Truth Is Scarier Than Fiction

When Marco Rubio campaigned for a seat in the US Senate, he promised he was against amnesty. He never kept that promise. He also stated that ObamaCare should be repealed, the people are still awaiting the bill to be entered that begins that. Senators like him is the reason why we have dysfunctional and anti-constitutional justices in the US Supreme Court – because it is the Senate that confirms their appointments. Apparently there isn’t any real guideline or litmus test for choosing justices and judges. He lost support of Hannity and Beck, and people who interviewed his father described his long road to becoming a legal American and his successful attempt to get away from Castro’s power. It was a way to show that Americans welcome legal immigrants, because most citizens’ ancestry came here from somewhere else; and those that did not are the First Americans. Bill Whittle – discusses the wrongful allegations against the Tea Party movement ….

Is Rush Limbaugh Finally Awakening with Other Americans?

I write about Americans awakening to see that the problem with OUR government is not just one political party/entity and our duty to let other Americans see for themselves what is truly happening.

Rush Limbaugh in the past constantly was on the prowl against Democrat Party member wrongdoing, and rightly so; however, he did not address the problems with GW Bush and GOP members on Capitol Hill. Well, maybe Limbaugh is one that has awakened in his latest commentary.

Greg Richter freelance writer at NewsMax wrote on July 3^rd:

The Republican Party made a huge mistake not embracing the tea party in 2010, and it cost them in 2012, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said on his show Wednesday. But Limbaugh predicts another huge tea party turnout in the 2014 midterm elections. The reason: There’s no single candidate on the ballot to take them sit home – and the things that angered them in 2010 have gotten worse.

Heeding the Warning Signs

This essay represents what I call “brain food”, a presentation that asks questions and makes points, but ultimately it is a brain exercise for fellow citizens who have fallen under the spell of indoctrination by those who have gained power over our constitutional republic. It is an exercise of common sense and self-education.

During the course of the history of our government there have been those whose original purpose was not inherently evil when it comes to their elected tasks; they just did not stick to tried and proven principles – US Constitution and Bill of Rights – but instead thought they came up with a better mousetrap. This movement did not truly become evil until those organizing this assault upon rights and liberties Of the People became systematic and with a long-term agenda used by Marxists like Lenin and Stalin. That agenda was to place government in a powerful position, operated by a selected elite, in order to control the people. They craftily started with the federal education program taking advantage of that entity’s control over what is taught to children of the United States, slowly eroding those principles that made our nation so great in so many ways. The gist of that greatness, inspiration and fortitude, is because of the People, not the minority of self-esteemed elites who believe they can control other people’s lives for their own good.

New Year 2013: Message to Congress from Ron Paul

A New Year message from Ron Paul to Congress …

As I prepare to retire from Congress I’d like to suggest a few New Year’s resolutions for my colleagues to consider. For the sake of liberty, peace and prosperity I certainly hope more members of Congress consider the strict libertarian-constitutional approach to government in 2013. In just a few days, Congress will solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They should read Article 1 Section 8 and the Bill of Rights before taking such a serious oath. Most legislation violates key provisions of the Constitution in very basic ways, and if members can’t bring themselves to say “no” in the face of pressure from the special interests, they have broken trust with their constituents and violated their oath. Congress does not exist to serve the special interests. It exists to protect the rule of law.

I also urge my colleagues to end unconstitutional wars overseas. Stop the drone strikes. Stop the covert activities and the meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. Strive to observe good faith and justice towards all nations, as George Washington admonished. We are only making more enemies, wasting lives and bankrupting ourselves with the neoconservative interventionist mindset that endorses preemptive war that now dominates both parties. All foreign aid should end, which is blatantly unconstitutional. While it may be a relatively small part of our federal budget, for many countries it is a large part of theirs and it creates perverse incentives for both our friends and enemies. There is no way members of Congress can know or understand the political, economic, legal and social realities in the many nations to which they send taxpayers’ dollars.
Congress needs to stop accumulating more debt. U.S. debt monetized by the Federal Reserve is the true threat to our national security. Revisiting the parameters of Article 1 Section 8 would be a good start. Congress should resolve to respect personal liberty and free markets. Learn more about the free market and how it regulates commerce and produces greater prosperity ever than any legislation or regulation. Understand that economic freedom is freedom. Resolve not to get in the way of voluntary contracts between consenting adults. Stop bailing out failed yet politically connected companies and industries. Stop forcing people to engage in commerce when they don’t want to, and stop prohibiting them from buying and selling when they want to. Stop trying to legislate your ideas of fairness. Protect property rights. Protect the individual. That is enough.
There are many more resolutions I would like to see my colleagues in Congress adopt, but respect for the Constitution and the oath of office should be at the core of every single member’s of Congress due in 2013.

Video

Alex Jones: Video Tribute to Farewell Address of Ron Paul

I wanted to share an annotated version of Farewell Address of Ron Paul to Congress and the American People, produced by InfoWars, presented by Alex Jones. It is a well done tribute to Ron Paul who served his political office with the Constitution and the American people in mind – not big business, elite factions of political clubs, or whatever. Most of what he predicted since 1984 has come full circle, yet he is still made to look the radical and the fool, by the media, Democrat-Progressives, and even the establishment elite within the Republican Party whose founding was based on the principles of what Ron Paul has advocated all his political career.

Without further ado, here is the InfoWars tribute video by Alex Jones to Ron Paul and his Farewell Address to Congress and the American People. …

God bless Ron Pauland those like him, and the future of the United States.

Political Philosophy 101: Natural Rights and Our Governement

George Santayana 1863-1952

You have heard the phrase “history repeats itself”. George Santayanawrote in The Life of Reason – Vol. 1 (1905-1906):

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no directions is set for possible improvement, and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Even Karl Marx, father of communism and promoter of socialism wrote:

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

The FDR administration was a tragedy, and the present administration, Obama’s Nation, is a farce. FDR established American socialism and Obama will cement its continued existence and growth.

Woodrow Wilson (a Republican) allowed powerful bankers to control America’s economy through the Federal Reserve System – createdby the minds of powerful bankers of the time. Most Americans are oblivious as to how it works and what it has done. The Federal Reserve system was not created by the federal government, within the check-and-balance system, but on Jekyll Island by banking tycoons of the early 20^th century.

At the same time, the income tax system introduced and became the 16^th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In the following video, I do not agree with everything the host states, but certainly the gist of its information provides an insight as to how terrible the income tax system has become, providing a history of the system and its political implications.

It is why Ron Pauland his constitutional supporters demanded a complete audit of the Federal Reserve System; Congress has still yet to do so. Now that Obama has been reelected, it may never happen unless We the Peoplevote responsibility.

We the People have asked and even demanded that Congress simplify the tax code, even if the income tax system remains in place … to no avail. In the 1930s, government discovered they could use the income tax laws to put criminals behind bars, like the infamous Al Capone. The IRS at that time became a powerful tool of the US government and increased power of the executive branch of OUR government. IRS now viewed as an American gestapowhose power goes beyond constitutional law, intrudes upon the private lives of the American people, and punishes that segment of our society that is productive and aid in keeping our economy strong. The income tax system is not just an inefficient tax program that loses billions of dollars a year because of fraud and cost of enacting it, but has become a tool to continue the Marxist platform plank that has promoted and continues class envy. It also has been a tool to enact the Marxist economic tool of income redistribution. [Redistribution of Wealth]

In Dr. Paul’s farewell speech before Congress recently, he itemizes those things that We the People have allowed the political elite on both sides of the political fence to establish and maintain for over 50 years. He provided a final warning as he retires to the American people with an appeal to initiate true reform in Congress. I doubt few paid attention to his presentation as any form of enlightenment, some scoffing at his “libertarian” ideology as the media did during the campaign for presidency this year. That phenomenon is sad because since 1984, Rep. Ron Paul has been warning fellow politicians and the American people – of which most of what he warned has already come true.

FDR introduced socialism and provided a more firm foundation that the Wilson administration established.

The establishment of a central bank of the United States has been a crucial and divisive issue of U.S. history from its inception. Opposition to the bank was the issue that prompted the creation of the Democratic Party and led the modern two-party system. Since its creation in the early 20^thcentury, the Federal Reserve has steadily assumed more control over U.S. monetary policy and economy. [Joseph Nicholson]

The Constitution of the United States clearly states that Congress is in charge of such matters concerning currency and taxation. The President appoints a Secretary of Treasury (with Senate approval, dominated by Democrats), the Federal Reserve, as of a recent congressional fact-finding committee, has established that Congress and possibly the Secretary of Treasury, have no clue as to who is actually running the system and has not nor will not institute a complete audit of accountability to the American people. As you can see, the President, often blamed for what is the responsibility of Congress, is only responsible for not using the power of veto to keep Congress in line with constitutional law. The Supreme Court’s purpose is to ensure constitutionality of bills to be passed into legislation. Recently an unsuccessful movement to pass legislation or create a new amendment that would ensure the constitutionality of a bill before allowed to reach the voting floor has yet to be accomplished. Now that Obama has won his second term, this most likely will never happen in this generation’s lifetime.

All three branches of government – the executive, legislative, and judiciary – have steered away from the constitutional law, ignoring and sidestepping it because the political elite know how difficult it is to pass and ratify an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Knowing the past is essential to preserve our freedoms. Professor Wood’s work heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole. Every American should read this book.
[Rep. Dr. Ron Paul, MD, retiring from House of Representatives – review of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods, PhD]

From The Great Depression and the New Deal section, by Thomas E. Woods, historian, p. 145:

In 1932, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt [FDR] defeated Hoover in a landslide. … One biographer said that there was no one more ignorant of economics than FDR. It showed.

FDR knew nothing about how wealth was created, maybe because he was born in a wealthy family who gained wealth through political affiliations.

The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which established the National Recovery Administration, was an enormous contradiction. …it established hundreds of legally sanctioned, industry-wide cartels that were allowed to establish standard wages, hours of operation, and minimum prices. … The artificially high wages meant continuing unemployment, and the high prices meant hardship for nearly all Americans. …
FDR … proposed to pay farmers for cutting back on production or producing nothing at all. The decrease in supply, he believed, would raise farm prices. But in the meantime, he had to deal with the existing bounty. The administration decided to destroy much of what had already been produced to create a shortage and thereby raise farm prices. Six million pigs were slaughtered and ten million acres of cotton were destroyed.
Agriculture secretary Henry Wallace, as thoroughgoing a Soviet dupe this country has ever seen, described the wholesale destruction of crops and livestock as a “cleaning up of wreckage from the old days of unbalanced production.” … Unfortunately, massive government intervention in agriculture never went away. In the 1980s …farm programs were eating up $30 billion annually, two-thirds of which took the form of subsidies and the other third in higher prices to consumers. …all American industries that use sugar at a competitive advantage vis-à-vis foreign producers who are not forced to pay such an inflated price for sugar.
Other aspects of the New Deal damaged the economy. New Deal labor laws, as well as the increased labor costs associated with Social Security, further contributed to the unemployment problem [25%] – to the tune of an additional 1.2 million unemployed by 1938, according to economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway. …

[Note that Obama is making same mistakes and adding some of his own]

FDR gave a tremendous boost to organized labor with the National Labor Relations Act, better known as the Wagner Act of 1935. … The ways in which labor unions impoverish society are legion, from distortions in the labor market to work rules that discourage efficiency and innovation. … Labor historians and activists would be at a loss to explain why, at a time when unionism was numerically negligible (a whopping 3% of the American labor force was unionized by 1900), real wages in manufacturing climbed an incredible 50% in the United States from 1860-1890, and another 37% from 1890-1914, or why American workers were so much better than their much more heavily unionized counterparts in Europe. …The New Deal’s admirers assure us that FDR’s massive spending projects provided jobs and economic stimulus. [sound familiar?] But such jobs are funded by taking money from some people (taxpayers) and giving it to others, so there is no net stimulus. In fact, such programs are positively bad in that they divert capital from the private sector and inhibit healthy job creation. Economists John Joseph Wallisand Daniel K. Benjamin found that the public-sector jobs “created” by New Deal spending programs either simply displaced or actually destroyed private-sector jobs. …

FDR’s public-works projects were rife with corruption. Economic historians have been at pains to account for the distribution of these projects around the country – why, for example, did the South, where people were the poorest, receive the least assistance from FDR’s Works Progress Administration (WPA)? … WPA workers were often pressured into supporting FDR’s favored candidates, changing their party affiliations, or “contributing” to FDR’s re-election campaign. An investigation by a Senate committee found case after case of WPA employees being instructed to contribute a portion of their salaries to the president’s reelection campaign if they wished to remain employed; of people being thrown off the relief rolls for refusing to pledge their support for a favored candidate; and of demands that registered Republicans on relief register as Democrats in order to keep their jobs.
This was by no means the only example of political intimidation that occurred during the FDR years. The standard textbook provides all the details of Watergate and of Richard Nixon’s abuse of power (as indeed it should), but not a word about FDR as the pioneer of this activity. When the Paulist Catholic radio station of poor Father James Gillis in Chicago criticized FDR’s court-packing scheme, the FCC took its license away. As early as 1935, FDR requested that the FBI initiate a series of investigations into a variety of conservative organizations, and later in the decade secretly sough proof (which, of course, never came) that prominent members of the America First Committee, routinely smeared as Nazi and traitors, were receiving Nazi money.

[sound familiar?]

…the New Deal was actually criticized on constitutional grounds. In the 1930s there were still enough Supreme Court justices committed to an honest interpretation of the Constitution that programs like the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act were actually declared unconstitutional. …the Court’s decisions infuriated FDR. …he went well beyond denunciations. In 1937, FDR proposed that when Supreme Court justices who had reached age seventy did not resign or retire, one additional justice could be added to the Court. …At first, the president tried to claim that his plan was intended simply to provide assistance to elderly justices. … Opposition to the plan was intense, and included many of FDR’s fellow Democrats. Thankfully, the bill was rejected. …some suspect that the president’s pressure accounts for why Justice Owen Roberts suddenly became more friendlier to the administration in his decisions. It turns out, however, that FDR would get his chance to influence the Court … The Senate Judiciary Committee:

We recommend the rejection of this bill as a needless, futile, and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle … Its practical operation would be to make the Constitution what the executive or legislative branches of the Government choose to say it is – an interpretation to be changed with each change of administration. It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America. …

From Woodrow Wilsonto BH Obama, [with few breaks between] our presidents and congresses have eroded or allowed others to erode our natural rights – the rights that our Founders had fought for and worked so hard to achieve placing it on documentation in the form of the Constitution of the United States and its amendments. American society is just as guilty as those they elected in office for this transgression, which makes it more shameful. We have allowed political scam artists to do this with promises that government cannot truly provide, but the hard-working and diligent populace can provide for themselves and help others by a strong community nucleus whose foundation is a strong family nucleus who holds value to ethical behavior and morality of the Golden Rule, which is international, just as natural rights apply.

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First, a right to life. Second, to liberty. Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.[Samuel Adams, Boston town meeting, November 20^th, 1772]

Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.
[Thomas Paine]

Also See: Heavy Burden of ObamaCare.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amazon.com Widgets

Constitutional Crisis: Ron Paul’s Farewell Speech to Congress

Ron Paul, who is retiring from Congress this year, gave a farewell speech to Congress in 48 minutes (ABC states 52 minutes). After listening or reading his speech, you can see why the GOP elite RINOs are just as much against Ron Paul as the Democrat Party. Tagged as a strict libertarian, he has consistently approached his station in office as a constitutionalist. This is what has caused the two traditional political clubs to identify him as a “radical” – therefore, as the media paints it, those who seek reformation back to what the founders created within constitutional law is “radical” and “unacceptable”. That alone should raise a red flag to the American people.
It included this warning:

If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties.

All the warnings stated by Rep. Ron Paul since 1984 has come true.
Ron Paul stated that the solution does not just fall upon those operating our government, but every individual citizen of the United States …

The number one responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change.

Americans cannot expect to reform government if too many Americans do not value character, insist that government play a major role in decisions of our lives, or continue to follow blindly political party propaganda instead of looking towards candidates as individuals that would protect the Constitution and adhere to its form of government. Candidates for public office at any level should be held to high standards, and those who are running for office for a congressional seat or the executive branch should undergo a thorough background investigation like all those who have access to sensitive and classified information and materials. Those we elect should be the “best of the best” of the society from which they originate. Instead, those we elect are a mirror of society, increasingly corrupt and selfish – putting aside morals, values, and character for false promises provided by political entities and individuals.

After the shock of losing, Republicans and media pundits are saying that the Republican Party must join the winning party of 2012, which means foregoing all that even the name of the political party stands for – republicanism. The original thirteen states were warranted for their mistrust in providing too much power to the federal government. Since the Civil War, states have gradually lost their constitutional power handed over to the federal, centrist, big government in Washington, DC.

Ron Paul has served the People off and on since 1976. Since that time, he has stood for constitutional authority being the guideline for every piece of legislature and every government policy. He has devoted himself to be a model of example amidst an ever growing government and compliant fellow politicians in Congress. Nevertheless, the American people, on both sides of the political fence, chose to ignore him and believed the media’s representation that he is a “radical”. Since when is a constitutionalist a radical? Unlike those of the established two-party political system, a constitutionalist bases his/her policy and ideology upon the document and its amendments that afforded the United States to become a great nation. Politicians have been trying to reinvent the wheel ever since, and the Founders warned Americans of this long before it occurred. Today, we have a generation that believes the founders and their wisdom is now outdated.

Wisdom is ageless and never outdated.

We the People must reeducate ourselves, learn everything about the Constitution and its amendments, and pass the knowledge amongst ourselves. We need to let the media know that We the People need objective and informative information – not political propaganda and dissemination of misinformation, or black out news that might harm political entities they privately side with. We need to insist upon those in charge of elections that they provide proper security and maintenance that will ensure little or no vote fraud occurs with safety guards to detect any that are attempted. Our vote is not just important to us as individuals, but to the nation as a whole.

We the People must refrain from choosing candidate because of media pundit decisions and political advertisements that merely provide negative information (usually exaggerated or false) instead of informing the people just how they are going to be an improvement over the political opponent’s position.

We the People must insist that policies and ideologies of candidates conform to constitutional law, so when elected they will properly represent the Constitution and its amendments as well as the citizens of the United States.

The complete PDF transcript is HERE. You can read along while listening/watching the video of his speech. Ron Paul’s YouTube video follows what I have highlighted from his speech:

This may well be the last time I speak on the House Floor.  At the end of the year I’ll leave Congress after 23 years in office over a 36 year period.  My goals in 1976 were the same as they are today:  promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of individual liberty. It was my opinion, that the course the U.S. embarked on in the latter part of the 20th Century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security. … The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my view point, just following the constraints placed on the federal government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start.
In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little.  No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness.  In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues.  Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history. …
One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and  corporate elite.  And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues.   As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe. The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending. The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up.” …
I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits.  If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell.  Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled. …
During my time in Congress the appetite for liberty has been quite weak; the understanding of its significance negligible.  Yet the good news is that compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and growing, especially in grassroots America. … I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours, once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to deteriorate to the degree that they have.
Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts, generate wealth.  In our early history we were very much aware of this.  But in the early part of the 20th century our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and monetary systems had to change if we were to involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military spending. That is why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax. The majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to be “progressive” ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable. They failed to recognized that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British. …the damage to the market economy, and the currency, has been insidious and steady. …
This neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those who just wanted to left alone.  That is why today money in politics far surpasses money currently going into research and development and productive entrepreneurial efforts. … If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time.  Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue.
Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law.  A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees. … If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits, inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored.  By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good results. Everyone claims support for freedom.  But too often it’s for one’s own freedom and not for others.  Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties. Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited.  These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests.
The great news is the answer is not to be found in more “isms.”  The answers are to be found in more liberty which cost so much less.  Under these circumstances spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and the quality of life improves. …there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty and self-reliance. The more this change in direction and the solutions become known, the quicker will be the return of optimism. …
The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and benefits to all special interests. After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders.  In many ways their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has failed.  Skeptics, at the time the Constitution was written in 1787, warned us of today’s possible outcome. …

Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into satisfying their demands. Here are a few examples:

• Undeclared wars are commonplace.
• Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.
• The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system.
• Debt is growing exponentially.
• The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights. …
• It’s now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial.
• Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington.
• Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders “isolationists.”
• Sanctions are used to punish countries that don’t follow our orders.
• Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine.
• Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy.

Excessive government has created such a mess it prompts many questions:

• Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?
• Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
• Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?
• Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York?  Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?
• Why do our political leaders believe it’s unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?
• Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
• Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?
• Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?
• Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?
• Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?
• Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world -the one between Mexico and the US?
• Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?
• Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
• Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?
• Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?
• Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?
• Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a “kill list,” including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
• Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.
• Why is it is claimed that if people won’t  or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?
• Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?
• Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
• Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?
• Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?
• Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world’s great religions.
• Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and  foreign policy?
• Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?
• Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?

… Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves. … Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves. … Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced. … This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty.  It impoverishes the people and rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political parties. It’s no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic differences being minor. …

Keynesianism continues to thrive, although today it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals.  Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue to desperately promote their failed policies, as the economy languishes in a deep slumber. … Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty.  This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. … It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money. Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order.  Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant. …

Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted. … But even in these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech-a dangerous trend. Since 9/11 monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required.

The Constitution established four federal crimes.  Today the experts can’t even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books—they number into the thousands.  No one person can comprehend the enormity of the legal system—especially the tax code.  Due to the ill-advised drug war and the endless federal expansion of the criminal code we have over 6 million people under correctional suspension, more than the Soviets ever had, and more than any other nation today, including China. I don’t understand the complacency of the Congress and the willingness to continue their obsession with passing more Federal laws. …

The federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code has 72,000 pages, and expands every year.  When will the people start shouting, “enough is enough,” and demand Congress cease and desist.

Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force.  If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed.  To achieve it, more than lip service is required.

Two choices are available.

A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole objective.  The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty.  Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.

A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations.  Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer.  This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages.  Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible.  It is used vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously.  Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that:  “power corrupts.” …

Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1. …

Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they want; option #1 or option #2.  There is no other choice.  Claiming there is a choice of a “little” tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a “touch of pregnancy.” … When government officials wield power over others to bail out the special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen, they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us into undeclared wars with many casualties resulting, never lose sleep over the death and destruction their bad decisions caused. …

Some argue it’s only a matter of “fairness” that those in need are cared for. There are two problems with this. First, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than the poor. Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it’s fair to those who end up paying for the benefits. The costs are usually placed on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money out of thin air, and there is no cost. That deception is coming to an end. The bills are coming due and that’s what the economic slowdown is all about. …

Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed.  The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people.  The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified. … If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power and love of freedom. …the full consequence of our lost liberties is yet to be felt.  

…our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one’s natural ability, in the most productive manner possible, according to one’s own talents. …

What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five.

1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.              

2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of “blow-back” is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result.                                                         

3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.                                       

4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.                                              

 5. World government taking over  local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking,  a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns.

Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends. …

No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior.  Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny.  This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty. …

Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. … The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist without a moral people.  Just writing rules won’t work if the people choose to ignore them.  Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington DC. Benjamin Franklin claimed “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”  John Adams concurred:  “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” … A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society.  All great religions endorse the Golden Rule.  The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials.  They cannot be exempt. The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government. The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community. … The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if the people’s attitudes aren’t changed. To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome.  Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare.  Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies.  These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular. …

I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out “the plain truth of things.”  The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY. If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.
The first video is RP farewell speech to Congress and the second video, Ron Paul discusses Secession talk of states in recent news. 

Election 2012: Addressing the Real Problems

Mainstream media may ignore Ron Paul, however, just because he lost the primary election does not mean he has to quit. He is using his knowledge of the constitutional system, which the media and political chicanery has replaced. With the majority of Americans complying, they have allowed the media network, TV political ads, and the will of the political establishment to dictate who wins in the primaries. The popular vote is important in the primary election, as it is in the national election, however, the delegates play a major role in choosing candidates or rather establishing who is to represent a political party in the final vote.

Ron Paul delegates a working diligently at inserting a wedge into the formation of the official GOP platform, like restricting the power of the Federal Reserve, enhancing constitutional rights of individuals over the collective, and opposing the role of US military forces in foreign lands. Romney has been “toning down” the platform’s language, when in fact it should be regressing back to the party’s formation in the format of a Jeffersonian republic.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is the platform committee chairman and was quoted by AP/LA Times:

This is grass-roots democracy, I think, at its finest. The 112 delegates should be passionate but civil, recognizing that our goal is to have a united Republican Party.

The “unification” he is alluding to is what the GOP party establishment dictates. Mitt Romney is a GOP poster boy in that he is not adamant towards a strict constitutional administration.

A political platform provides a clear statement as to where it stands on issues and its core theme. Technically, it is a sales pitch if the platform looks good on paper, but the candidate often does not adhere to the platform – as what happened in the case of GW Bush and BH Obama.

The sad part is that voters rarely read the platforms of the DNC and GOP as part of their voting decision process, and there is no excuse because it is easily accessible on the Internet. Americans find chatting and other activities on the Internet is more important than culling information so they can be better informed, responsible, and knowledgeable voters. Instead, they stick to the tradition of listening to the rhetoric and watching negative ads that only discuss what is wrong with the opposing candidate instead of discussing how they are going to solve the problems and address the issues.

Ron Paul has consistently claimed that the expanding government debt and inevitable financial collapse is more threatening than Islamic fundamentalists are.

To show you that some of the members of the GOP are as far off as their political opponents, there were some who wanted to put a tax increase into its official policy statement. Tax increases will not solve the issues concerning government debt, and our government’s history proves that Congress increases taxes instead of budgeting funds, and when they get more funds, they just spend more. If government income was more fixed, as the private sector, then they would be forced to budget – like the private sector.

I am sure this applies to you – in the last four years I have had to re-budget according to money in and money out several times. It is because the cost of living continues to climb (fuel prices are pushing near $4 again), yet I am receiving less than I did before during the same period. For some, their income remains fixed while costs continue to soar. Either way, it is difficult to maintain a constant budget or even a comfortable one. That also means, if you dollar is not going as far as it used to, you have to pay down any debt as soon as possible in order to get back on track. Which brings to mind the cost of insurance: If you add up the insurance that we require and are required to have by law – you would be astonished how much of your income goes to insurance companies. Insurance is unavoidable: home insurance, auto insurance, life insurance, health insurance, et cetera.

One of the ideas of ObamaCare, and the only one I could find that made sense, is that if Americans could pool their insurance obligations and had more choices their premiums would be reduced. An example is when I was in the limousine service. I owned my own limo and paid 25% to a dispatch company to obtain clientele. State required that there must be at least $25,000 medical insurance for every passenger (nine passengers) and other important insurance like on the vehicle itself because it was what I made a living. I connected with an insurance state pool and my insurance rate reduced markedly – and it was with the premier insurance company, Lloyds of London at $1,800 per year back in the 1970s. That sounds like a lot of insurance cost, but I was driving a late model Cadillac stretched limo with full coverage and $50,000 per person medical coverage. I made good money despite high cost of maintenance, 25% dispatch fee, and taxes. The key word is taxes. If you research economic history, government primarily causes financial problems in America. 

For example, the US Postal Service is a constitutionally mandated responsibility for Congress – but it is going bankrupt. Here are the main reasons:

• US Postal employees are governed by trade unions.
• Bureaucracy increases, efficiency decreases.

Some would say that it is the competition (i.e., United Parcel and FedEx) – but that is a cop-out. If you do not believe that, take a package to the local post office and see how long you have to wait in line. Competition is ALWAYS good for the customer.

I have gotten off track here, but you can see that the crisis we are experiencing today has been long time coming. Government has only patched things here and there instead of fixing issues; and their efforts are fruitless because they do not use the Constitution and its amendments as the foundation of what they legislate and when they form policies.

This is what matters and this is what candidates should be discussing and making clear just what they are going to do about it – whether it be a senatorial, representative, or presidential candidate. Congress is the key to all issues, not the president. The only time we should blame the president is when that person does not use veto power and abuses authority. It all has to do with complying with the oath of office.

That will not happen until We the People demand it and choose our elected officials based upon a common sense standard – sitting on the foundation of constitutional law and its limiting powers.

As Predicted Mitt Romney Not Handling the Democrat Fire

Both sides of the political aisle have considered Ron Paul a “radical” and the media has either ignored him or attempted to make him look the fool.  Whatever he proposes is based upon the foundation of the Constitution of the United States.

Constitutionalists are now “radicals”?

I did not vote for Romney because I saw him for what he is: a poster boy for the GOP establishment who could not stand the heat the last time he tried for the presidency – and it looks like this same problem is now. I am certainly recognizing that Mr. Romney is a fine person and has business savvy – but he tends to want to please everyone, and then makes voters suspicious when his VP produces more tax returns (tax years) than he has thus far – two years. While it is true that Harry Reid is just being malicious in his statement that Romney hasn’t paid taxes in ten years; but even conservatives are wondering why he hasn’t posted ten years of tax returns in retaliation to such absurd remarks to get it off the floor and discuss what must be done. The American voter wants transparency, like what Obama promised – not smoke and mirrors; and Romney is certainly not giving the voters a warm and fuzzy feeling by not responding to allegations concerning his tax payments – imagined or not. On the other hand, Harry Reid has done well as far as wealth during his time in Congress. Where did his money come from and where is his tax returns? He didn’t show any when being elected as Speaker, not sure about when he was elected as senator.

Mitt Romney hasn’t a clear cut plan, like Dr. Paul and other constitutionalist congressional members in this election.The GOP establishment made him their poster boy, much to the delight of the media manipulators who knew that he could not stand against the Obama propaganda machine and character assassination thugs. Sadly, the main theme is that Romney is bad because he is wealthy and uses legal deductions on his income tax forms – something that would not be an issue if Congress had performed their job in 2002 and accepted a replacement or at least a reformation of the income tax system.

The Democrats are reaching low into the cesspool of smut and making Romney look like a felon and the Florida congressman, Allen West, as a man who beats up senior women. (see previous article)

Ron Paul is squeaky clean and responds quickly and factually when confronted with Democrat/media maliciousness. Mitt Romneydid not have it last time nor this time, despite some improvements. His attempt to please everyone has made him appear indecisive and a fair-weather politician.

At Policymic, Robert Taylorwrote an excellent piece entitled 5 Issues That Prove Ron Paul is Ahead of His Time. All through Ron Paul’s political career going back to the 1980s, off and on, has predicted things that came true – and still is not listened to. It is mostly because much of his ideology is Libertarian; but his base is always the Constitution.

Here are five issues on which Ron Paul is simply ahead of his time:

1. The End of the Federal Reserve System
Paul entered politics in the 1970s after taking an interest in  economics, schooled by Austrian greats like Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard.  Paul knew that President Nixon’s closing of the gold window in 1971 was a  recipe for financial disaster, and ever since then, has argued the case  for sound money and balanced budgets against fractional-reserve banking  and deficits. Not since Andrew Jackson shut down a central bank almost 200 years ago has someone done so much to make  people aware of the consequences of fiat money. Ten years ago, Fed  Chairman Alan Greenspan was the maestro, waving a magic wand of easy credit. Now Paul’s speeches get interrupted to chants of “End the Fed!” and audits are being passed in the House. With $15 trillion in debt and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, Paul may have a point. History is on his side. The average fiat currency only lasts a few decadesbefore stumbling into a fit of hyperinflation and worthless paper.  Given that this August 15 will make it exactly 41 years since the U.S. cut the dollar from all ties to gold, perhaps Paul will be proved  correct in sooner than a decade. That’s why Paul advocates legalizing alternative currencies and competition, like gold and silver, to help save people’s purchasing power as the dollar continues  to plummet in value.

2. NDAA
After the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 was passed by  Congress and signed by President Obama on New Year’s Eve with little  attention, Paul took to the House floor and immediately denounced the  legislation. It nullifies civil liberties that go back to Magna Carta,  Paul noted, to give the President the authority to use the military to  arrest and detain U.S. citizens without trial. President Obama has said that he wouldn’t use this power (and he would never lie, right?), but  even if we take him at his word, this authority will be transferred to  the next President. And given the frequency of legislation that has been  passed in the last decade which essentially abolishes the Bill of  Rights, the claimed power will either remain or grow. Just imagine a President Romney or President Hillary Clinton having the power to make  people disappear. Given that public protests and movements will likely grow as the effects of debt and inflation really kick in, it might be only a  matter of time before enforcing “law and order” is the norm, not the  exception. The Pentagon openly admits that it has prepared for war with the American people if they express their right to petition their government a little bit too emphatically. Every campaign stump speech Paul gave during his 2012 presidential run included vehement opposition to the NDAA which will undoubtedly be seen as prophetic.

3. Obama, Democrats Are Not “Socialists”
Conservatives  and Republicans like to call President Obama a socialist, and deride  ObamaCare as government-run medicine. Paul, on the other hand, saw the legislation for what it was: corporatism, welfare for politically-connected corporations and industries. Health care before Obama was a heavily socialized mess already, Paul argues, and it’s hypocritical to oppose ObamaCare so that you can replace it with RomneyCare. It is an injustice to the public that the mainstream debate is framed  as “big government Democrats” and “free market Republicans.” In  reality, they are two parties devoted to the same basic philosophy and  only quibble over what kind of socialism and corporatism we should have.  Paul has used his principled understanding of economics to help peel  away the myth that the American economic system even remotely resembles a  free market and the contradictions of the left-right divide. Because of Paul, millions have abandoned this false choice of Republican corporatism or Democrat corporatism, and with time, that can  only increase.

4. The Follies of Empire
Paul has given so many House floor speeches and written so many articles about the terrible consequences of military interventionism overseas and non-defensive wars that there is an entire book dedicated to them. Paul is still the only presidential candidate who openly opposes President Obama’s incredibly aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, targeted assassinations, “kill lists,” and secret drone warfare.  America is supposed to be a commercial republic, Paul argues, a shining light and example of peace and economic prosperity to a world that desperately needs it. Lead by example, not by bombs and bribes. Paul was largely dismissed by conservatives for these views, even being booed in South Carolina during a Republican debate for espousing Christ’s Golden Rule. But Paul will be proven right even though the American people didn’t want to hear it. Whether or not one is convinced by Paul’s arguments in  favor of a strong defense and diplomacy, there is simply no  possible way that the U.S. Navy can continue to police every ocean, that  the Army can support 1,000 foreign military bases, or that we can  continue to wage multiple hot wars forever. The U.S. is borrowing almost  half of every dollar from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea to  maintain this empire, and eventually the troops will have to come home. A decade from now, many Americans will probably be wishing it was  done in 2012 by President Paul out of choice and not out of financial  collapse and necessity.

5. The Liberty Movement is Here to Stay
Paul’s presidential campaign stump speeches and his tone in general, tend to express a slight sense of despair and frustration. This mentality, however, is only out of legitimate concern and is always tempered by a long-term positive outlook about the future of liberty and the country. Paul, quoting Samuel Adams, knows that “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in  people’s minds.” With the rise of the Internet and the spread of free and cheap information, Paul’s shouts from the rooftops now have a megaphone and a printing press. Thomas Paine had pamphlets, the libertarian movement has the web and the power to circumvent the mainstream media narrative and poke holes in propaganda. Combine that with the grassroots, decentralized organization of national delegates and Paul supporters inside state and local offices around the country, and the movement that he reluctantly led is just getting started.

Thanks to the media bias/manipulation, Ron Paul is primarily out of the picture, except for some places in cyberspace. However, he has gained much more support than he did the last time he tried for the presidency. He apparently has not given up, just changed his tactics. At the least, if Romney wins, Dr. Paul should be accessed for substantial and wise advice. He has not been wrong about predictions concerning what government has been doing in the past fifty years, leading to what now is a dangerous crossroad amidst a crisis. If we do not return to the path of constitutional law, it can only lead to a catastrophe – following suit of European nations.
The Examiner just noted that Ron Paul was not on the list of speakers for the 2012 RNC.
Who speaks at the RNC is a matter of politics. It is interesting that Sarah Palin declined being speaker or was she just not chosen?  

Election 2012: Standing Up Against Political Establishment and Manipulative Media

If you have been upset over Obama’s Dream Actand have supported the GOP’s political poster boy, Mitt Romney – Guess what?

As I predicted from his past behavior, Romney is softening his stance on the issue of illegal immigration as he recently promised Latino leadership he had a “long-term fix” and “short-term relief” all against his position when he was campaigning to win the Republican presidential nomination in the primary elections. Romney is making the mistake of trying to please ALL the people, instead of using the Constitution as his guideline that is designed for ALL the People and limiting government intrusion upon our freedom of choice, property rights, and i

According to the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Romney spoke of bipartisan solutions he would pursue as president. He pledged to reallocate green cards to allow families to stay together, let those with advanced degrees remain in the US and create a path to legal status for young, undocumented immigrants if they join the military …

First, those degrees were obtained because those illegal immigrant students were brought into the United States before their birth by their parents illegally – a scheme that become common with illegal aliens to circumvent our immigration laws in order for the family to stay in America.

Second, when anyone speaks about “bipartisanship” today, it means giving into political entities instead of adhering to constitutional law as the ultimate guideline. 

In Romney’s past political policies, he has said one thing and then done another. It is for that reason that many voters do not trust him, yet are forced to promote him because he is, so far, the only choice they have on the voting ballot this November that is running against Obama – clearly, once again when American voters must choose between the lesser “evil”.

Romney is an example how primary elections are manipulated by political elite establishment and the mainstream media. Romney’s character reference is not negative, however, he hasn’t the personal strength to stand up for limiting government and returning rights and liberties, like personal property rights, individual liberties, and freedom of choice – back into the hands of We the People.

The “Ron Paul Revolution” has escalated among the people, ignoring who the political establishment has promoted and the bias media has chosen to ignore in hopes that less publicity from mainstream media will destroy Dr. Paul’s success. If you look at the big picture, Ron Paul is the real “people’s choice” and has gained support from state delegates at state conventions. Dr. Paul has chosen to fight against the Republican establishment who has not supported him in his strive to return the federal government back to a constitutional republic government in which the Constitution is not “interpreted” but instead adhered to, mainly in exercising limited powers established by the framers of the Constitution for good reasons.

MSN/NBC reports that the Texas Congressman’s supporters have filed a lawsuit against the RNC (Republican National Committee) as reported by Sam Favate at Wall Street Journal, as well as almost all of the state parties …

claiming that they gave Mr. Romney inappropriate assistance during primaries and harassed supporters, including use of violence and intimidation, AP reported.

It is what I have tried to relay to fellow Americans for some time – our election system is monopolized by the two traditional political parties, manipulated by the elite establishment leadership and the media; which does not represent the People’s choice or allow the people to make their own decisions. If a candidate does not receive the publicity required to reach out to voters, how can the people determine if that candidate is a good choice or not?

The delegation system in elections has long been in need of reformation. In the case of those filing lawsuit against the GOP establishment, the RNC is accused of –

dressing security type people in dark clothing searching out supporters of a Candidate Defendants do not approve of to harass and intimidate said Delegates from voting their conscience.

The GOP establishment has made it a point to ensure that Dr. Paul looks like a radical. What they are really saying is that they like Washington to be remain status quo and don’t like anyone rocking the boat as to the what has become the traditional way of operating OUR government and not according to what the Framers had established in 1787.

The lawsuit is also:

…seeking clarification from a federal court in California over whether delegates at the national convention can vote for any candidate of their choice, even if those delegates were won by Mr. Romney. The suit alleges that the RNC violates federal law by requiring them to sign pledges to back a certain candidate, restricting delegates’ voting options and illegally limiting their vote. [National Journal]

Of course, as CNN reports, the RNC calls the lawsuit “frivolous”. The same people who has called Ron Paul’s campaign “radical”.

Since when does a candidate get pegged a radical because he/she promotes the enforcement of the Constitution of the United States and the reformation back to what the Framers of our Constitution had in mind. Dr. Paul’s advocacy is similar to what occurred when our Constitution was being finalized and prepared for ratification by the states forming a republic union.

In 1787, during the debate over the ratification of the Constitution of the United States, a group was formed called the Anti-Federalists. There arguments were:

• Anti-Federalists feared that the aristocracy of the time was being bias and tending towards their own personal advocacy.
• While the Constitution clearly showed a foundation of a limited federal government, there wasn’t anything in writing concerning the People’s rights and liberties guaranteed in a bill of rights.
• The Convention had gone beyond its authorized power to amend the Articles of Confederation established so the American government could operate during the American Revolution, which in turn illegally formed a new government; the biggest concern being that state governments would be completely subordinate to national power.
• Anti-Federalists pointed out that the framers of the Constitution did not equally divide the powers of government among the three branches of the national government.
• Anti-Federalists were fearful of allowing the federal government the power to regulate commerce.

These important issues were justified, but the media and others dubbed them as “anti-federalists”, when in fact, there concern was as noted in the aforementioned bullets.

Even Benjamin Franklin stated in a speech to the Constitutional Convention on September 17^th, 1787:

I cannot help expressing a wish that every member … doubt a little of his own infallibility.

Those Anti-Federalists were Pennsylvanians from a state that was the second to ratify the Constitution of the United States. Recommendations from the anti-Federalists to amend the Constitution were initially ignored, not discussed, and not recorded into the convention’s journal; thus was the reason why the dissenters sent anonymous letters under pseudo names to ensure that their concerns were publicized and providing public awareness as to the process and actions being taken to form a government and to ensure the rights and liberties Of the People.

The main grievance of the anti-Federalists was the omission of a bill of rights from the Constitution. Initially the Convention rejected it because each state had its own declaration of rights, and it was under consensus of the Convention members that every citizen had certain inalienable rights that need not be enumerated. The anti-Federalists wanted it in writing, so in the future, courts would have a guideline for making decisions when a person’s rights were infringed upon.

Jefferson deemed “Radical”

Thomas Jefferson was not considered an anti-Federalist, and he praised the Constitution and supported it; however, he was in complete agreement with those who advocated a written bill of rights to be added to the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison, dated December 20^th, 1787 that helped to convince Mr. Madison that the Constitution required an addition, which later would be the first ten amendments that has been called the Bill of Rights. Mr. Jefferson eloquently and wisely wrote:

I like much the general idea of framing a government which should go on if itself peaceably, without needing continual recurrence to the state legislatures. I like the organization of the government into legislative, judiciary, and executive. I like the power given the legislature to levy taxes, and for that reason solely I approve of the great House being chosen by the people directly. ⁱ…yet … does not weigh against the good of preserving inviolate the fundamental principle that the people are not to be taxed but by representatives chosen immediately by themselves. …
I will now tell you what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly and without the aid of sophism for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact by the laws of the land and not by the laws of nations. To say, as Mr. Wilson does, that a bill of rights was not necessary because all is reserved in the case of general government, which is not given, … all is given is not reserved …
I have the right to nothing which another has a right to take away; and Congress will have the right to take away trials by jury in all civil cases. Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse or rest on interference.

Representative Ron Paulhas the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson and has proven over many years in government that he just doesn’t talk the talk,but walks the walk. He, and now his son, Rand Paul, are modern constitutionalists, anti-Federalists, if you will, that are against what our government has become – for various reasons and self-serving individuals and organizations that have overridden and polluted the original concept of limitation of powers of the central federal government and that all states of the union shall abide by and protect For the Peoplethose Bill of Rights that Thomas Jeffersoninsisted by put into writing. We can see how grateful we should be that Mr. Jefferson and other wise men of the time, formed a committee called a Constitutional Convention in order to discuss and work out the principles and standards that formed our government and created a great nation based upon a democratic republic that stands upon a firm foundation – a document that surpasses any in wisdom and truth than any other conceived by any civilization.

Election after election, appointment after appointment; serious issues and problems with the federal government and sometimes state governments occur because of those elected. That means while we can certainly blame certain politicians for not performing their required tasks on our behalf and in adherence to the Constitution of the United States, we must ultimately and initially blame ourselves for not ensuring that persons with character, integrity, and knowledge of the Constitution combined with loyalty to protect the laws of the land and the people’s bill of rights have been elected to operate OUR government.

Our nation continues to plod along making the same mistakes and not correcting problems or solving issues because of one major underlying reason: We the People, the majority, elect the same type of individuals and make our selection for all the wrong reasons.

We should not vote for anyone because they seem to be a nice person. History shows full well that who seems to be a good person, if not knowledgeable of our Constitution and knowing its mechanics and reasons for implementation; using those articles and amendments as the basis and justification for any legislation being passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States.

The same goes for the judiciary. Judges elected must be impartial and strictly use the guidelines written by legislative law. Supreme Court Justices must be the “cream of the crop” of the American judiciary, and they must be loyal and true to the articles and amendments of the Constitution. Their personal political views must never interfere with the articles and amendments of the Constitution; nor must they ever use a foreign constitution or law in making their decisions in cases brought before them.

The President of the United States is tasked to make appointments of Justices that are impartial and constitutionally minded. The Senate, tasked to approve those nominations, must ask the right questions in order to determine what a judge proposed to be a justice knows about the Constitution and he or she truly knows they must be loyal to the Constitution and not any political entity or even the President who nominated them.

The judiciary was never meant to “legislate from the bench” – where their decisions become the basis for government policy, for it is the legislative branch that is tasked for such things.

The only candidate for the President of the United States that meets this criteria is Ron Paul – not Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. While President Obama is totally out of control, does not respect Constitutional law, and puts his political club (DNC) above the well being, rights and liberties of the American people; as well as the national security of our nation – to include putting foreign governments and peoples above the rights and liberties of United States citizens.

The only fault I have ever detected in Ron Paul has nothing to do with his character, his government record; but instead his nature. He is a perfectionist, and this has seemed to intimidate some Americans. But one thing remains true and constant, and cannot possibly unfold if he is not elected to be the next President of the United States, is that Americans need a constitutional republic and a government that the people can once again rely upon – not for “free” stuff or at the expense of fellow American taxpayers, but what We the People and our chosen officials can maintain in the spirit and wisdom that the Framers and Founders created in 1787.

The Constitution was made to be “flexible” in the sense of being useful over time and as technology and issues changed; but not a “living constitution” where interpretation relies upon fads of society, and the judiciary transgresses against the powers of the legislative body. Amendments and the required two-third majority vote as well as ratification by states was set in place in case there were issues to be addressed and changes or recension be enacted. Case in point would be abolishing slavery and the right for women (and all citizens) to vote, as two good examples. That is what amendments were designed to do – correcting and addressing issues to ensure fair laws of the land, where everyone has liberties as long as they do not transgress against the liberties of others.

We the People have allowed a growing minority to infiltrate our government and educational institutions that disregard the importance and greatness of the Constitution of the United States; who look to other foreign nations as models instead. Those “models” are following an historically proven path of self destruction because THEY did not follow the wisdom of the Framers and Founders of our nation.

The United States was once a supreme example of how people and government should interact, the government being for the people and not the other way around. Those that have not adhered to that wisdom of American founders have given into the minority who believes they are the elite, modern aristocrats, who believe they are above the law and qualified to govern every facet of their people’s lives.

If that is what you do not want in America’s future, combined with an economical breakdown we may never recover from, than you must educate yourselves to make the necessary changes for it to become as such.

Value, the Golden Rule, is important in any successful society; which in turn, produces candidates for election that respect values, the will, rights, and liberties of the People; and perform their duties with the nation and its people foremost in their minds. Whether decisions are made in foreign treaties, diplomacy, or commerce – the United States, We the People, must be in the forefront of their policies and decision making.

The American people have long been in favor of helping other nations and its people in times of disaster; but as government policy has evolutionized domestically into providing charity at the expense of taxpayers without their permission – so has our government provided charity taken from earned funds of the people for people of other nations; even when Americans are in need of jobs and economic disaster has oppressed them.

All of these things can be corrected and transgressions against our Constitution and the Bill of Rights through the inner strength, determination, and advocacy of virtues and values that has long served human civilizations that ever wanted to be successful.

Its up to YOU and I.

We the People.

If you want true “change” – don’t vote for the same types of candidates or allow the media and political establishment to manipulate your freedom of choice or your personal lives. Their rhetoric of being for the People has proven to be just talk with an underlying self-serving agenda behind it.

America doesn’t need “Democrats” or “Republicans” – We the People need Constitutionalists.

What say you?

Read and study:

• How the Framers conceived the framework of our Constitution.
• Why the articles and amendments are important.
• How we gradually lost personal property rights and freedom of choice.
• How we can regain those rights and liberties and have a limited government in order to achieve it.

I suggest that you borrow from your library or purchase a hard copy or Kindle edition the following suggested reading material:

<A HREF=”http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_mfw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Flighthjourna-20%2F8001%2F72403aa9-6707-478a-b2be-9f792d452893&Operation=NoScript”>Amazon.com Widgets</A>

i It is to be noted that while the House of Representative members were voted for By the People, Senators were chosen/voted for by state governments; until this was later changed by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.