What follows is a transcript of a speech that I gave on 12/07/07 at a caucus held under the auspices of the National Presidential Caucus. It was designated as a Republican Caucus for Johnson County, KS
Dr Paul is the only Republican candidate who is unequivocally against the Iraq War and who pledges to bring the troops home with all deliberate and safe speed. He understands that the war in Iraq was pointless, illegal, unconstitutional and a moral horror.
The vast majority of the US public agrees with this. What chance does any other Republican candidate have to beat the Democrats while arguing for continued war?
The war has brought us only bad. We have lost roughly 4000 US soldiers, killed Iraqis totaling close to a million and displaced more than 2 million. This has won us no hearts and minds. Rather it has made us new enemies. Every dead Iraqi has an extended family who wants revenge.
How do the other Republican candidates, who wear their pro-life credentials proudly when it comes to abortion, have no problem with killing innocent Iraqis?
We have increased our national debt by almost $1 trillion to achieve these dubious results. This huge increase in the debt, coupled with runaway spending at home, has placed our economic future in grave peril. The dollar is collapsing before our very eyes. The Federal Reserve is out of options. Their trick of creating new money out of thin air doesn’t fool the suckers any longer.
Dr Paul understands that money only works as a store of value if it is commodity based. Fiat money, like we have now, has a 100% historic failure rate. It always, eventually, inflates away to nothingness.
Conservative Republican candidates always tell us they want a small government and strict constructionist judges. This is their talk, but that is not their walk. Violations of the constitution are an every day event.
Where in the constitution does is say that:
• The president can lock people up without charge or trial
• Wiretaps can occur without search warrants
• People can be kidnapped from one country (without extradition) and sent to another for torture
• The Federal government can have anything to say about anything not on the short list of functions in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution
Our freedom is melting away as we look. We are significantly less free than 6 years ago. We can not stand idly by. We owe it to our children to give them as much freedom as we inherited from our parents. The only candidate who will help us get that freedom back is Dr Ron Paul.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Ron Paul vs the Establishment
We are seeing some interesting politics these days. It will be something to tell our grandchildren about. After decades of the two party system handing us a pair of really bad candidates, over and over again, so bad that sometimes we really could not discern who was the lesser evil, we finally have a potential candidate who actually knows the rules.
Ron Paul has apparently read the constitution and knows what the federal government is not supposed to do. Unfortunately, if he wins, he will upset quite a few apple carts. There are many special interests that have made careers and fortunes from the idiotic and tyrannical (not to mention unconstitutional) actions of the government. This has been going on for so long that the average Joe cannot conceive of the nation operating without all these expensive and wasteful federal programs. I guess that multiple generations of public schooling is part of that problem.
Folks-When the government takes money from you in the form of taxes approaching 50% of your earnings and promises you benefits in exchange, do you really think this will be beneficial to you in total? Do you think that someone else will pay for your benefits and you will profit? You know that is not going to happen! The average Joe will surely lose on that deal. The majority will surely lose on that deal. You will lose control of how your money is spent.
Consider a single segment of socialism to see that is cannot be good on balance. Let us say that the government takes on the job of every one's health insurance company. They do not charge actual premiums but rather raise some tax to cover the cost. Now federal medical spending becomes a matter of congress passing budgets. Let us suppose that in some future year, they want to fight another pointless war to profit some contractor friends. They decide that the risk from the current demon is so great that we have to cut health spending to pay for it. They set up rationing such as waiting lists for expensive operations. Maybe they decide that folks over age XX have very little life left anyway, so why waste the government's money on them. Let them languish on the waiting list till they die. So now that older person, who paid plenty of taxes toward health care has no control over that money that he needs to save his life. It is now the government's money, not his.
Nevertheless, after a few years of that program, people will get used to it and be unable to conceive of medical care without the government as intermediary.
Most everything the government does for you could be better done for yourself if you had control of the tax money back.
If Ron Paul wins, we will start the long process of ending these programs, which are doomed in the long term in any case.
I have heard people say but what about medical care for the poor. Do you how many fewer poor there would be if there were no income tax? How much better every one's standard of living would be without the income tax and the inflation tax?
Support Ron Paul for president if you want:
Ron Paul has apparently read the constitution and knows what the federal government is not supposed to do. Unfortunately, if he wins, he will upset quite a few apple carts. There are many special interests that have made careers and fortunes from the idiotic and tyrannical (not to mention unconstitutional) actions of the government. This has been going on for so long that the average Joe cannot conceive of the nation operating without all these expensive and wasteful federal programs. I guess that multiple generations of public schooling is part of that problem.
Folks-When the government takes money from you in the form of taxes approaching 50% of your earnings and promises you benefits in exchange, do you really think this will be beneficial to you in total? Do you think that someone else will pay for your benefits and you will profit? You know that is not going to happen! The average Joe will surely lose on that deal. The majority will surely lose on that deal. You will lose control of how your money is spent.
Consider a single segment of socialism to see that is cannot be good on balance. Let us say that the government takes on the job of every one's health insurance company. They do not charge actual premiums but rather raise some tax to cover the cost. Now federal medical spending becomes a matter of congress passing budgets. Let us suppose that in some future year, they want to fight another pointless war to profit some contractor friends. They decide that the risk from the current demon is so great that we have to cut health spending to pay for it. They set up rationing such as waiting lists for expensive operations. Maybe they decide that folks over age XX have very little life left anyway, so why waste the government's money on them. Let them languish on the waiting list till they die. So now that older person, who paid plenty of taxes toward health care has no control over that money that he needs to save his life. It is now the government's money, not his.
Nevertheless, after a few years of that program, people will get used to it and be unable to conceive of medical care without the government as intermediary.
Most everything the government does for you could be better done for yourself if you had control of the tax money back.
If Ron Paul wins, we will start the long process of ending these programs, which are doomed in the long term in any case.
I have heard people say but what about medical care for the poor. Do you how many fewer poor there would be if there were no income tax? How much better every one's standard of living would be without the income tax and the inflation tax?
Support Ron Paul for president if you want:
- To get our freedom back from the rapidly expanding police state,
- To end the idiotic war in Iraq and prevent an even more idiotic war in Iran
- To stop the debasement of the dollar and return to a sound currency
- To stop imprisonment without trial
- To stop torture in our name
- To stop extraordinary rendition (outsourced torture)
- To stop wiretapping without warrant
- To stop the empire from bankrupting us
- To ensure a future of freedom rather than tyranny for our posterity
- To stop some horrible civil liberties violations just too numerous to list here.
We find ourselves at a key turning point in the history of our nation. For many decades, we allowed the government to grow in power and take much of our wealth to support welfare programs. It has been a continual loser for us but many of us know nothing else and cannot conceive of freedom. But we owe it to our posterity to preserve and restore freedom. Otherwise they will curse us for our apathy, for putting them in the position of having to physically fight for their freedom back. We can still get it back with a vote. Let's not pass this opportunity by. We won't have another in our lifetimes.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
An Epidemic of Taser torture and death
In the last week, there have been two incidents of police brutality using a Taser in circumstances where it was completely unnecessary. In the two incidents in Florida and California, a peaceful person was arrested for questionable reasons and then tasered for insufficiently quick compliance with police orders.
I am particularly scared by this since in the past, police would be careful to have no witnesses when they used excessive force. In both instances, they did this in front of numerous witnesses and did not mind multiple people video taping close up. This means to me that they believe that the police state is so far advanced that they no longer have to worry about consequences.
I watched three separate videos of the incident in Gainesville FL from different angles. The victim was asking questions politely of John Kerry when, quite suddenly, he was pulled away forcibly by police. He was clearly astonished. I guess he thought that we still live in a free country where there was no penalty for asking a politician an embarrassing question. Well I guess he now knows better. The police state is upon us and torture is OK, not just for Muslims in GITMO but for US citizens as well.
The other astonishing item is that Kerry appeared totally unaware of what was happening. He was actually answering the student's question as he was being tasered in the back of the room. I don't think that he heard the answer.
I think that it is our responsibility right now to visit our respective city councils, county commissions, etc to be sure that they put rules in place to prevent this casual use of Tasers. Police have got this story that they are not lethal and can be used freely. Torture or pain compliance is OK with them. Well torture or pain compliance is not OK with me.
We also have to stress that deaths have occurred and they are not entirely non-lethal. There is risk based on the health of the victim. The officer will likely not know the health of his victim at the time so using a Taser should be considered the use of lethal force. It should not be used except where lethal force would be clearly justified.
One more important point. The neo-con talk radio and TV contingent: Hannitty, O'Reilly and Glen Beck are all laughing at "Taser Boy". They are all down with the police state.
I am particularly scared by this since in the past, police would be careful to have no witnesses when they used excessive force. In both instances, they did this in front of numerous witnesses and did not mind multiple people video taping close up. This means to me that they believe that the police state is so far advanced that they no longer have to worry about consequences.
I watched three separate videos of the incident in Gainesville FL from different angles. The victim was asking questions politely of John Kerry when, quite suddenly, he was pulled away forcibly by police. He was clearly astonished. I guess he thought that we still live in a free country where there was no penalty for asking a politician an embarrassing question. Well I guess he now knows better. The police state is upon us and torture is OK, not just for Muslims in GITMO but for US citizens as well.
The other astonishing item is that Kerry appeared totally unaware of what was happening. He was actually answering the student's question as he was being tasered in the back of the room. I don't think that he heard the answer.
I think that it is our responsibility right now to visit our respective city councils, county commissions, etc to be sure that they put rules in place to prevent this casual use of Tasers. Police have got this story that they are not lethal and can be used freely. Torture or pain compliance is OK with them. Well torture or pain compliance is not OK with me.
We also have to stress that deaths have occurred and they are not entirely non-lethal. There is risk based on the health of the victim. The officer will likely not know the health of his victim at the time so using a Taser should be considered the use of lethal force. It should not be used except where lethal force would be clearly justified.
One more important point. The neo-con talk radio and TV contingent: Hannitty, O'Reilly and Glen Beck are all laughing at "Taser Boy". They are all down with the police state.
An American History Teachers asks
A comment from a teacher of American History
As a teacher of American history I never cease to be impressed with how little the American people understand their history, particularly the relationship between government and society. Many citizens equate "freedom" with the unfettered right to "do their own thing", and that government regulation constitutes an abuse of personal liberty. To me, this is not "liberty", but "license"; excessive undisciplined freedom, constituting an abuse of liberty. Our freedom as a people has always been tempered by the government's "power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.) I would submit that regulating where smoking is permitted falls within the province of protecting the "general welfare" of society. We would all do well to heed the whole of the U.S. Constitution's provisions, rather than employing a selective "buffet table." Instead of picking and choosing of those liberties which emphasize individual rights we should not subordinate the best interests and general welfare of the whole society.
That a teacher of American History has these opinions is not surprizing. It is also not surprizing that our freedoms are melting away like a snowball in the Florida sun when our kids are taught this.
In so far as the powers of the federal government, they are strictly limited by Article 1 Section 8. It was the intent of the founders to ensure that ordinary citizens would have little contact with the federal government or its laws and that most areas of daily life would be regulated by the states. This desire was reinforced in the Tenth Amendment.
It is certainly true that the government has been able, through disengenuous arguments, to slip the leash of the constitution and we suffer as a result. I remember, even lo these many years later, when I was in the sixth grade, reading an American history book that extolled the virtues of the "elastic clause". They were refering to the commerce clause of Article 1 Section 8 and how just about everything could be turned into commerce and thus regulated. The courts ran with that and concurred that congress could even regulate what a farmer planted on his land for his own use and call it commerce.
The intention of the founders and the definition of freedom is that the default position is that people did what they wanted and it was not the business of government, at any level, to interfere unless others rights were being violated in the process. This left some grey areas, but they were to be resolved at the state or lower lever. Certainly not at the federal level.
They also set up a system with checks and balances. Every power had a check, and no law which contradicted the constitution had any effect. Those laws would provide no protection and impose no penalties.
So what was the check they had in mind for silly laws passed by the legislature? It was the twice repeated right to trial by jury for ALL CRIMINAL TRIALS (no deminimus) and ALL CIVIL TRIALS (where more than $20 was at stake). Is that in effect today? Do juries know that they are supposed to judge the law as well as the facts? Of course not! They have never been educated in the basics of what our freedom means and how we are to maintain it. Most don't even know that it needs maintenance.
Now. moving on to the states and their sub divisions, we again have some limits imposed by the Federal constitution and some limits imposed by the state constittuion. We also have the same checks and balances between the Governor, the legislature, the courts and the people through the ballot box and the jury box.
Now to the specific matter of smoking limitations: We have specific protections for our property rights. In both the 5th and 14th amendment. We were promised that we would never be deprived of our property without due process. When the city or county government tells the owner of a bar, restaurant, or such how he may use his property, they diminish its value and deprive him of property without his having committed any prior crime. The proposed statute and that in other cities in the area impose fines for violating this law that will be adjucated in municipal court without benefit of trial by jury.
Yes, I am saying that every single charge needs to be adjudicated by a jury so that the people will have their check on what I consider an unjust law. Will it be very hard to get a conviction? You bet! That is because there is a significant minority that will defend the rights to property and hung juries will be the order of the day. Prosecutors will stop bringing charges and the law will melt away. That is what is supposed to happen to unjust laws. That is how minorities can protect themselves from overbearing, politically driven, majorities. It is a key ingredient to keeping a government in check and governments must be kept in check.
History shows us that, with the passage of time, power leaves the people and goes to government. Government must protect us from all manner of evil. This is why we must always have some demon to fear. In my lifetime it was communists, terrorists, Kadaffi, Saddam, Osama, Islamofascists, druggies, homosexuals, foreigners in general and on without end. Government makes new laws to violate our rights in order to protect us from the demon of the day and the people cheer. "Thus is freedom lost, to wild applause."
Do you teach about the function of juries in your American History class? WHY NOT?
As a teacher of American history I never cease to be impressed with how little the American people understand their history, particularly the relationship between government and society. Many citizens equate "freedom" with the unfettered right to "do their own thing", and that government regulation constitutes an abuse of personal liberty. To me, this is not "liberty", but "license"; excessive undisciplined freedom, constituting an abuse of liberty. Our freedom as a people has always been tempered by the government's "power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.) I would submit that regulating where smoking is permitted falls within the province of protecting the "general welfare" of society. We would all do well to heed the whole of the U.S. Constitution's provisions, rather than employing a selective "buffet table." Instead of picking and choosing of those liberties which emphasize individual rights we should not subordinate the best interests and general welfare of the whole society.
That a teacher of American History has these opinions is not surprizing. It is also not surprizing that our freedoms are melting away like a snowball in the Florida sun when our kids are taught this.
In so far as the powers of the federal government, they are strictly limited by Article 1 Section 8. It was the intent of the founders to ensure that ordinary citizens would have little contact with the federal government or its laws and that most areas of daily life would be regulated by the states. This desire was reinforced in the Tenth Amendment.
It is certainly true that the government has been able, through disengenuous arguments, to slip the leash of the constitution and we suffer as a result. I remember, even lo these many years later, when I was in the sixth grade, reading an American history book that extolled the virtues of the "elastic clause". They were refering to the commerce clause of Article 1 Section 8 and how just about everything could be turned into commerce and thus regulated. The courts ran with that and concurred that congress could even regulate what a farmer planted on his land for his own use and call it commerce.
The intention of the founders and the definition of freedom is that the default position is that people did what they wanted and it was not the business of government, at any level, to interfere unless others rights were being violated in the process. This left some grey areas, but they were to be resolved at the state or lower lever. Certainly not at the federal level.
They also set up a system with checks and balances. Every power had a check, and no law which contradicted the constitution had any effect. Those laws would provide no protection and impose no penalties.
So what was the check they had in mind for silly laws passed by the legislature? It was the twice repeated right to trial by jury for ALL CRIMINAL TRIALS (no deminimus) and ALL CIVIL TRIALS (where more than $20 was at stake). Is that in effect today? Do juries know that they are supposed to judge the law as well as the facts? Of course not! They have never been educated in the basics of what our freedom means and how we are to maintain it. Most don't even know that it needs maintenance.
Now. moving on to the states and their sub divisions, we again have some limits imposed by the Federal constitution and some limits imposed by the state constittuion. We also have the same checks and balances between the Governor, the legislature, the courts and the people through the ballot box and the jury box.
Now to the specific matter of smoking limitations: We have specific protections for our property rights. In both the 5th and 14th amendment. We were promised that we would never be deprived of our property without due process. When the city or county government tells the owner of a bar, restaurant, or such how he may use his property, they diminish its value and deprive him of property without his having committed any prior crime. The proposed statute and that in other cities in the area impose fines for violating this law that will be adjucated in municipal court without benefit of trial by jury.
Yes, I am saying that every single charge needs to be adjudicated by a jury so that the people will have their check on what I consider an unjust law. Will it be very hard to get a conviction? You bet! That is because there is a significant minority that will defend the rights to property and hung juries will be the order of the day. Prosecutors will stop bringing charges and the law will melt away. That is what is supposed to happen to unjust laws. That is how minorities can protect themselves from overbearing, politically driven, majorities. It is a key ingredient to keeping a government in check and governments must be kept in check.
History shows us that, with the passage of time, power leaves the people and goes to government. Government must protect us from all manner of evil. This is why we must always have some demon to fear. In my lifetime it was communists, terrorists, Kadaffi, Saddam, Osama, Islamofascists, druggies, homosexuals, foreigners in general and on without end. Government makes new laws to violate our rights in order to protect us from the demon of the day and the people cheer. "Thus is freedom lost, to wild applause."
Do you teach about the function of juries in your American History class? WHY NOT?
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Pro-War Libertarians?
Recently, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Randy Barnett, a self proclaimed libertarian in which he chided anti-war libertarians as giving libertarianism a bad name. He specifically had it in for Ron Paul whose candidacy, he thought, would set back the cause of libertarianism by scaring off the pro-war folks.
The logic was so perverse that I was moved to write a Letter to the Editor. Alas, my letter was not published so I am reproducing it below for your reading pleasure.
Start letter:
Randy Barnett in "Libertarians and the War", (7/17/2007) sure has a funny idea of Libertarian philosophy and moral standards.
The first principle of a libertarian is non-aggression. One must never initiate force against another. Clearly this leaves plenty of room for self defense, where the other party initiated the force. So, to determine the morality of the Iraq War, we must ask ourselves if the force we applied to Iraq and its people was, in fact justified as self defense. If it was not, it is mass murder.
Mr. Barnett attempts to paint a picture where our nation, having been attacked by a handful of Muslims on 9/11 and some earlier incidents where the number of aggressors was small, can now attack all or any of 800 million Muslims in the world and call it self defense.
I think not! This is using the principle of group guilt. This is the same principle used by Hitler to massacre Jews and Stalin to kill any anti-communists he could find. This is not a fit principle for this nation or any nation that claims the moral high ground.
We also know that the first excuse given for the invasion, to defend ourselves against the imminent use of Weapons of Mass Destruction was not just false, it was known false by our government as it was being claimed. We are probably approaching one million dead souls from this war and all that blood is on the hands of this administration.
Anyone who self identifies himself as a Libertarian but thinks the invasion of Iraq was justified needs a refresher course in our principles. Congressman Paul understands these principles quite well and none of the other Republican candidates even comes close.
The logic was so perverse that I was moved to write a Letter to the Editor. Alas, my letter was not published so I am reproducing it below for your reading pleasure.
Start letter:
Randy Barnett in "Libertarians and the War", (7/17/2007) sure has a funny idea of Libertarian philosophy and moral standards.
The first principle of a libertarian is non-aggression. One must never initiate force against another. Clearly this leaves plenty of room for self defense, where the other party initiated the force. So, to determine the morality of the Iraq War, we must ask ourselves if the force we applied to Iraq and its people was, in fact justified as self defense. If it was not, it is mass murder.
Mr. Barnett attempts to paint a picture where our nation, having been attacked by a handful of Muslims on 9/11 and some earlier incidents where the number of aggressors was small, can now attack all or any of 800 million Muslims in the world and call it self defense.
I think not! This is using the principle of group guilt. This is the same principle used by Hitler to massacre Jews and Stalin to kill any anti-communists he could find. This is not a fit principle for this nation or any nation that claims the moral high ground.
We also know that the first excuse given for the invasion, to defend ourselves against the imminent use of Weapons of Mass Destruction was not just false, it was known false by our government as it was being claimed. We are probably approaching one million dead souls from this war and all that blood is on the hands of this administration.
Anyone who self identifies himself as a Libertarian but thinks the invasion of Iraq was justified needs a refresher course in our principles. Congressman Paul understands these principles quite well and none of the other Republican candidates even comes close.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)