to say on the subject:

Szandor Blestman: The Internet has become a powerful tool in presenting to the public alternative viewpoints. How do you feel coComment helps reinforce that aspect of the Internet?

Matt Colebourne: By making it much easier to participate in conversations and to find the right people with whom to have the conversation.

SB: What features offered by your site are unique to CoComment?

MC: Lots ! Groups, Sharing, Sidebar Browsing and conversations widgets for sites, including Facebook. They're all tools we've built to make it easier to participate in a conversation and easier to share it with others.

SB: In a previous article I wrote, I expressed a displeasure in the banning of certain speech on a blog, yet I respect and understand the right of a privately owned blog to censor any comments deemed inappropriate for whatever reason. How can your service help reconcile these seemingly divergent points of view?

MC: We understand the position; however, as a large, 'meta' layer on the conversation space we don't want to be involved in censoring any comments. Sites using our technology can do so, of course, as that is 'their' space but we are a service and, as such, will only remove illegal content.

SB: Newspapers are losing subscribers and television news is losing viewers. Do you believe this is a result of the diversity of viewpoints on the Internet and the ability for the individual to participate?

MC: Partly; I think that the key issue is interaction … people expect to be able to interact and simple consumption is not sufficient to capture their interest for very long.

SB: Do you believe that corporate media giants report news objectively, completely and honestly?

MC: Sometimes ! It is not really for us to say … we are a neutral service aimed at letting users find conversations and decide for themselves.

SB: Do you believe that the Internet and blogging have or will force the “mainstream” media to change the way they report news?

MC: Yes, most definitely. Of most relevance to us is the rise of interaction, commenting on articles and we see this increasingly in mainstream media today.

SB: Do you believe that the Internet will one day become the predominant source of news? Do you believe that blogging will become more popular as time goes on, or do you think it’s a fad that will reach a plateau and then fade away?

MC: No. The internet is not a source of news, it's a medium for the transmission of information; some good and some bad. News will always come from people writing about it; but they may well start to use the internet more than other traditional channels to reach their audience since the barriers to entry are so much lower. It's much easier to setup your own blog than your own magazine.

As has been the case for millions of years, the times they are a changing. If it seems that time is moving faster now than it has in the past, perhaps that’s because things seem to be changing faster. Survival has always depended on how well one can adapt to the changes. That seems to be true for everything, including media outlets and news sources. One thing I’ve noticed, the free market is always able and willing to innovate and come up with products that consumers demand. coComment and other blogging services are evidence of a shift in how common people are consuming news and information in this modern world.

It’s Not Ron Paul, It’s the Message

This article was originally published on Dec. 3rd, 2007 at americanchronicle.com

When I first started writing these articles back in April 2006, I had no idea where they’d take me. I had a few things to say and when the opportunity presented itself I thought I’d go ahead and say them. I knew my writings were political in nature, but I was also trying to relate my viewpoint to real life experiences. I never really considered myself an activist. I realized our country was heading in a wrong direction and that we were teetering on the edge of something America was never meant to be. I wrote subtle warnings about such things in a way I hoped people could relate to on a personal level. Still, I could not imagine where all this could lead and at times I doubted I was doing much good at all. I certainly never believed I would end up advocating for some Republican presidential candidate.

There was a point in time when people were telling me I should go into politics. I have always been a good diplomat. I’ve often been able to build bridges between people and ideas. I always believed, however, that I would never succeed in the world of politics because I was too honest. I was too principled. You just don’t see too many successful politicians because the nature of our system calls for one to be able to fudge on certain points in order to garner the most votes. I didn’t believe that any honest, principled politician could ever succeed, particularly at the national level. Then I discovered Ron Paul.

I first heard of Ron Paul because of his stance on the Iraq war. He agreed with my point of view, that we should leave as soon as possible. That got my attention. For a brief moment, I thought perhaps he had read one of my articles. I looked into him and found he advocated the same principles that I had advocated all my adult life. On top of that, he seemed to be an honest, principled politician. I have no idea how he had survived in politics as a Republican for so long, but I’m glad he did. You would think that dirty tricks and corrupt politics would have sidelined him long ago as they have sidelined so many promising honest and decent individuals that have tried to stand up for the interests of the common man in the past. Cynthia McKinney comes to mind. It just seems to me that if you’re a politician and you’re not doing what the big money tells you to do, you’re not going to last very long. But none of that seems to matter now. Ron Paul somehow managed to survive all these years and now he’s seizing the spotlight. It’s almost as if providence has put him where he needs to be at the very time our country needs a man like him. He is putting the message out there and the masses are responding to it.

Now, I think Ron Paul does an excellent job of getting the message across. That message is of course the message of freedom, personal responsibility, and smaller government handcuffed by the constitution so that those in charge can’t wantonly violate the rights of individuals they are supposed to be considerate of. This is a message that libertarians of all stripes have espoused since before the bill of rights was utilized to codify these ideas into law. It is a message that has been censored, hidden and removed from public discourse as much as possible during these last few decades, going back perhaps as much as a century, as little by little, bit by bit, the freedoms we hold so dear have eroded away at the hands of a ruling elite. These Democrats and Republicans, this duopoly of power, have in the past passed laws making it difficult for honest, principled third party candidates to run for office. They leave third party candidates out of their debates so the public is denied consistent, well reported access to excellent ideas, the same ideas that helped to found this great nation of ours. We are instead treated to a steady diet of minor issues that should be handled at a state level while major constitutional issues that need to be discussed at the federal level remain unheard. This is why Ron Paul has been so successful, because he can finally bring these issues to the forefront of national consciousness. These ideas he brings to the debate, ideas that his rivals and others in power have for so long sought to silence, are ideas that resonate with the general public. His message is what people are responding to, not the man. The message he espouses of peace, freedom, liberty and the hope that we can once again be a great nation that offers these things to the downtrodden and oppressed of the world is the message that so many of us want to hear. Yes, Ron Paul has an excellent persona and delivers the message expertly and gracefully, but so did Harry Browne and many others. The difference is that not only does Ron Paul have a more visible platform from which to announce the message, but I believe the American people are finally ready to once again pay attention to it.

I hear other candidates, both Republican and Democrats, asking about how Ron Paul does it. How does he garner such support? How does he raise so much money on the Internet? They have tried their own money bombs and they have failed miserably. Barack Obama’s money bomb managed to get just $4600 from 69 donors. They just don’t get it. It’s not Ron Paul, it’s the message. The other candidates are under the impression that running for president is nothing more than some kind of popularity contest. They have deluded themselves into thinking that they need to stand for nothing of substance, that if they can just look good, smile and pretend to be nice that the average American will back them in their campaign for president. They are counting on the apathy of the American people, that the average citizen just doesn’t care and so they can appeal to the special interest groups and curry favors and money from them. But the average American does care. The other candidates are quickly discovering this. The average American simply had not been exposed to Ron Paul’s message before. The “mainstream” media certainly would not have presented it to them. In fact, they were complicit in hiding this message, which has been espoused by others (myself included) who were effectively ignored. It was the Internet that allowed this message to become widely dispersed. It was people like me, who were tired of the lies and deceit practiced by corporate media and politicians over the last few years, who decided to turn to alternative sources to discover what was really going on and rediscovered the message of freedom. These are Ron Paul’s supporters, the disenfranchised who yearn for freedom, average Joes, simple folk, middle class America, those who make the country work. They are giving their money, their time, their hearts and their souls to Ron Paul’s campaign not because of the man, but because they still believe in the message.

The media is still trying to minimize and marginalize Ron Paul. They give him less time in the debates than the other candidates and then they ask him irrelevant questions. What on earth ever possessed CNN/Youtube to allow a question to Ron Paul about conspiracy theories? Who cares what Ron Paul supporters think about such things? I want to hear what Ron Paul has to say about real issues, like taxes, sound money and the Iraq war. Of course, CNN doesn’t want the American public to hear his ideas on those things because they make too much sense and will resonate with the opinions of many. Why weren’t any of the other candidates forced to answer such nonsense? I think Ron Paul handled it rather well, explaining there was a conspiracy of ideologies, of people who believe in world government vs. people who believe in national sovereignty, but it would have been interesting to see if the other candidates would have denied such things existed for fear of losing votes or if they would have had the guts to admit the truth in the face of ridicule. These ploys don’t deter Ron Paul. They don’t shake the support he receives. Why? It’s the message.

Ron Paul detractors continue to try to smear him and his supporters. They continue to try to distract from the real issues by name calling and trash talking. They continue to claim that sound, proven ideas are “crazy” or won’t work in today’s world for whatever reason. One must assume that these people either don’t properly understand the message of peace and freedom, or they have something to gain from war and big government, or they are afraid of losing something should peace break out and freedom regain a foothold, or they simply don’t want people to be free to make their own decisions. Whatever the case may be, Ron Paul detractors aren’t worried so much about him as they are his message. They would vehemently oppose anyone who advocated such a message. These are people that think getting rid big government is a bad idea. They want to be told what to do. They somehow find it comforting to not have to make their own decisions. There’s a good chance that many of them will advocate pre-emptive war. They somehow believe that killing innocents and destroying other countries’ infrastructure will keep us safe and help spread democracy. I have the feeling that many of these people will soon find they have become marginalized and are on the fringe. If you ever get the chance to visit an institution for the mentally unstable you might find many of the insane believe they are sane and the rest of us aren’t.

Ron Paul has a message and we should all listen to it. It’s a message the founders of this country believed in. It’s a message that many believed died long ago. It’s a message that some would just as soon bury. But these are ideas that are inherent to mankind. These are ideas we constantly try to implement no matter the circumstances, no matter the oppression, no matter the punishment for failure. No matter what happens with Ron Paul’s candidacy, no matter what the future may hold, it is most important that we keep broadcasting the message. With hard work and vigilance, we will see Ron Paul as our president, but we should try to remember the importance not of Ron Paul, but of his message.

Acquiring and Keeping Genuine Wealth and Wisdom

This article was originally published on Nov. 27th, 2007 at americanchronicle.com

My parents are elderly. They have been through a lot in their lives. They have seen a great depression, a world war, other smaller wars, an economic boom, a couple of recessions, an oil crisis, an energy crisis, etc., etc., etc. I find too often many people ignore the elderly. They feel that, for whatever reason, they know better than these people. Perhaps that is because many people may feel that times have changed and the experiences of the older folks are not relevant in today’s world. I believe there are parallels to their experiences that still apply in the modern world. In fact, if we pay attention to history, we might find that even way back in the darkness of pre-historic times there are things to be learned from the experiences of our ancestors. In many ways we are the same as they were, only the technology has changed to give us a buffer zone away from the natural world.

So, I was talking to my mother the other day. She has become interested in my writing and related to me some experiences in her life she thought might interest me and my readers. What she told me gave me food for thought. It was nothing terribly profound or earth shattering, but then again the important things seldom are. It does make one think about the validity of some libertarian ideals.

My parents were married in 1950. At that time, my father made a grand total of $2350 per year. My oldest brother was born in 1951. My mother informed me that at the time they paid $50 per month rent. The doctor’s bill for delivering the baby was $50. The hospital bill for a five day stay was $50. The reason for these low bills was simple. Everyone of consequence, the hospital administrators, the doctor and the landlord, knew my parents. They were aware of their financial situation. My parents had no insurance at the time. These people took this into account and used the personal responsibility bestowed upon them by nature to decide to charge my parents only as much as they could afford to pay. Because these people were able to exercise their personal responsibility, they had concern for their fellow human beings. Today the hospital can bill the state if the patient has no insurance and will therefore charge all of us for that patient’s care. When a patient has insurance they charge the insurance companies as much as they can. They don’t have to be concerned about the individual’s ability to pay. They have abdicated their personal responsibility and heaped it on the shoulders of the general public.

Fifty seven years ago the world was different. I’m not saying it was better or worse, just different. Along the way things seem to change gradually, yet compared to history things have changed rather suddenly. There are some things we may have forgotten. It seems to me that one of those things may be the nature of genuine wealth.

Today, wealth is measured by the money one makes. Yet money is only a means to an end. I believe money is simple riches. Genuine wealth comes from the inside, from the heart. It is created. There is not a static amount of wealth sitting upon the world for mankind to divvy up. This is what we have forgotten. The more work we do, the more wealth we create. The economy isn’t made from money, that’s just a choice we make as to what to use to represent trade between parties. The economy is made of humans. We are the economy. We may do well to remember this in the future if push comes to shove. What we make or build, or the services we provide, or the art we create, this is genuine wealth. To acquire such wealth, we just need to produce it.

There are a couple of concepts I believe we as Americans should get away from if we are to acquire true wealth. The first is that wealth is owed to us, that the world owes us something. The world owes nothing to any individual. It is up to the individual to best make his own way in this life. Often, a person, like electricity, will follow the path of least resistance. Some, if they can do nothing and survive, will do nothing. This does not contribute to society. People may at times need help and in a civilized society that help should be forthcoming, one should not, however, be forced through government or other means to provide that help. On the other hand, we need to get away from this concept that we must give for the betterment of society. We shouldn’t be forced to give any part of the wealth we’ve created through our own hard labor. We should be allowed to keep all the wealth we make honestly and to decide on a voluntary basis who to give it to in exchange for the goods and services we consume. If there is wealth left over after one’s needs are met, then he can decide for himself whether or not to be charitable.

Genuine wealth is created between people, not between institutions. It is something that cannot be taken away because it comes from inside ourselves, not from some bank or government outside our control. These institutions may loan or give us money, but they take wealth. They steal it from those who would crawl to them and beg for help to get out of some temporary fix they imagine themselves into. They would loan you their fictitious money created from nothing, already based solely on someone else’s debt, and then steal your land, or your labor, or your product, or any property you may own when you find you can’t pay back the money due to some unfortunate circumstance, or when you can’t afford the taxes, or when you voice your dissent and try to protest the system. It is up to us to decide to cooperate with each other if we are to overcome those who would try to confiscate our real wealth.

Genuine wisdom is more than just knowledge. It is knowledge combined with action, hopefully in such a way so as one’s goals are achieved. One can have all the knowledge in the world and it would do him no good if he refuses to act on it. If the goal is to elevate the wealth of all of mankind, if the goal is for everyone to at least have the chance to live together in peace and harmony, and to live well under such conditions, then we had better start acting upon the knowledge we have, for we are slipping. It would be a start if we decided to use something provided by nature to represent our labor and our creations, something solid to replace the “money” we use today. Gold and silver have always been best for this, but there are other precious metals, some more abundant than others, that can be used. We should then keep an eye on those who would store our treasure to make sure they do not loan us our own money and then charge us interest. Lastly, we should not destroy the wealth of others in lands far from our own because we fear they might do something bad to us. We should bring our troops home to protect the treasures we have here. We should let those in foreign lands keep their own treasures and trade with them in an honest and fair manner. Do these things and we will acquire genuine wealth and wisdom, as once upon a time our country’s founders demonstrated. Establish these practices and then protect them from the corruption that has crept into our political system over the past several decades and we will be able to keep what we have earned.

Ron Paul’s “Crazy” Supporters and Other Nonsense

This article was originally posted on Nov. 21st, 2007 at americanchronicle.com

It can be said that the English language is a living language. This is because as time goes on the language changes. Words come to mean different things. Sometimes the same word can mean one thing to some people and quite another to a different group. This is especially true of legalese, but I won’t go into that now. As a student of the English language, this facet of its growth often fascinates me. It’s amazing how the meanings of words mutate over time. I can think of several words whose meanings are wholly different than they were about fifty years ago. Gay is a prime example, but there are others.

Most recently the word crazy seems to have seriously changed its meaning. It used to mean insanity, but to many political pundits it seems to mean anyone who disagrees with their political ideology. Now, I realize there are many other definitions for crazy, some which are positive, but when these talking heads on TV or these political pundits writing for major newspapers and magazines use this word, it seldom seems to connote a positive meaning in context. No, when these people use this word they most often seem to mean insane, not enthusiastic, devoted or excited. If confronted, they would probably claim to mean these things, but we know different. Who do they think they’re fooling? Well, they’re fooling the few who are still trapped watching TV news and reading corporate newspapers, those who are unable or unwilling to seek alternative sources to get another point of view, and those who are unable or unwilling to digest an alternative point of view and use critical thinking to come to their own conclusions. There are some people out there who continue to believe that all Ron Paul supporters are insane. A good way to combat this phenomenon is to tell people who know you are sane that you are a Ron Paul supporter. In fact, the more Ron Paul supporters one meets, the more one realizes the vast majority of them are some of the sanest people on the face of the planet. In this way, those on the fence will come to realize the propaganda being spread by some in the “mainstream” media for what it is.

Yet as if this wasn’t enough, now Ron Paul supporters have been called terrorists by some media personalities. Terrorist is not a word that has changed its meaning, but it is a word that is often misused. A terrorist is someone who engages in terrorism. Terrorism is the use or threatened use of violence with the intention of coercing or intimidating societies or governments, often for political purposes. To this point, I am unaware of any use or threatened use of violence from any Ron Paul supporter as an attempt to get Ron Paul elected. I would venture a guess that 99.999999% of all Ron Paul supporters realize how futile such a gesture would be. I have seen, however, the threat of the use of force leveled against Ron Paul supporters, dissenters, anti-war protestors, and other activists. There are a few commentators on some “mainstream” media venues that repeatedly call for the force of the state to be brought against these people. There have been many calls for violence to be used against such civil disobedience. They often do this as they advocate nationalism and adherence to the latest mantra of the state. This has been particularly true lately as more and more people find the message of freedom and gravitate toward agreement with those who have in the past been labeled “fringe.” It seems that perhaps the “mainstream” media is not so mainstream anymore. It’s almost as if these commentators can see their audience exiting the theater to check out some different act and so they start shouting and name calling in an attempt to keep the audience placated. They also seem to believe that demanding the government adhere to the mandates spelled out in the constitution is somehow threatening behavior.

We might all do well to remember the reason our country’s founders penned the constitution in the first place. Its purpose was to protect the people from the government. The people who came to America were people trying to escape tyranny. They were tired of innocent people being lumped together and punished alongside those who may have advocated violence against the government. They were tired of innocents being tortured because of their religious or political views and being forced into false confessions. They were tired of being told what to think. They were tired of being told to shut up, that the king or others in power knew better than they did. They were tired of not having a voice in government. They were pretty much sick and tired of the corrupt governments that had metastasized upon the European continent. The failings of monarchal rule were fresh in the minds of the founding fathers when they wrote the constitution. This more than likely weighed in when they decided to include the bill of rights. It seems we have come full circle. As laws are passed to try to circumvent articles of the bill of rights our very own government begins to look more and more like the tyrannical monarchies our ancestors fled. If some emergency befalls our great nation and the constitutional system collapses, we will not have a new world to flee to. It behooves us, therefore, to do our best to shore up our constitution as best we can, to make certain that power does not get too centralized to the point where a very few can do whatever they please without being held accountable. I don’t believe we’ve reached that point yet, though we are close.

Supporters of Ron Paul are excited because they believe they can realize a peaceful path to change and a way to restore faith in the constitution and balance to the nation. They realize that violence and force are part of the problem, not the solution. The Ron Paul revolution catch phrase emphasizes love found in the word rEVOLution. It is disingenuous to call his supporters crazy. It is unfair to label them as terrorists. I would never stoop to calling those in the media names or suggesting that they don’t know what they’re talking about. In fact, I believe just the opposite. I believe those in the media who are trying to discredit Ron Paul and his supporters are quite intelligent and well informed. I know they are quite well paid, unlike folks like me, and it is their job (or at least is should be) to make themselves informed. This makes their motives seem quite nefarious when they decide to engage in activities such as name calling and shouting out for state sanctioned violence against Ron Paul supporters and others.

Ron Paul’s message of freedom, peace, sound money, personal responsibility and smaller government resonates with a diverse spectrum of Americans. He will of course attract some questionable characters, as will all the presidential candidates. It is unfair to paint all his supporters with the same brush, especially when most are just average Americans. Ron Paul supporters, for the most part, have no personal monetary interests in supporting him. Can those highly paid professionals in the media who dispute his ideas and deride his supporters say the same? Who provides their salaries? Perhaps the same corporate interests that donate money to and lobby nearly all the other candidates? It makes one wonder who these pundits owe their loyalties to. It will be interesting to see how things play out as more and more average Americans find Ron Paul’s message and decide to support him morally and financially. It will be just as interesting to see how many words have completely different meanings by the end of this election cycle.