Today's title is an unabashed reference to Atlas Shrugged. Who is John Galt? That question permeated the book. Of course, if you persevered, you eventually met the hero of the book and the savior of civilization from the dark cloud of collectivism.
I don't know if Ron Paul can save us from the death of civilization that big government collectivism is leading us to. It may be too late. Nevertheless, we had better give him a chance.
In the past, the two party duopoly got people to vote for the lesser evil over and over again by keeping the existence of a libertarian alternative a secret. If anyone asked, he was told that he would be wasting his vote on the Libertarian and he should pick the lesser evil of the duopoly.
Election after election, the lesser evil won and the evil consequences have cumulatively put us into a precarious situation. Total government debt, including all the welfare entitlements, now exceeds the net worth of the entire nation (that of the government and of the people).
What is different this time is the libertarian alternative is running with a major party label. Of course, the main line Republicans can't stand this and will do their best to kill the only chance the nation has to break free from the evil of the two party lesser evil choice. For the most part, they are using the 'ignore him' approach. I suppose we will see how well that works for them.
The polls are giving mixed results. The polls taken immediately after a debate from debate viewers give Paul the lead. Polls taken of the nation as a whole do not. It appears that name recognition is the difference.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Ron Paul
Today I joined a group of people at the Plaza in Kansas City who were supporters of Ron Paul. These are not paid campaign workers. They are just citizens who know that something is very wrong in our nation. The government ignores the limits on its power put in place by the constitution and that is just not acceptable.
Because the government ignores its limits, we have confiscatory taxation to pay for things that the government should never be paying for. We have bureaucrats telling us what to do and what not to do in every aspect of our lives. We have a rapidly disappearing dollar and a huge debt. We have citizens and non-citizens alike locked up without charge or trial and our government is torturing people in our name.
These people, of many ethnic and party affiliations, all understand what is wrong-too much government. They want desperately to do something to support the one major party candidate that openly favors smaller government and means it. His lifetime voting record proves that he means it.
He is the only Republican candidate who is against the illegal and immoral war in Iraq. Since the vast majority of the public is also anti-war, one wonders what the other nine candidates are thinking. How do they think that they can win a general election?
Is it their expectation to be running against a pro-war Democrat and then give us the usual "lesser evil" story. Well no more lesser evil for this voter. The lesser evil that was elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004 has killed hundreds of thousands of human beings for no reason. How is that a lesser and acceptable evil?
If neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have an acceptable, peace loving and freedom loving candidate, then I urge all voters to elect the Libertarian candidate. We cannot survive a lesser evil again. You are not wasting your vote. You would waste it voting for the lesser evil one more time.
Because the government ignores its limits, we have confiscatory taxation to pay for things that the government should never be paying for. We have bureaucrats telling us what to do and what not to do in every aspect of our lives. We have a rapidly disappearing dollar and a huge debt. We have citizens and non-citizens alike locked up without charge or trial and our government is torturing people in our name.
These people, of many ethnic and party affiliations, all understand what is wrong-too much government. They want desperately to do something to support the one major party candidate that openly favors smaller government and means it. His lifetime voting record proves that he means it.
He is the only Republican candidate who is against the illegal and immoral war in Iraq. Since the vast majority of the public is also anti-war, one wonders what the other nine candidates are thinking. How do they think that they can win a general election?
Is it their expectation to be running against a pro-war Democrat and then give us the usual "lesser evil" story. Well no more lesser evil for this voter. The lesser evil that was elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004 has killed hundreds of thousands of human beings for no reason. How is that a lesser and acceptable evil?
If neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have an acceptable, peace loving and freedom loving candidate, then I urge all voters to elect the Libertarian candidate. We cannot survive a lesser evil again. You are not wasting your vote. You would waste it voting for the lesser evil one more time.
They Know They are Doing Wrong
There has been some debate in anti-war circles about the motives of the administration. Are they just idiots who do not understand human nature, the horrors of war or the consequences of their actions? Maybe they know full well what they are doing but consider the war profits worth the price that the American and Iraqi people are paying.
Some recent under the table activity might help us decide. They show shame! The website of the Kansas City architectural firm, Berger Devine Yaeger showed artist sketches of the proposed Baghdad embassy that they are designing. When it started getting noticed and linked to in anti-war websites, where it was referred to as the The Colossus of Baghdad, the Pentagon got upset. They did not want the nice pretty details made public. The excuse was that it might give terrorists information, but there was insufficient detail for that. The real reason could only be shame.
The firm's website was scrubbed and the Google cache of disappeared web sites was also scrubbed. Of course, in today's world, that is not nearly good enough. Anyone, anywhere in the world might well have saved copies and, in fact, they did. Take a look at what your tax dollars are building in a city where the locals still have no reliable public utilities four years after our government's illegal invasion.
http://dissentradio.com/embassy/embassy.html
I believe that this proves that the administration and the Neo-conservatives behind them know full well that they are doing wrong and they are a group of evil people, working toward their own riches and power. We, as a nation, have an obligation to renounce them and their actions up to the point of criminal action. We owe the world nothing less to remove the stain on our honor.
Some recent under the table activity might help us decide. They show shame! The website of the Kansas City architectural firm, Berger Devine Yaeger showed artist sketches of the proposed Baghdad embassy that they are designing. When it started getting noticed and linked to in anti-war websites, where it was referred to as the The Colossus of Baghdad, the Pentagon got upset. They did not want the nice pretty details made public. The excuse was that it might give terrorists information, but there was insufficient detail for that. The real reason could only be shame.
The firm's website was scrubbed and the Google cache of disappeared web sites was also scrubbed. Of course, in today's world, that is not nearly good enough. Anyone, anywhere in the world might well have saved copies and, in fact, they did. Take a look at what your tax dollars are building in a city where the locals still have no reliable public utilities four years after our government's illegal invasion.
http://dissentradio.com/embassy/embassy.html
I believe that this proves that the administration and the Neo-conservatives behind them know full well that they are doing wrong and they are a group of evil people, working toward their own riches and power. We, as a nation, have an obligation to renounce them and their actions up to the point of criminal action. We owe the world nothing less to remove the stain on our honor.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Ron Paul and the nine war mongers
I had a lot of fun last night watching the Republican presidential debate on Faux News. Nine candidates who think the war in Iraq should go on and torture is OK if you call it enhanced interrogation techniques vs. one lone sane man named Ron Paul.
The moderators surely did their best to marginalize him and try to make him a laughing stock. He held his ground and kept on message. What we are doing in Iraq is very wrong and it must end, ASAP.
After the debate was over, the commentators went out of their way to tell us he was nuts and should not be allowed in future debates. Then came the high point of the evening. They announced that Ron Paul was leading in their text message poll with 30% of the vote. Romney was a close second and Guliani a distant third. The others were in the mud.
Hannitty was only speechless for a moment and then everyone accused Paul of having his people stuff the ballot box. It could not possibly be right.
Later in the evening, more votes pushed Romney ahead and left Paul in second place with Guliani still a distant third. The rest, including McCain and our favorite son, Brownback, remained in the mud. I would like to formally accuse Romney's people of stuffing the ballot box at the end to achieve that first place finish. I have as much evidence as Hannity does.
Can someone tell me how the Republicans expect to win a general election with candidates who openly profess that they want to continue the slaughter in Iraq, torture folks and institute a police state including 'tamperproof identity cards", no habeus corpus and enemy combatants.
The moderators surely did their best to marginalize him and try to make him a laughing stock. He held his ground and kept on message. What we are doing in Iraq is very wrong and it must end, ASAP.
After the debate was over, the commentators went out of their way to tell us he was nuts and should not be allowed in future debates. Then came the high point of the evening. They announced that Ron Paul was leading in their text message poll with 30% of the vote. Romney was a close second and Guliani a distant third. The others were in the mud.
Hannitty was only speechless for a moment and then everyone accused Paul of having his people stuff the ballot box. It could not possibly be right.
Later in the evening, more votes pushed Romney ahead and left Paul in second place with Guliani still a distant third. The rest, including McCain and our favorite son, Brownback, remained in the mud. I would like to formally accuse Romney's people of stuffing the ballot box at the end to achieve that first place finish. I have as much evidence as Hannity does.
Can someone tell me how the Republicans expect to win a general election with candidates who openly profess that they want to continue the slaughter in Iraq, torture folks and institute a police state including 'tamperproof identity cards", no habeus corpus and enemy combatants.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Twenty Questions
What follows is a list of questions to be asked of our current Federal representatives and Senators and any future candidates. I see it as kind of a litmus test. If they can't answer these questions in a satisfactory manner, they are clearly unfit for office in a constitutional republic.
For the record, this is not entirely original. I took the idea from a posting on a Yahoo group, where it was 17 questions and edited it to include some of my personal hot buttons.
1. Do you still support our United States Constitution, as written, and all of the Amendments to our Constitution, as you swore (or will swear, if you are a candidate) to do in your Oath of Office?
2. Do you believe that American citizens have a right to expect that every elected official obey and support our United States Constitution in its entirety?
3. What recourse do you believe American citizens should have when a public official acts, or proposes a law, contrary to the American Rule of Law, as set down in our United States Constitution? Please explain!
4. Do you believe that all branches of government, including regulatory and tax collection agencies, should support and obey our United States Constitution?
5. Please explain under what authority you may feel that government agency could be immune from the rules set down for government by our Constitution.
6. Do you support the right of an American citizen to protect life, family and home against all intruders, with the exception of officials who have a duly sworn warrant and have given proper notice of that warrant as required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
7. If not, please describe any situations where you believe the Fourth Amendment no longer applies, and why.
8. Do you support the right of an American citizen to move around and function in society as they please, unimpeded by any government agent, so long as they do not interfere with other citizens with their activities?
9. What restrictions to personal liberty do you support, and why?
10. Do you support the right of American citizens to acquire, keep and if necessary to defend, real and personal property free from restriction by the federal government?
11. If not, please explain under what Constitutional authority the federal government may restrict the use of personal and private property.
12. What exceptions do you support to the Bill of Rights, and how may these exceptions be justified under the law without amending the Constitution?
13. Are there any areas of human behavior or activities that cannot be regulated by the federal Government? If so, please list any ten that come to mind.
14. Will you certify that you will reject any bill coming before you that does not conform, strictly, to the United States Constitution as written?
15. Furthermore, will you work to repeal all laws, rules, regulations and executive orders not conforming to the written words and intent of the Constitution?
16. Can you name any situation where it is appropriate for the executive branch to imprison any person on US soil and hold him without charge or trial and deny Habeus Corpus process to that person?
17. Is there any situation where you would advocate torture of prisoners?
18. Is there an upper limit to how much of a person’s earnings can be taken by the
government in taxation? Is 50% the upper limit? Is 75% OK? Is it permissible to take it all?
19. If a person is ill, is it within the power of government to deny him the right, under
threat of prison, to use any substance, process or equipment to deal with his illness, even if the government thinks that it will not work?
20. Is it permissible for government to prevent private individuals, spending their own money, from advocating for or against any candidate for office?
For the record, this is not entirely original. I took the idea from a posting on a Yahoo group, where it was 17 questions and edited it to include some of my personal hot buttons.
1. Do you still support our United States Constitution, as written, and all of the Amendments to our Constitution, as you swore (or will swear, if you are a candidate) to do in your Oath of Office?
2. Do you believe that American citizens have a right to expect that every elected official obey and support our United States Constitution in its entirety?
3. What recourse do you believe American citizens should have when a public official acts, or proposes a law, contrary to the American Rule of Law, as set down in our United States Constitution? Please explain!
4. Do you believe that all branches of government, including regulatory and tax collection agencies, should support and obey our United States Constitution?
5. Please explain under what authority you may feel that government agency could be immune from the rules set down for government by our Constitution.
6. Do you support the right of an American citizen to protect life, family and home against all intruders, with the exception of officials who have a duly sworn warrant and have given proper notice of that warrant as required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
7. If not, please describe any situations where you believe the Fourth Amendment no longer applies, and why.
8. Do you support the right of an American citizen to move around and function in society as they please, unimpeded by any government agent, so long as they do not interfere with other citizens with their activities?
9. What restrictions to personal liberty do you support, and why?
10. Do you support the right of American citizens to acquire, keep and if necessary to defend, real and personal property free from restriction by the federal government?
11. If not, please explain under what Constitutional authority the federal government may restrict the use of personal and private property.
12. What exceptions do you support to the Bill of Rights, and how may these exceptions be justified under the law without amending the Constitution?
13. Are there any areas of human behavior or activities that cannot be regulated by the federal Government? If so, please list any ten that come to mind.
14. Will you certify that you will reject any bill coming before you that does not conform, strictly, to the United States Constitution as written?
15. Furthermore, will you work to repeal all laws, rules, regulations and executive orders not conforming to the written words and intent of the Constitution?
16. Can you name any situation where it is appropriate for the executive branch to imprison any person on US soil and hold him without charge or trial and deny Habeus Corpus process to that person?
17. Is there any situation where you would advocate torture of prisoners?
18. Is there an upper limit to how much of a person’s earnings can be taken by the
government in taxation? Is 50% the upper limit? Is 75% OK? Is it permissible to take it all?
19. If a person is ill, is it within the power of government to deny him the right, under
threat of prison, to use any substance, process or equipment to deal with his illness, even if the government thinks that it will not work?
20. Is it permissible for government to prevent private individuals, spending their own money, from advocating for or against any candidate for office?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)