Don't Be A Sheep!

Who is David Walker and Why Do I Care?

2008-01-16T23:42:00.000-05:00

[On a personal note, I got on quite a prolific pontification with this post, but please take the time to read it. It is a bit long, but very eye opening]

Why do countries and empires collapse? Was the Soviet Union destroyed by a nuclear war? Was the Roman Empire destroyed by a rival army? How about something closer to home: Enron, PanAm Airlines, or the mom and pop restaurant down the street?

If you look at each one of these it comes back to money and structure. The two are interrelated. If your structure is too big and your money is not enough, you are bankrupt. End of Story. Now this can be caused by many different reasons: deceit, bad management, incorrect market expectations, or what is probably the case in most of them: arrogance.

Here is a great quote I found about the Roman collapse:

One of the primary catalysts to the deterioration of the economy was the lack of circulating currency in the Western Empire. Two reasons for the lack of funds are wholesale hoarding of bullion by Roman citizens, and the widespread looting of the Roman treasury by the 'barbarians'. These two factors, coupled with the massive trade deficit with Eastern Regions of the Empire served to stifle the growth of wealth in the west. ~ The Economic Collapse

Sound familiar?

So let me pose this question to you. Put yourself in the position of Osama Bin Laden. If you wanted to bring down a super power, your options are a direct frontal attack. Scratch That. How about a Hit and Run (9/11)? That causes damage but we always recover. How about I just cut off his food supply and he will starve? That works. Bin Laden realizes he can never beat us militarily, so instead he has set his sights on bankrupting us.

FOLKS! IT IS WORKING!

Bin Laden Transcript 2004

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.

He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."

All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.

Now let me ask a very hard question. When all is said and done with Iraq what tangible benefits will we, the American People, have received for our investments of our money, sons and daughters, and our military resources? What about Afghanistan? Remember them? When is the last time you heard a report out of Afghanistan? At what point are we coming home from there? We have been there for over 6 years now. In Pakistan, we have given Musharraf $10 billion since 9/11. I'm not seeing a return there. One report I read (If I find it again I'll cite it) said that we have over 700 bases around the world at a cost of around $1 Trillion per year to maintain. Do we really need a base in Japan and Germany 60 years after WWII?

If somebody attacks us, we have every right to defend ourselves (Japan in WWII, Afghanistan in 2001 are a fine examples, except we are still in Afghanistan with no plan to get out). Also we must maintain a strong national defense. That being said, lets face the cold hard facts, Iraq did not attack us. What would happen if every country in the world had the right to attack another country just because they *thought* they might be attacked? Total Chaos. Probably WWIII.

So back to my original question, who is David Walker?

I was sparked on this topic by a video of David Walker on Glenn Beck's show on CNN. You have probably never heard of David Walker, but in short, he is the Comptroller General of the Governmental Accounting Office (GAO). Basically he is the lead accountant for our Government). He is not in an elected position. He is appointed to 15 year terms, and he has just started his 2nd term. In short, he paints a very dire picture.

One side note, Republicans love to paint Democrats as the big spenders, but in reality, our actual debt has gone from $20 Trillion to $50 Trillion in the last 6 years. Who has been in control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency over the better part of the last 6 years? Republicans. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Here are the major points of his clip:

Every household owes our US Government $400,000 to cover our debt
By 2040, our Government can only cover Social Security and Medicare and NOTHING ELSE!
Every year we don't act, our debt goes up $2-$3 Trillion based on compound interest
If we were a business we would be bankrupt, but Government can just Tax more.
Can not solve the problem through Tax increases, but through a combination of Tax Increases and Spending Cuts
Ron Paul only candidate talking about these issues.
Universal Healthcare is off the table. Tax Cuts don't cover it.
This year, Government will run $163 Billion deficit, but the real deficit is $344 billion because the Politicians don't mention that they spent our Social Security surplus.
If a business did this, somebody would be going to jail

So, now that being said, take a listen to our Chief Accountant.

Here are some additional videos. They are all worth watching:

David Walker on 60 Minutes

Recap of the 60 Minutes show

A 26 minute speech by David Walker

So what happens when we finally sink? Here is the answer:

Subprime Nation - Pat Buchanan

Since it began to give credit ratings to nations in 1917, Moody's has rated the United States triple-A. U.S. Treasury bonds have been seen as the most secure investment on earth. When crises erupt, nervous money seeks out the world's great safe harbor, the United States. That reputation is now in peril.

Last week, Moody's warned that if the United States fails to rein in the soaring cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the nation's credit rating will be down-graded within a decade.

Why we need a Ron Paul Presidency right now!

Our political parties seem oblivious. Republicans, save Ron Paul, are all promising to expand the U.S. military and maintain all of our worldwide commitments to defend and subsidize scores of nations.

--Pat Buchanan

A drop in rating by Moody's is a very big deal. It would bring our economy to a very quick halt. Look what happened to Argentina from 1999 to 2002 [wikipedia]

Of all the presidential candidates, Ron Paul is the only one who is telling the truth. He has voted against nearly every spending bill put in front of him. He has the nick name of "Dr. No". This is a tough and lonely stance to take in Washington. John McCain bragged that he saved the American Tax payers $8 Billion on a taker deal. Thanks John, but that is just a drop in the bucket. Our spending needs to be BELOW our income so that we can start paying off the debt.

Take a look at:

Debt and Taxes and click on the Play button at the top right.

Another good one is How Government Debt Grows

Dr. Paul is the type of individual who runs his office so frugally that he actually returns money at the end of the year to the Treasury. Ask your Congressman if he does that.

Finally, this is a man who even votes against the Congressional Medal of Honor for people like Mother Teresa, Dali Lama, and Tony Blair. His reason? That is not a good use of the tax payers money. Each of those medals is $30,000. They are pure gold. He instead said that every Congressman should give $100 personally. Nobody took him up on that. Surprise.

I wonder if my colleagues see the irony in honoring a devout Buddhist monk with a material gift of gold. The Buddhist tradition, of course, eschews worldly possessions in favor of purity of thought and action. Buddhism urges its practitioners to alleviate the suffering of others whenever possible. I’m sure His Holiness the Dalai Lama would rather see $30,000 spent to help those less fortunate, rather than for a feel-good congressional gesture.

We cannot forget that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to spend taxpayer money on medals and awards, no matter how richly deserved. And I reiterate my offer of $100 from my own pocket to pay for this medal–if members wish to honor the Dalai Lama, all we need to do is pay for it ourselves. If all 435 of us contribute, the cost will be roughly $70 each. So while a gold medal sounds like a great idea, it becomes a bit strange when we see the actual cost involved.

-- Dr. Ron Paul -- Floor of the House -- September 13, 2007

Here is his speech from the floor of the House

Help save this country. Please consider voting Ron Paul.

A Soldier's View of the War

2008-01-06T17:52:00.000-05:00

I have not blogged about the war because it is a sensitive topic among my friends and family and heated discussion usually ensues. Also, I have purposefully avoided criticisms of other candidates, as I see my job as highlighting Dr. Paul's views, and letting you make up your own mind by encouraging you to do the research yourself.

Please understand that I will continue to respect both of those. So to all you Huckabee fans on my list, I am not bashing Huckabee, more just pointing out Ron Paul. I disagree with Huckabee on policy issues, but feel that he is probably a good man. We just have different views on the role of Government especially in Foreign Policy.

So about the war, I am not a veteran, and I have not served in the miliary, so I have no basis to spout opinion, so I look to those that have served to ask them what their opinions are. In doing research about veterans and Ron Paul, I found this page on their official website. It lists veterans who are supporting Ron Paul. It seems to be growing by the day. To me that says more than anything else. Last I checked they were at 350, and it has only been up for less than a week.

RonPaul2008.com - Veterans

So as I said above, I do not want to share my opinion of the war, but the opinion of a soldier that recently returned from Iraq with you.

Like anything on the internet, it could be faked but I don't believe this is. Here is the bio he lists on his page (misspellings included):

Some have questioned my authenticity, but I am not a fake. I have recently returned from a 14 month deployment in Iraq and am now on reservist status. The purpose of this video is to express my frustration like many soldiers about the discrepancies between my experience in Iraq and the perception that the everaga citizen holds. More than ever, citizens must understand the situation in Iraq. Peace.

Note that there is foul language at around 4:30 into the clip.

Wars are horrible horrible things, and it is easy for us over here, who are sacrificing so little, to talk about grand ideas and morals for our troops and their missions, but instead we need to hush, and listen to them. Every soldier lost or injured is a family changed forever.

Iowa Is A Good Start

2008-01-06T17:24:00.000-05:00

Some of my friends and family have asked me "How did your guy do?" Well, I thought I would just quickly type up my thoughts and send them out.

In short: He did good, and I'm looking forward to New Hampshire on Tuesday.

Here is the breakdown and my perspective:

Huckabee	40,841	34%
Romney	29,949	25%
Thompson	15,905	13%
McCain	15,559	13%
Paul	11,817	10%
Giuliani	4,097	4%
Hunter	524	1%

In short, he placed 5th, but the difference between 3rd and 5th was only 4,000 votes. Very positive. Also, this is a person who went to Iowa and said that farm subsidies are a bad idea. Go and research corn subsidies and you will see what I mean.

So in short, we are off to New Hampshire, and he has enough money to make it all the way to Super Tuesday.

The real story is the total decimation of Giuliani. Remind me again that he is the national front runner? And Dr. Paul almost tripled his take in Iowa? Rock On!

Now that being said, on the same station that gave the clip above they also gave us the clip below. Ron Paul was running just behind McCain and Thompson, but somehow they forgot to put his name in the pie chart. But if you look carefully, you will see where his name is suppose to go (grey area at the top), but it is conveniently left out. Journalism is in a sad sad sad state.

Fox News Should Be Ashamed

2008-01-06T16:57:00.000-05:00

So in my post the other day lamenting how the media shapes our opinions about the candidates, I mentioned that Fox News is having a debate/forum this afternoon. Well, they only invited Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain to this event. They excluded Ron Paul. Ron Paul has participated in every debate since the beginning of the race, except this one. And their reason? I kid you not: There is physically not enough room at the table. Wow, how lame does it get.

This is a man who raised a staggering $19.75 million in the fourth quarter of 2007. He took 10% of the vote in Iowa, only 4,000 votes behind 3rd place Thompson. This from a man who went to Iowa and said farm subsidies are a bad idea.

The New Hampshire GOP actually pulled their support for the debate. Although I applaud them, I am not sure that it really did any good.

The setup is so bad, that even Greta Van Susteren of Fox News actually spoke up for Dr. Paul on her own station! Go Greta! Take a look.

In short, please think for yourself. If you hear a candidate sling mud, then go and lookup that fact and see their side. My dad is a lawyer, and one of the most important lessons I learned from him is that when hearing a "side" of a story, make sure to get the other side before coming to your conclusion, because if you are only hearing one side, you are definitely not getting all the facts.

Shame on Fox News.

Don't Let the Media Choose Our Next President!

2007-12-31T16:39:00.000-05:00

Please, please, please, do not let the media choose our next president. Do the research yourself. Go and watch the youtube speeches by the candidates. Because of the internet, you have the ability to research candidates as never before. So here is a little test. I'm going to list the name of a candidate, and for each one, I want you to write down the first thing that comes to mind.

Hillary Clinton
John McCain
Ron Paul
Barack Obama
Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee

Now, did you write down your answers? If you did, now look at what you wrote down and ask yourself "Why do I think that?" Is that grounded in facts?

I challenge you to go and watch a youtube speech for each candidate, do the research, then go back and see if you still think the same of the candidate.

Media Bias

So how did I get on this rant? Well, when you follow a candidate that the media does not like, it is very easy to get angry and disgruntled. I want to give you some blatant examples of media bias towards Dr. Paul.

Fair and Balanced? I think not!

Fox News and the New Hampshire GOP are putting together a debate/forum on Jan 6th in New Hampshire. Fox News decided to exclude Dr. Paul from this debate/forum. At first there were all sorts of wrong and misinformation floating around on the internet, but it looks like we finally have some solid information. Fox News and Ron Paul have never been friends, but that being said, Fox News should have enough journalistic integrity to include all the candidates. But I guess not. The problem is that they have invited Fred Thompson. even though Ron Paul has consistently polled above Fred Thompson in nearly every poll. See for yourself:

New Hampshire - 2008 Presidential Polls

Fox News has yet to respond to requests dating back to Friday as to why Dr. Paul was excluded. His own campaign has had trouble getting in touch with Fox News. That seems strange now that we have Text Messages, Blackberries, email and cells phones, that somebody at Fox can not confirm or deny if Dr. Paul has been excluded. At this point it is very hard to say this is just a miscommunication.

Here is the latest word from the New Hampshire GOP who is co-hosting this event:

New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen releases the following statement regarding primary weekend debates:

“Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.”

[Full Article]

Pop quiz: The owner of Fox News is Rupert Murdoch. Which presidential candidate has Mr Murdoch contributed the maximum amount to? If you said Hilliary Clinton, you would be correct.

Rupert Murdoch Political Contributions

He has given heavily to Republican Congressmen and to the Republican Party, but the only presidential candidate he has given to (to the best of my knowledge) is Hilliary Clinton. I do not know about you, but I found that interesting.

The truth about Earmarks

Dr. Paul was on Meet the Press last week. Tim Russert asked him about earmarks. Russert was trying to discredit Dr. Paul about his adding of earmarks to spending bills. The problem is that if you don't understand what an earmark is, it does sound like Dr. Paul is having his cake and eating it too. (Though in Russert's defense and my personal opinion, Dr. Paul did not do a good job defending his position) But if you dig a little deeper you start to see that Dr. Paul is working against a horrible system, and he is using a tool he is given. If he had his way, all earmarks would be banned.

Dr. Paul would put in an earmark to a spending bill, then vote against the entire bill. Russert's comment was this was similar to the "your were for it before you were against it". Unfortunately this shows a total lack of understanding about the nature of earmarks by Russert. So what came out of that interview was lots of articles bashing Dr. Paul's "hypocrisy". Well once again, if you go and read about what an earmark actually is you will begin to understand that it is more complex than a 30 second sound bite.

So what is an earmark? [wikipedia]

Earmarking bypasses the normal procedure by which tax revenue is pooled in a general fund and then allocated among various government spending programs as opposed to a specific program.

In other words, if during the creation of a spending bill, if you don't earmark money for a certain expense (a new highway or whatever), then the department that gets that money can decided however they want. The money will be spent either way, so Dr. Paul is trying to serve his constituents by bringing some of the tax money they pay into the Federal Government back to his district.

Here is an article from this summer on Dr. Paul's website about earmarks:

Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One

Here is another good explanation:

In Defense of Ron Paul’s Earmarks

Paint Ron Paul as a racist

In the worst of all smears, the New York Times ran an article that said that Dr. Ron Paul has regular dinners with a White Supremacy group. The article was the worst of the worst. So after being up for two days, they pulled the article and put up a retraction.

The quote from the original article:

Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Va., usually on Wednesdays.

Oh for the love of all that is holy!

Here is the retraction:

The post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White.

But the problem is how many people read the first article, made up their minds, and do not go back to check the facts. Does not matter I guess. The damage is already done.

PLEASE do not let the media choose our next president! Please do the research yourself and vote the issues. That is all I'm asking. If you vote for Ron Paul, then I think you will have made a good decision, but if you vote otherwise, just make sure you are voting your mind and not your emotions. Electablity is something We the People choose, not the media. And if you have not done the research, or can not backup why you like a candidate with facts, then please Do Not Vote. Seriously. A Republic only works, with an informed electorate.

Is anybody else scared?

2007-12-31T16:18:00.000-05:00

I had a very powerful thought the other day pertaining to how people work in groups, especially when those groups have power over others. Anywhere from management of a company, to our State and Federal officials. The conclusion that I came to was this: Many folks start out with the best of intentions, but what happens is that apathy and arrogance kicks in, and the people in power quickly become comfortable with the power they have, and they forget where that power actually comes from. The only power that elected officials have, is the power that WE give them.

What happens at the point of apathy is that, even with the best of intentions, a solution to a problem is developed but because it is not well thought out, it has disastrous consequences. A prime example of this is the support of the Patriot Act in Congress. Many Congress men and women went along with this horrendous legislation because they thought it would make our country safer. We, the citizens, also went with it thinking the government needed this to help keep us safe. Government should move slow for a reason. If Government moves too fast, you should stop and investigate.

Do not forget that it is us, the citizens that are in charge and not the politicians. "They serve us", not "we serve them"!

So that being said, this was the main story that Google News picked up the other day.

FBI Prepares Vast Database Of Biometrics

Maybe I have just read too many books (1984, Brave New World, etc), but one of the key problems with power, is simply that it will pretty much always be abused. So when I see the Government spending a billion of our tax dollars to create a database to help track us, then I just keep thinking that we have been taxed to build tools to keep us in line. Just look around the world at all the tyranny of the past and present, and do not think for a second that our government, if left unchecked, is somehow immune to these thoughts. It may not happen intentionally by all, but it only takes a few leaders to lead the blind herd. Just look back at the McCarthy Hearings or the way that the 16th Amendment was passed. Also go and read about the current ideas floating around for a "National ID Card". This is another horrible idea that sounds good at first, but when you peel the layers back you see it for the terrible idea that it is.

A National ID Card Wouldn't Make Us Safer - Bruce Schneier

Finally, take a look at the this incredible piece of legislation: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 On the surface, it sounds fine, but when you start digging, it just has alarm bells all over it.

HR 1955 [wikipedia].

Sadly it passed 406-6. It was presented by a Democrat. So much for the Democrats sticking up for Civil Liberties. I guess that has fallen out of favor with both parties. My complaint about this bill is that it is totally unnecessary, but that is my personal opinion.

Here is the status of the bill now before the Senate.

In summary, do not let it be said that we built the cage for ourselves to be held in, whether it be taxes, civil liberties, or apathy. If you are not working against these items, then do not complain when we pay 50% of our taxes to a government that tracks our every move. As Dr. Paul said the other day (paraphrase) "Freedom is a new idea, Tyranny is old, very old"

The Voice of Ronald Reagan 1964

2007-12-25T23:20:00.000-05:00

Here is a powerful quote I pulled from a youtube comment section:

Ron Paul's ideas only seem insane because we've lived under insane policies for all our lives. Ron Paul is the only one trying to bring us back to sanity. Please learn all you can about economics, history, and philosophy. Educate yourself. --odigity

Man! I could not agree more! The more I read, the more I study, the more I say: "WHOO! Stop this crazy train".

Ron Paul was on Bill O'Reilly a couple of months ago. It was a sham of an interview. [link] The problem with the interview is that Dr. Paul was repeatedly trying to explain the complicated history of dealing with Middle East politics, and Bill O'Reilly's comment was "we don't need a history lesson". (2:48 seconds into the clip).

Sadly we have all heard the saying: Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

Also, Bill O'Reilly was looking for a "sound bite" answer, but Dr. Paul's ideas are bigger than any 15 second "sound bite" allows. The news media really does not allow for ideas that take longer than 30 seconds to be fully explained. (which is why I keep urging you all to read and research for yourselves). There are so many incredible ideas out there that are just not going to be covered by the core media (Fox, CNN, NBC, NPR, etc). But I digress...

So to help us remember our history, I ask that you watch this 6 minute video which is a mixture of a famous Ronald Reagan speech and Dr. Paul's speeches. It is really sad to me that all the Republican candidates love to talk about how awesome Ronald Reagan was, but sadly when Ron Paul makes the EXACT same statements about liberty, freedom, and small government that Ronald Reagan made back in 1964, Dr. Paul is considered "a kook","a gadfly", and the "far fringes of the debate".

Here is a link to the full text and audio of Ronald Reagan's famous 1964 speech:

A Time For Choosing - Ronald Reagan

For me, this is the crucial statement:

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

WOWOWOW!!!!!

For me, the one issue I am focusing on for this election is Fiscal Responsibility. My thought is that if we can have Fiscal Responsibility then many of the other issues facing this country will fall by the way side. If the government does not have money to spend on terrible programs, then the programs will die. The rest of the Republican field, other than Dr. Paul, seem to just want to tinker around the edges. Even the Fair Tax, which is much better than what we have right now, just changes how the government gets our money, and not the amount they receive. It is time to clear house, and bring the Federal Government back to a more reasonable level. If the States want to increase their taxes to cover programs, then so be it, but we must move back towards a more limited government at the Federal level.

[NOTE: The text at the end of the video is actually a quote from Ronald Reagan about Ron Paul. Make sure to pause it and read it. The font is not easy to read]

When States Rights and the Environement meetup

2007-12-20T00:15:00.000-05:00

I saw this article at the top of Google News today, and wanted to put a quick note out about it because it highlighted perfectly what I was complaining about the other day.

A couple of days ago, I was lamenting the centralization of power by the Federal Government. I feel strongly that the States should have much more power to regulate the items inside their borders.

Well this came to the forefront today with the Federal Government winning. (big surprise). My statement in short is this: States have every right to manage their environment (businesses, social programs, etc) how they see fit. If they want to make incredibly restrictive laws, then let them. It is their right under the Constitution!

E.P.A. Says 17 States Can’t Set Emission Rules for Cars

Republicans use to carry that banner of States Rights, I guess nobody is really carrying it anymore. Sad. Soon we should change our name from the United States of America to just America. [shrug]

Dr. Ron Paul having quite the week!

2007-12-19T13:18:00.000-05:00

In case you missed it, Ron Paul is on fire this week. Unfortunately, most of the news media are giving this just a quick brush over then it is back to "Brittney Spear's 16 year old sister is pregnant" (seriously! ugh)

Tea Party

This past Sunday, the supporters for Dr. Paul raised $6 million in 1 day! This is a new record for fund raising. This was completely organized by his supporters and his campaign had nothing to do with it. To put that in prospective, John McCain only raised $5 million in the entire 3rd quarter (July 1 to September 30) Wow! The average donation was just over $100. Wow again. This campaign is funded by average American who are just tired of the status quo. It was organized through http://www.teaparty07.com

To compare this against other candidates fund raising take a look at this chart:

Presidential Election 2008 Fundraising [wikipedia]

Endorsed by Andrew Sullivan

Although I do not put much weight in endorsements, it was nice to see a prominent blogger stump for Dr. Paul.

Andrew Sullivan Endorses Ron Paul!

Glenn Beck Show

Also For those who did not see it. Dr. Paul was on Glenn Beck's show on CNN Tuesday night. All in all, it was a good interview, though I don't understand all the 9/11 "truth" questions or the question about the crazy supporter. If you have not had a chance to hear Dr. Paul speak about his positions, this is a great opportunity to hear him. All 5 videos together are 40 minutes.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

Meet The Press

Also he will be on "Meet The Press" this coming Sunday, so make sure to setup your Tivos.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

Telecom Amnesty - Round Two - Success... For Now

2007-12-18T17:25:00.000-05:00

A couple of weeks ago, I was on quite a tear about a bill before Congress that would give Telecommunication companies amnesty from lawsuits about the warrantless wire tapping.

Rant from the other day

Well there is some good news to report. Harry Reid pulled the bill off the floor of the Senate thanks to Senator Chris Dodd.

Here is a very nice writeup of what really happened in Congress

Here is another good writeup by NPR

Insight into the Banking System

2007-12-09T20:06:00.000-05:00

One man's propaganda is another man's truth --me

Unless people research and learn about topics themselves, then everything they know about the world they would learn from (FOX, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc), and sadly those are very very biased towards a given set of folks. (Go and Google Missing white woman syndrome to see a great example) That being said, the Internet is changing that!

So one of the things that has been the most interesting for me in following Dr. Ron Paul's campaign has been the education piece. I'm now reading about the War on Drugs, Presidential Powers, the "Separation of Church and State" (BTW, contrary to popular belief, those words are not in our Constitution), State vs Federal authority, Council on Foreign Relations, Monetary Policy, etc. Although these items do not seem to be a list of the most riveting subjects, when you learn that they are some of the corner stones of our Governmental policy, then they take on a whole new level of interest.

I am also learning how tough Politics really are. I'm learning that when you state a position, be prepared to have shots fired your way, correctly or incorrectly. This is a new position for me, considering that just two months ago, I kept a very very low profile about politics. But I guess my skin in toughing up.

So on to the topic at hand. Over the past half a year, the media has been talking about the "credit crunch" and the "subprime mortgage" mess. Well for most of us those words just flow over us, myself included. Well, I am now here to share some knowledge about this, and you can thank Ron Paul. One of the first things I heard Ron Paul say was his statements about the "Inflation Tax" [YouTube 30 seconds] [wikipedia]", and how this was directly related to the activities of the Federal Reserve and Central Bank. Federal Reserve? Central Bank? What are these things?

So I started reading. Here is what I learned. First off, the definition of a Central Bank from wikipedia is:

A central bank, reserve bank or monetary authority, is an entity responsible for the monetary policy of its country or of a group of member states. Its primary responsibility is to maintain the stability of the national currency and money supply...

Most all countries have some sort of Central Bank. (see list here)

Our Central Bank is called the Federal Reserve. For better or for worse, the Federal Reserve is highly independent from the Government, although it was the Government that set it up back in 1913.

So rather than try and explain it to you, instead I have found two sets of very good videos on YouTube that explain it in a very straightforward way.

Where does the money come from?
Part 1 - 8.5 min
Part 2 - 8.5 min
Part 3 - 7.5 min

Money, Banking and The Federal Reserve
Part 1 - 22.5 min
Part 2 - 19.5 min

So here is where the propaganda come into play from me :D Take a look back at an earlier post from me about Monetary Policy and Ron Paul's interaction with Ben Bernanke (current Reserve chairman), and ask yourself this question: How many of the other candidates could have that type of conversation with Ben Bernanke? Dr. Paul lists his favorite books as "Human Action: A Treatise on Economics" by Ludwig von Mises and "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich A. Hayek. Now there is some light reading.

State vs Federal Government

2007-12-09T14:24:00.000-05:00

What is Government? Any why do we have both a State and Federal Government?

Simple question with a very complex answer. Your answer depends on your definition of Government and what political view point you come from. Take a look at the difference between a Socialist, a Communist, a Libertarian, or a Capitalist.

When our Founding Fathers setup our Country, they were coming out of a Monarchy. So they wanted to make certain that the structure they setup was decentralized. This was key. You can see this by how much power they gave the States. Remember we are the "United States of America". The key word there being States. Their original intention was that each state would be a fairly autonomous unit. If the Federal government collapsed for some reason, then the states would be in a position to carry on without issue. This is very different from how most European governments are setup. Most of those have highly centralized governments.

So lets take a quick vocabulary lesson:

Federalism - Federalism is the system in which the power to govern is shared between the national & state governments

The Constitution codified this by make certain statements over what the Federal Government was suppose to handle, then saying that everything else goes to the states. They accomplished this through the 10th Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

That is very powerful! Their goal was very clear, to make the states strong. They did not intend for the Federal Government to be the lynch pin of the country. Now, can you name your State representative? Most people probably can not. The reason I believe this is the case is because so much power has been shifted from the states to the Federal government.

Take a look at this great article detailing this out: Federalism: National vs. State Government

If this was the case, then why are we moving more and more towards a centralized Government? Because we have forgotten about history.

So lets take a look at some contentious issues and (In my opinion) why the states should handle these.

1) Education -- Why do we have a "Department of Education" at the federal level? Why is it that the bureaucrats in Washington are directing via dollars how our local schools work? This is a state issue, and should remain that way. So the question will arise? What if California and Georgia have different standards? Well then so be it. My guess would be that they would not be too different because of external forces (colleges, parents, etc), but the States should be in charge of their individual school systems. If a state wants to pass a law saying that kids have to go to school until they are 25, then so be it, but what will happen is that people will move out of that state. In other words, let the folks close to the people decided on the setup not some Politician in Washington. And that goes for the money as well. That department should be removed, and the taxes that were collected should cease to be collected. The biggest example of this is the No Child Left Behind. If Georgia wants to pass this individually, then so be it, but it should not be a National standard.

2) Drug Use -- Once again, states should be able to individually manage drugs in their state. Let me say that I am against drug use in a very passionate way, but still States should be able to decided this. In the same way that States should decide about education, if a state wants to legalized Drug use then let them, but if Crime increases, and it is shown to be a negative on society, then people will move out of state, and leaving that state with a lower tax base. One argument to this is that people will drive over state lines to buy drugs. My answer is Don't they do this now? Don't people drive out of dry counties to buy alcohol on Sunday? I don't think this problem is any different if the Federal Government decides or if States decided. Feel free to disagree.

(On a side note, do you ever wonder why the Federal Government passed an Amendment to the Constitution to allow Prohibition? The answer is very interesting. It is because, the Congress at the time understood that they did not posses the legal standing to regulate Alcohol sales which was a state issue, so they added an Amendment. Some some argue that this same reasoning applies to the current War on Drugs. That basically it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to have laws regulating drug use because it is a State issue. Some food for thought).

3) Prostitution -- To the best of my knowledge this is not a Federal issue right now. The states control whether prostitution is legal or not. Look at Nevada. I am personally against prostitution, but once again, this needs to stay at the state level.

4) Medicare & Medicaid -- Once again, I think that this should be at the state level. This one is a bit more complicated, but in short, if Georgia wants to setup a social safety net system, then so be it, but it should not require Alabama to help pay for it. So in the same vein of competition between the states, if Georgia sets this up, it could draw people into the state or it could cause people to leave the state, but that is the risk/reward that that individual state takes.

5) Drinking Age -- For those over a certain age, you know the history of this, but in short, for many years, the States set the drinking age. The Federal Government did not have the legal standing to force this standard, so what they did was to withhold Federal Road funding. So once again, this is the Federal Government overstepping their boundaries, without the standing to do so. (BTW, most of the world is around 18. Here wikipedia page detailing this.)

6) Marriage -- If other states want to allow gay marriage then so be it, but Georgia should not be force to recognize the marriages from other states. Why is it again that we have to go to the state to get married? I thought that marriage was a religious institution. But just my opinion.

In short the Federal Government should stick to what the Founding Fathers intended it to do, as spelled out in the Constitution. Anything beyond that should be carefully considered, and they probably rejected. In short, leave it to the states. If California wants to shift to more of a socialist type government then so be it. As long as their decisions do not directly impact the citizens of Georgia, and vice versa. Why is it that people get all upset about a Court ruling in another area of the country? Because we are becoming to tightly bound to each other. The states need more latitude to make the best decisions for their own citizens.

If you disagree with me on any of the points above, I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to post a named or anonymous comment below.

Now for the obligatory propaganda:

So when choosing the next president, if you feel strongly about the fact that the states are loosing their power to the central government, then you should pick a candidate that has show the strongest record for supporting states rights. That candidate is by far Ron Paul.

Telecom Amnesty is a Really Bad Idea

2007-11-17T00:44:00.000-05:00

I was behind a car the other day that had a bumper sticker, and I loved it. It said "I love my country but don't trust my Government". I really feel that way. I guess in short, I really don't trust many folks beyond my family to take care of me. You do not have to look far to see huge issues with our Government. Read up on the debacle of Social Security and how our Government has completely dropped the ball. How our current debt is the highest it has ever been. How FEMA completely blew it with Katrina. (On a side note: I actually believe FEMA should be disbanded, that is the job of the Red Cross, but more on that in another post.) How the Government has put our financial eggs in the basket with China, and every time China coughs our markets jump up and down. I guess what I am saying is that my opinion of our federal government is basically at an all time low, and all I really did was start paying attention.

So what did I do with this pent up frustration? Well what any good tech savvy yahoo would do, I started a blog! I pointed my horrible grammar skills and frequent misspellings directly at our federal government. Take that! :D So two days ago, I was all worked up about local issues relating to the Civil Liberties of citizens, and I made references to some local issues that occurred here in Georgia, along with a current issue in Oklahoma, and two historical issues. Well now I turn my attention to the future.

On the commute into work today, I was listening to a story on NPR [link]about a bill that has already passed the Senate Intelligence Committee and is now in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee [wikipedia] that would (among other things) grant full immunity to the telecommunications companies that willingly went along with the Bush administration in opening up their infrastructure to the Government to help in what is known as the warrantless wiretap program [wikipedia]

Folks, this is exactly what I am talking about in my earlier piece. The telecommunications industry does NOT deserve immunity. The reason is because if they are operating within the laws, then they have nothing to fear. Truth does not fear investigation. Now if you are worried that you may have broken laws, then yes, you do have something to fear. So when the telecommunications companies go running to Congress asking for immunity from something the government asked them (and paid them nicely) to help with, then that should raise alarm bells.

Now I know some of you are saying "Well they are just doing their duty to their country". My response to that is pretty flat, "No they are not!". There was already a system in place called FISA [wikipedia], and although it had issues it did serve its purpose. If there were problems then it should have been first addressed inside the framework of the current FISA laws. This program is so shady that even John Ashcroft has serious doubts about it [washingtonpost.com] What really really bothers me is that the only reason we know about this secret surveillance is because somebody on the inside disclosed it. Otherwise, we still would not know about it, and that is very very scary. What else don't we know about?

The real problem is that the people we elect to protect us are the same folks that are giving away our freedoms. This applies to both Democrats and Republicans. On a side note, at one point I thought that Democrats where protectors of Civil Liberties but they are just as complicit as Republicans, just listen to Senator Dianne Feinstein in the NPR report, ugh, but more on that in another post.) Once power has been gained by the Government you are very very unlikely to get the power away from the Government. Although this tool is said to be used against foreign enemies, do not be so naive to believe that they will not use that tool against Americans. (Watergate anyone?) When you have absolute power, and no oversight, then you can do whatever you want because nobody is going to call you on it.

Here is the summary:
1) If you are within the law, then you don't deserve immunity.
2) When you take away the courts ability to decide issues then what you do is take power away from individuals and put them into the hands of the government. Which is always a bad thing.

Here are some links that describe this in a much better way than I can.

eff.org
salon.com Greenwald
saolon.com Greenwald Interview
technewsworld.com - Technical Whistle Blower
Google News
washingtonpost.com Ashcroft in Hospital
NPR Coverage

If you live in Georgia, and this bothers you, take a moment to write to Senator Saxby Chambliss who has already voted for this in the Intelligence Committee, and tell him your feelings on this topic.

Why Civil Liberties are Critical for America!

2007-11-13T22:45:00.000-05:00

This will be a short post tonight, but I am very wired up.

For some reason in our country, when you mention Civil Liberties[wikipedia], you are immediately pegged as a nut-job and a conspiracy theorist. I find this to be very disturbing. So to start with, what is the definition of "Civil Liberties"?

Civil liberties is the name given to freedoms that completely protect the individual from government. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it can not abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens.

A few items have come to my attention and I want to share them with you.

Situation 1:
I do not have all the details, but some of my fellow Ron Paul supporters here in the Metro Atlanta area went to a local intersection next to a mall, and waved signs at passing cars. They were standing on a street corner that was nearest the Mall. The mall security guard told them that if they did not leave they would be arrested. Then the real police showed up and said that they were not allowed to hand out information because it was solicitation. They also cited this as a state law. I am not a lawyer, but these seem very very poor reasons. Your only real option at that point is to be arrested and then fight it. Otherwise you just have to go home. Since most of us do not want the hassle and can not afford the attorney's fees, we just drop it and go home.

Situation 2:
In Kennesaw, GA, it is my understanding that to wave signs on the side of the road you need to request a permit. municode.com Now, I have not actually applied for this and some folks are checking into the validity of this, but still. So now you need a permit from the government to protest against the government? What is to keep them from saying "no" to a permit. If you still protest without a permit, I assume they will arrest you or fine you. These do not seem to be very good options.

[Update 11/14/2007 -- I have learned some additional information about this incident. First off, the sign waving group was approached by a cop, and he was the one that told them that they needed a permit. A citizen contacted a city official to check these facts and was told that the cop was incorrect. So the city is clear, but the officer was wrong. But then again, if you told the officer he was wrong, his response would probably have been "Sir if you continue to argue with me, I'll be forced to arrest you". Arguing with cops usually never has a good outcome in the short run.]

Situation 3:
Research the following individual: Paul Jacob. http://www.freepauljacob.com/the-story/ He was arrested going door to door getting petitions for a new law in Oklahoma. His crime? He was not from Oklahoma. The sentence he is looking at is 10 years. Former presidential candidate Steve Forbes wrote a piece called “Has North Korea Annexed Oklahoma?”. This is serious business.

Situation 4:
Talk with an African American over the age of 60, and ask them what it was like to grow up without any civil liberties.

Situation 5:
Go and read the stories of Japanese Americans during World War II, and what it was like to be interned during the war just because they were Japanese [wikipedia]

The other day, I became interested in our first amendment and actually went and read what it said:

First Amendment [wikipedia]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So in the situation 1 and 2 which have to do with Assembly, you could probably argue and maybe win because of the "right of the people peaceably to assemble". Or maybe not these days. It is easy to say "things are not that bad" because your life is going well, but if you ever try and make a change in the world, you will find a large uphill battle against the entrenched power structure. If we wait too long you may find a wall instead of a hill.

By now, you are probably thinking, "Ok, Cade has lost it" but just think about it. Put yourself in a position where you have no voice, and no power, and no authority to speak up. Rights are lost a little bit at a time, and do not ever forget: Our Government works for the citizens that elect it, but right now, it seems the citizens work for the Government.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. -- Thomas Jefferson

Don't Be A Sheep!!!

2007-11-10T23:00:00.001-05:00

[touched up on 11/12/07 for grammatical errors and clarity]

So I have been putting a lot of thought lately into how our political system + our media work together. Basically we mainly get our news from just a handful of sources: Fox, CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, AP, Reuters, etc. So if the news does not come from these sources, very few folks take the time to go and research the issues in any more depth.

This is a very powerful and scary setup. For example, the news media have reported that this may be the most expensive campaign ever. Well surprise, surprise, who is the lucky beneficiary of these new found millions of dollars? That would be the Main Stream Media (or MSM for short).

The MSM also wants to see the most interesting stories. What is more interesting than a Clinton vs Giuliani race. So that is how they are steering these elections. I saw a CNN quote that said (I'll dig it up and reference it), that said during a certain time frame, John McCain was mentioned 90,000 times while Ron Paul was only mentioned 4,000. It gets even worse when they use words like "last place", "dead last", "unelectable", "kook", or "flake". How do you expect people to look beyond this in the current "sound bit" culture of 30 second news stories. (Just ask Richard Jewel how fairly the media painted him).

So when it came to Ron Paul, it did not take long for the MSM to completely sideline him and ridicule him. Well his supporters (including myself) finally got fed up, decided to setup a Money Bomb. (http://www.thisNovember5th.com) This is where, we all gave in one day. The campaign has nothing to do with this at all. Think about that. The campaign did not lift one finger. All they had to so was keep the servers running. Well at the end of the day, we set a new record for Republicans: $4.2 Million!!!!! Ron Paul's campaign raised more money in one day, than Mike Huckabee raised all year! [wikipedia] Well, after that one day, now all the sudden the MSM all want to talk with him.

So what now? Well we keep the momentum rolling. More and more folks are signing up at the meetup groups (http://ronpaul.meetup.com). He has actually brought in another $500,000 in the following 5 days after the money bomb, and he is getting much more attention by the MSM that seem to make or break candidates. So the kind folks who setup the initial Money Bomb are now setting their sights even higher. On the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, they are setting up a second Money Bomb: http://www.teaparty07.com

So you can see for yourselves, here is a phenomenally well done video on the three stages of the MSM in regards to Ron Paul:

Stage 1: Belittle and Sideline him
Satge 2: Coverage of the Money Bomb
Stage 3: Positive Interviews with him now

Take a look at see for your self.

So in conclusion, I guess what I'm saying is, the MSM serves its purpose, but folks, with the power of the internet, when deciding which person is best to run our country, please please please, please, Don't Be A Sheep!!! Don't just follow the herd, take the time to go through and read about the candidates (in both parties!), understand their positions. Then vote. If you have not taken the time to do any research, then let me give you a thought "Don't Vote". Seriously, because if you don't take the time to research the issues, then you could very well, be putting us on the path to danger (both fiscally and physically) that so many of us are trying desperately to get us out of....

Ron Paul vs Ben Bernanke

2007-11-08T23:14:00.000-05:00

[touched up on 11/12/07 for grammatical errors and clarity]

I love the internet and how readily available information has become. Ron Paul and Ben Bernanke has a discussion the other day, and this clip was posted online within hours. I am not an economist and did not quite understand all the acronyms, but I did followed along enough to see where Ron Paul was going. Ben Bernanke is the Chief of the Federal Reserve. If you don't know what the Federal Reserve is then you should take the time to learn about it and it's history. [wikipedia] To the average American it is just a buzz word used by the news, but in reality it has become a central linchpin (or bottleneck depending on your view) of our economy. The previous Fed Chief was Alan Greenspan which is a name most people recognize, even if they don't understand what his job was. I wrote a bit about the Federal Reserve in an earlier post:

Think Getting Rid of IRS is a joke? Think again...

So watch this clip then keep reading.

So after watching this I had to ask myself,

1) Would George Bush be able to discuss this type issue?
2) Would any other candidate be able to discuss these issues at this level of detail?

And the simple answer is NO! Ron Paul is the only person who understand the financial crisis our country is heading for, and the only one with the will to do something about it!

So if you are skeptic that he was just blowing smoke during that question and answer, then maybe a well respected CNBC Journalist backing up Ron Paul might help you to understand this problem. Kudlow said: "Ron Paul took Fed Chief Ben Bernanke to the woodshed". Enough Said:

Think Getting Rid of IRS is a joke? Think again...

2007-10-29T22:39:00.000-04:00

[touched up on 11/12/07 for grammatical errors and clarity]

The problem with this country is that we are so busy that we sometimes do not stop to say "Do we really need to do this?". If you ask individual politicians if they believe that the citizens are smart, they will say of course, but the truth of the matter is that they hope that we do not really pay attention to them. Sadly only a handful of citizens really do pay attention to our Government. When these dutiful citizens question the unjust practices of our Government, they are labeled as unpatriotic or a traitor. So once something is in place and ingrained in our culture, we rarely fight against it (think Light Beer, the Macarana, and beany babies") Congress clearly should have declared war on all of these items, but choose not to do so. On a serious note, I believe this is true. The problem with our government is that once something is entrenched, the people in power have to do very very little to keep the ball rolling and the money rolling back in. So I took it upon myself to do some research. If you think I came to the wrong conclusion then feel free to email me, and I'll share it back with the group.

Facts about the IRS, Income Tax, and the 16th Amendment

So, now let me give you some interesting facts about the IRS. Before 1913 the federal government ran completely on Tariffs and other revenues (ie no Income Tax), in fact, if I'm reading it right the constitution did not allow an Income Tax. Yes you heard me right, Income tax was UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! This is how our founding father set this up because they knew that once the government opened the cookie jar it would not be able to stop eating.

A landmark case was heard about this very fact, and the Supreme Court upheld this fact.

Since the Congress really wanted more money, they decided to pass an amendment to the Constitution, and so now the Congress has the ability to tax our incomes.

Sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution [wikipedia]

What about now?

Doesn't this sound crazy? We gave our government the ability to reach in our pockets and take our money? But even worse, does it not bother you that you have to tell the government how much you make per year? That just tells them how much more they can tax us before we cry uncle. But I digress...

So now fast forward to our current times and get ready to cry. Our federal government is expanding powers and spending at an alarming rate. (So much for fiscal conservative Republicans eh?) So putting your personal views of the war aside, to to pay for the war other programs should have been cut, but because of the pork and mandated spending nobody would budge, so instead they just spent money they did not have (more on that in a minute)

So our current Debt our Government owes? $9.1 Trillion (yes with a 'T')

How did we get in the mess? Well remember the cookie jar? Enough said. Give a 3 year old a box of Oreos and tell him to only eat 3 and put the rest away, doesn't work right?

Here is a quick bit of knowledge to arm yourselves take a look at the graph at the top:

federalbudget.com
Federal Budget, US [wikipedia]
Federal Budget, US, 2006

Last year the Government spent $390 Billion more than it took in. So we need to ask ourselves where did this $390 billion come from? Thin Air, our pockets, Space Aliens? All 3 are some what correct, the third if your replace space with foreign.

Money out of Thin air and the Chinese

So what happens is that the needed money is requested from the Federal Reserve (which requires an entirely different email to explain), but it then turns it into debt and issues the money back to Congress. So where does the Federal Reserve get the money? Well, they are the same folks that print the money, so well, they just make it up, seriously! That do that with about 50% of the debt, and the other 50% they issue Government bonds. Who do you think buys them? Other countries do. Right now China hold 50% of our out standing bonds:

The Mechanics of U.S. Government debt [wikipedia]

In recent years, the debt has soared and inflation has stayed low in part because China has been willing to accumulate reserves denominated in U.S. Dollars. Currently, China holds over $1 trillion in dollar denominated assets (of which $330 billion are U.S. Treasury notes). In comparison, $1.4 trillion represents M1 or the "tight money supply" of U.S. Dollars which suggests that the value of the U.S. Dollar could change dramatically should China ever choose to divest itself of a large portion of those reserves

So what if Congress is still short? Well remember Social Security and Medicare/caid that we all love to pay into? Social Security is actually not part of our federal budget, instead it is a separate account. So what happens is, Congress says "We will not need that money for a couple more years, so what we will do is borrow against it". The problem is that they borrow against it every year!!!!

So what does this mean? Well, in short, our Government overspends every year, and at this point, our yearly interest payments are $409 billion! Wow!

If you were a CEO and ran your business like this you would be fired! But if you are congress, you are reelected!

I don't know about you all but once I put these pieces together, I started to feel a little bit sick.

What to do about all this? The answer is simple: Elect Ron Paul

So what to do about all this? Well, here is where my personal opinion comes into play. Vote for a President who will try and put a stop to all this junk. Seriously, do any of the "top" 8 candidates say anything about fiscal responsibility? The Republican's love to bring this up in debates it makes good sound clips, but give me a break, they had the full control of our government, and during that time Bush did not veto a SINGLE spending bill.

So how do we get rid of the IRS? Well, it is actually pretty simple:

ronpaul2008.com - Cough-Up

But could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion-- a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It's something to think about this week as we approach April 15^th.

In short, look up Ron Paul, donate to him, and help him get elected.

Here are the facts about Ron Paul:
He has never voted:
* To raise taxes
* for an unbalanced budget
* to raise congressional pay
* for a federal restriction on gun ownership
* to increase the power of the executive branch

Also:
He has never taken a government-paid junket
* is not accepting a government pension
* he returns a portion of office budget every year
* he introduces more useful legislation every year than probably any other member of congress
*was voted the "Taxpayers' Best Friend"
* Has been married to his wife for 50 (yes 50) yes. Ask Guiliani that question ( Giuliani - Personal life [wikipedia])
* Served as an Air Force surgeon for 6 years
* If it is not in the constitution, then he views it as illegal for the Government to do.

In short, he is a man of principals.

Now, i don't agree with everything he says. I feel differently about Immigration than he does, but he is the only one who speaks his mind, so by far he is head and shoulders above the other candidates.

Here is his latest commercials:

Here is more information on him:

http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008dotcom

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/video-network?channel=2

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

http://ronpaul.meetup.com

Get involved, I have. I went and held up signs on the street corner here in Georgia and handed out pamphlets. I'm planning on going door to door this week. One sign I saw said "Dr. Paul curred my apathy". Amen brother...

MONEY MONEY MONEY
So how do we get somebody like this elected? Well it take cash and lots of it, so if you are comfortable with the 4 front runners of the republicans (ugh) or you are happy with another Clinton presidency, then feel free to sit back, but instead why not an alternative, take a look at

http://www.thisNovember5th.com

and see if we can make a difference.

The clock is ticking. The primaries may start as early as Dec 11th, and will be over by Feb 5th. So even though the Presidential election is not until end of next year, the candidates will be picked by Next Feb!!!!! Don't wait.

The Beginning of the End of Our Nation... :D

2007-10-20T23:55:00.002-04:00

If you already thought that our government was broken, then you won't be surprised by this video. It is both insanely funny, and insanely sad. Thanks to the Daily Show which is obviously conducting more serious journalism than any of the Main Stream Median (MSM). Enjoy.

The subject matter is that 12 billion in cash was sent to Iraq and then lost. Yes Billion with a 'B'. ouch.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/02/money.html

Who is Ron Paul?

2007-10-20T23:50:00.000-04:00

[touched up on 11/12/07 for grammatical errors and clarity]

The question was Who is John Galt? Now the question is Who is Ron Paul?

I know this is a total propaganda film, but I am just really impressed with this guy, and wanted to share. I just felt like all of the candidates (except Ron Paul) are the same old power mongers on both sides of the party. Watch his interview and feel free to tell me otherwise. John Stewart's comments are perfect. The video is about 8 minute long:

Here are some video clips from the debates:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/video-network?channel=2

Just so you know, he raised more money than John McCain last quarter. (He is actually 3rd in fund raising, excluding Mit Rommney because he is financing his own campaign through his own personal wealth.) He also has the highest donation from military and their families. Wow. If you are impressed with his message, then consider donating on Nov 5th. I guess I'm following the saying "it is better to have loved and lost, then to have never loved at all!"
http://www.thisnovember5th.com/
I have signed up for this, and plan to donate.