Razing Cain: Sexual Harrassment Charges?

Herman Cain'is 9-9-9 Plan has elevated him to the top of the GOP contenders list, ahead of Mitt Romney (the 'good old boys' favorite) and Governor Rick Perry (Bilderberg Group crony) as the major media favorite. But a storm may be brewing in the media with the allegations that while head of the National Restaurant Association from 1996-1999 he sexually harassed two women.


While no names have been mentioned, it has been reported that there were "settlements of five figures made" to the "victims" in lieu of law suit. Cain's chief of staff Mark Block says, “Every negative word and accusation in the article is sourced to a series of unnamed or anonymous sources. Questionable at best."

I am sure this story will get lots of play in the news over the next few days or even weeks. In the meantime, none of this makes any other candidate better, it only brings up more questions about Herman Cain, who is also a former Federal Reserve employee. I find his tenure at the Federal Reserve more relevant than his sexual adventures, but that just me. I don't watch reality TV either.

Herman Cain disagrees with Ron Paul about ending the Federal Reserve, and even said that an audit will prove nothing because they don't have anything to hide. Ben Bernanke disagrees with Cain because he is hiding information from Congress.


Disclose.tv - 2.4 Trillion - Bernanke Won't Tell Video


As I have been following the candidates and the debates it does seem that there is only Ron Paul, who stands out amongst all the others. Try as they do to find fault with Ron Paul, they usually resort to calling him a lunatic because of his Constitutional ideology that Federal Government has far overreached its limitations; that laws to control arms, drugs, health care, sending troops into foreign lands without a declaration of war, and even funding other countries with taxpayer money is wrong. Now they are saying that he is too old to be President.

What will it take to get Americans to embrace liberty and take responsibility for it? When will the voters see the error in picking the same two party favorites is not their only choices?

Education Redux

It seems that this Administration has no regard whatsoever for the rights of We the People anymore, nor the government that We the People designed with the ratification of the Constitution for the united States of America.

In his latest bid for reelection, the President in his infinite disrespect for law has decided to use more tax dollars to thump for a "reinvestment" to support tuition for poor students who could not attend college without tax payer support.

It is important to know that the founders were themselves educated and well informed in the law, and most of the colonists were also. And none of them had formal schooling or advanced degrees from colleges and universities. They were educated by their parents and peers, and subjects that interested them they were self-taught. There were no provisions made in the Constitution or in any other laws of States or Federal Government that made schooling mandatory. That was something that begun when large industrialists realized the implications for profit.

Ideologies were adopted to fit their needs, not to develop a child. In fact, the opposite is true of their intentions. They created drones, obedient workers, and instilled the "work ethic" as a fervent religious dogma, that hard work somehow equals success.

Seems to me that the nation was most successful without the forced schooling of more modern times. Taking over control of children's minds and filling those minds with a social engineering agenda regardless of the rights of parents to instill their own values in their children. American People have been duped.

Through the manipulation of the curriculum, standardized courses based on the magic numbers of grades and ages, we have allowed further subdivision of children which in effect keeps them immature and in need of more schooling.

Benjamin Franklin didn't require more schooling. he only required the basics which he learned without  school. I myself learned from my mother and grandfather how to read before I started kindergarten. In fact, I was reading the daily newspapers before first grade. I spent the first six years in elementary school where I was bored to death most of the time because the rest of the class could not keep up. Not because they were stupid, only that did not enjoy the same opportunity to learn as I did BEFORE I ever started school.

My values were those of my family and faith, not standards produced by corporate sponsored bureaucrats who only required obedient drones to carry out the assembly-line production processes that required very little real learning. And now we have reached the point where any other nation in the world can achieve greater successes with students than we can, and yet we keep spending more and more on education as results decline.

We certainly live in interesting times.

Education Funding vs. Freedom

To demonstrate how the unconstitutional funding of education is a tool for the political ambitions of Congress, lets examine a case that is close to me. I supported Art Robinson for Member of the House of Representatives in 2010 against incumbent Congressional fixture Peter De Fazio.

All was going well until the last week before the 2010 elections when the media blitz of negative ads (paid for by DNC) came out against Dr. Robinson, claiming that he was being funded by corporations. He narrowly lost. As a consultant he does take funds from corporations to perform research and development. Then again, Mr. De Fazio takes money from the DNC which is funded by big corporations, unions, pharmaceutical companies, and of course banks and financial institutions.

All of Art Robinson's PhD undergraduate children were home schooled proving that standards and methods in mandated and regulated curriculum is not necessary. The tax dollars collect by the federal government and doled to the States for education would best serve the States and the People if that money stayed within the respective State to used to their specific needs. Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul agrees and stated, as President he would end the Department of Education.

Much of what Art Robinson stands for can be appreciated from a perspective of Constitutional law and the limitations of the federal government. Having such a representative in Congress will benefit Oregon because we will have a representative with Constitutional integrity to remove federal regulations that inhibit commerce and trade, and not create more bureaucracy and tax dollars wasted.

If we are to save the Republic and restore the federal government to its limited powers according to the Constitution, we will need more representatives like Art Robinson, representing the voice and the will of the People.

Ron Paul endorses Art Robinson!

Money As Debt

Many people find it hard to sit through the entire documentary, The Money Masters, so as a public service to my readers I decided to post this video which is much shorter. It is an education worth having for all Americans young and old. It would make great dinner conversation instead of discussing American Idol or Dancing With The Stars.

After watching this video and having time to think about it and discuss it with family and friends, I would appreciate your comments and feedback. We are in serious trouble as a sovereign nation and we need to take action now!

The Constitution for the united States of America

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Explicitly stating that we are giving the government this Constitution so that it understands its duties and limitations of authority over the sovereign individuals (We the People) and the sovereign States. There are many laws that have been passed by Congress that are beyond Constitutional limits, and yet instead of performing its own Constitutional mandate, the Supreme Court often interprets the Constitution in phrases, which removes from its substance the original intent. At that point most Americans throw up their hands in surrender to "the powers that be" and resign to the fact that "the law is the law," and we just have to obey it.

But those very smart founders left a remedy that is seldom used today when testing an act of Congress for Constitutional integrity. The States have the power, the responsibility and duty to nullify laws that violate the U.S. Constitution as well as their State's. In those places like California and Oregon where the People can petition and get an initiate or measure on the ballot, they can vote to overturn laws that violate their rights as Sovereigns within their respective States.

Candidates, Congress and the Constitution

I heard on the news today that the Affordable Patient Protection Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare, is causing quite a stir for the archdiocese. Within the bill is a stipulation that demands that schools provide contraceptives through the school systems, which is against the principles of the Catholic Church. By refusing to abide by the mandates in the bill, the Church faces fines and penalties. Now here is a case where the government is stepping over its Constitutional limitations and prohibitions to interfere with ethics and morals of religion. Once again it seems, the Obama Administration ignores the Constitution and instead does whatever it feels it needs to do in order to force its policies on the people.

There is another issue that seems you need be aware of although when you look at it from the perspective of common sense it seems that the justification is valid. That is the ban on weapons (arms) in public schools. Rather than dwell on the issue, suffice to say that the right to bear arms as it is in the Constitution does not specify a legal or proper age in which an individual may bear arms, but it does specifically indicate that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress. Parents must teach their children and not expect or rely on strangers to do that for them.

There is adequate room for debate whether or not a State has the right to prohibit the carrying of arms in a public school, since the funding for public schooling does emanate from the federal government and since it is a “public” facility, there is a question of authority in enforcement of such a mandate or rule.

Now it seems fairly obvious that the acceptance of federal aid has strings attached, and with the economy in a tailspin and the unemployment rate remaining above 9 percent on average nationally, that Obama's Jobs Bill may seem like the answer to the problem. Upon closer scrutiny however there is a clause which will take away all sovereign rights from the States that accept the funding of the bill. Blatantly unconstitutional and yet as we have already witnessed, many unconstitutional laws are passed and remain enforced with the court's full support.

 Many Americans feel that because the courts will uphold the federal laws even when they are arguably unconstitutional, that we must surrender to the “changes in times” as the judiciary has adopted a dangerous precedent in claiming the Constitution is a “living” document, which by definition would make it malleable. This interpretation is wrong!

Within the Constitution are the tools necessary to amend and repeal provided that is done through the procedure of Constitutional Convention. Once an amendment is passed by both houses, it then must be ratified by the States, where a simply majority is NOT enough.

Since the current administration and Congress both seem to ignore Constitutional limitations of federal government, since they also ignore the rights of States and individuals as specified in the Constitution, it is the duty of We the People, to speak our grievances and take action against those who have broken their oaths of office and do as they please. We the People are over 300 million and yet we allow 535 to ruin our Constitution and demote us to a third-world nation status.

Many of the GOP Presidential candidates talk about the unconstitutional ObamaCare and how they as President would write an executive order that will in effect render it ineffective by issue of waivers. The problem with that is the very nature of executive order itself is unconstitutional. The only candidate that understand and articulates this to the public is Ron Paul. But as it is evident right now that the President cannot force his policies on the nation without the consent of Congress, President Paul will also need a Congress that will have the courage to apply is policies and to repeal those laws that are both unconstitutional and a detriment to the free markets.

As we approach November, may I remind you that we will also be voting for members of Congress and local representatives in our cities, counties, and states. We sent a message to Washington in November, 2010 when we made an historical turn of the tide by electing representatives from the Republican Party with promises that they will correct the wrongs of the liberal left that had been in control of both houses.

After the debt ceiling debacle this past summer it seems that neither Democrats or Republicans will do what the will of the people demand. They think they know better than we do. They call themselves our leaders when in reality there are our hired hands. They vote themselves increased salaries, health benefits and pensions. They secure themselves all of these things on taxpayer money and then have the gall to force upon us these programs that they themselves do not have to participate in.

When the nation was created, the opportunity to serve the people as a representative was considered an honor, a privilege, a temporary leave from their businesses or jobs to serve their constituents, in the State or Federal Legislature. It was never thought that it can be a career.

This time we all need to become members of the “Broom Party” and take responsibility to sweep the lot of them out and replace them all with representatives who demonstrate their adherence to the Constitution. We have a bit more than a year to make those choices, so please do choice wisely.

Beyond the Spin

There has been much hype in the last week or so about Herman Cain's rise to the top of the GOP contender list for President. But there is little facts being told about him and the other candidates in the running.

We all know by now that Cain was a former Federal Reserve director and stood against any audits. He called Alan Greenspan a "great" leader during his (Cain's) tenure at the Fed. Cain has some other issues that will keep me from making him President.

Both Herman Cain and Mitt Romney support the Patriot Act, with Cain stating that he agrees with 90% but will not say what he doesn't agree with. He thinks that it is okay to give up liberties for a "sense of security." Ron Paul voted against it and remains opposed to it as unconstitutional.

Originally, Cain agreed with Ron Paul and was against the assassination of American citizens on foreign soil. He has since flipped on the issue and fully supports Obama's decision to kill Al-Awlaki. Mitt Romney fully supports the assassinations of Americans. Ron Paul disagrees and said that every U.S. Citizen has the right to trial by due process and if guilty punished severely but lawfully.

Herman Cain feels that States should be allowed to take gun rights away. Romney who back in 1994 stated, "I don't line up with the NRA." But in 2007 when he made a bid for the presidency, he said, "I am now a proud member." Ron Paul fully supports the 2nd Amendment as it is written and without restriction.


 "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There are others issues that question the viability of Herman Cain as a candidate, such as his backing of TARP and stating that those who opposed TARP were "economic morons." Romney said he thought it necessary in March, 2009. By September of that same year he flipped and opposes it. Ron Paul voted against it in Congress and he was the only public official who predicted the banking crash years before and everyone ridiculed him. Paul also warned of the housing bubble and they ignored him again.

Both Cain and Romney support a border fence, while Paul calls for bringing troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and placing them at the border to protect the citizens. He also calls for social programs that are funded through taxpayers to prohibit non-citizens from receiving benefits from social programs, which would remove incentives from illegals wanting to come to the US by other than lawful immigration procedures. It is a glaring obvious fact that major media opposes Ron Paul because he stands against all of the corporate cronyism that 12 terms in Congress have demonstrated to him. 

He is the ONLY Presidential candidate that fully supports the Constitution and his voting record in the House of Representatives proves his commitment and integrity to those high standards they We the People demand from our elected representatives.

What will YOU do?

Food as a Weapon

Why is there not enough food to feed all of humanity? We can send probes to other planets and deep into the far reaches of the solar system. We have technology today that can make foods faster and pest resistant. But is it healthy?

I remember listening to a late night talk show many years ago, the guest was an agricultural biologist who claimed that the food we eat today has only a fraction of the nutritional worth of foods our grandparents ate. We would have to eat two pounds of broccoli to gain the same value in nutrition as our ancestors gained in a single serving. Diseases are on the rise even though we have made so many advances in medicine. Or have we?

I submit to you that all of the problems we face as humans around the world is based on an illusion. It's like watching the Wizard of Oz for the first time and discovering the "man behind the curtain." Many of my friends and family will not even look there. They are embarrassed to think that they have been duped for all these years. Many think that I am crazy to think that my government would condone such things. But after all, they are of the same flesh and blood as us, capable of the same successes and failures. One only needs to look at where we are today to see that government has not been capable of controlling its own bloated growth, let alone act on behalf of markets and commodities. Why our Congress even gave up its Constitutional mandate to coin currency and set its value to private banks, trusting them to act with integrity on our behalf.

There are many ways in which the very wealthy can manipulate markets. But staying with food, there are now a few extremely large corporations both foreign and domestic that control possibly as much as 80% of the food supply of the globe. Some think it can be closer to 100% but living in an area where there remain a good number of independent family farms, I am not willing to make that leap. But the truth is that many of these small farms are being forced out by the conglomerates through the outright manipulation of the commodities markets.

A bushel of wheat will still feed the same number of hungry people as it did when it was first cultivated. The growth of any food crop demands the proper arable lands and the cooperation of nature. But it does not determine the amount of food crop available to feed the population. Remember in the biblical stories in Exodus, the temple granaries were full and yet their were people starving during a drought. It was used as a weapon to  wield power over people. It took an act of divine intervention to convince those priests of Egypt to release the stores to the starving masses.

How many other times has food been used as a weapon? A practice still used today through subsidies, is to have farmers turn under a good harvest so as to keep the prices higher. The justification is that the farmer could not make a living selling the crops at a very low price.but the reality is that they are doing just that, only the government is making up the difference. Would it not be better to have that crop sold to either the free market or to the government? Instead of funding dictators and foreign governments that will use our "gifts" to oppress their own people and they themselves live in wealth and splendor, send tons of wheat to feed the masses?

People need not be punished for their prosperity unless they obtained their riches by cheating, lying, stealing from others. There are methods employed today that produce rich and abundant foods naturally, without the use of chemicals for fertilizers or pesticides. I myself have grown tomatoes in my patio garden and always have such an abundance to share with many of my neighbors. I have demonstrated how we can each grow a crop and share our harvests so well will obtain a variety of nutritious fruits and vegetables and not have to buy them from high priced markets. Even when I must make a purchase, I go to markets that offer locally grown produce when available.

We live in a world that has become as much of an illusion as the science fiction film, The Matrix. And it is just as difficult for most of us to awaken ourselves and face reality. We have to do that now. The alarm has been ringing for quite some time and all we are doing is hitting the snooze button.

Food, Health and Nutrition

It seems that the government wants to protect us once again, and the Food Safety Modernization Act, as its disclaimer suggests, 


"The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was signed into law by President Obama on January 4th, 2011. It aims to ensure the U.S. food supply is safe by shifting the focus of federal regulators from responding to contamination to preventing it."


Well I do not buy it. It is yet another expensive government program that will create more expense for the growers, add more workers to government payroll (that is more tax revenue spent on public sector jobs) while putting many small farms out of business because they cannot afford the new "safety" regulations.


The major source of contaminated food is imported. It is obvious that we cannot control the safety of food unless it is inspected thoroughly upon arrival into U.S. ports, and that seems like a very daunting and expensive exercise. But the legislation is loaded with fees that will drive many small businesses into closing because only the large corporate processors will be capable of paying the many fees included in this poorly written bill.


For example, and this is directly from the FDA website:


Q: How will FDA calculate the total fee assessed?
A: For Fiscal Year 2012, the hourly rate is $224 if no foreign travel is required and $325 if foreign travel is required. The total fee that is assessed will depend on the number of hours FDA spends directly on the reinspection-related activities or food recall activities associated with a recall order. 
Reinspection-related activities could include conducting compliance reinspection at the facility, making preparations and arrangements for the reinspection, traveling to and from the facility, analyzing records, analyzing samples, preparing reports or examining labels, and performing other activities as necessary to determine compliance with the requirements found to be violated in the initial inspection. 
Food recall activities associated with a recall order could include conducting recall audit checks, reviewing periodic status reports, analyzing the status reports and the results of the audit checks, conducting inspections, traveling to and from locations, and monitoring product disposition.


Here in the Pacific Northwest there are many family farms, local growers who depend on the small profit margins to sustain their business and provide healthy produce to their customers. Local packaged food processing will be driven out due to these high fees and regulatory hoops they must jump through. But who will monitor the produce in Costa Rica that is imported by American food processors?

Real Money

Why do we use the money we have today? What makes us accept it as valid for commerce and trade?

It is that acceptance of a monetary unit such as the Federal Reserve Note requires a certain amount of trust from the people and the government.

In the present Presidential Debates it seems that while many candidates say all of these things about job creation and cutting spending, nobody except Ron Paul talks about sound money. Now the reason is mainly because they are paid not to. Now don't think for a moment that I am accusing anyone of accepting a direct bribe to layoff the issue. Most of them probably do not even understand what Dr. Paul means by sound money.

At first thought even I felt that he was referring to the gold standard. But gold alone would not make our currency stable or sound. It requires the backing of the United States Government's credit and goodwill, with its partners in commerce and trade. Having a stable currency will mean that real money of silver and copper coin must be recirculated, and the printing of paper currency can only be done by the United States Department of the Treasury, and then only through the Constitutional mandate for Congress to issue such an order.

That paper currency is a trade note that is redeemable in coinage and will be backed by the assets of the country, not just gold and silver, but the natural resources that are exported to other nations, payable in assets that can then be used to back the currency and then expand it without inflation or deflation of its worth. An ounce of silver or an ounce of gold will have a worth in U.S. Dollars pronounced by Congress as is its responsibility under the Constitution.

During the transition from Federal Reserve Notes to U.S. Dollars, banks will be required to reduce their fractional reserve lending practices until it is incrementally reduced to about 5% or 10% over deposits unless in times of need again, determined by Congress.

There may be necessary amendments to the Constitution to facilitate the prohibition of private banks from issuing the currency of the nation. This will include a clause that will make the Treasury the only legal printer of U.S. Dollars and minted coinage. We possess the technology today to inhibit counterfeiting of currency with design complexities and the sensing of those complexities via automation. 

The practices that have been in place now since the unlawful passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 have not prevented depressions as promised. The facts clearly demonstrate the contrary, that the control of the currency, first by making it plentiful and then by retracting it from circulation, the Federal Reserve Bank caused all depressions and recessions we have endured.

We the People who are aware of the issues and the solutions are in a situation I call the Moses Paradox. Moses had to wait 40 years until nearly all of the original people were but a few and he was able to indoctrinate the new generations with the Law. Those who have conspired to destroy what our founders fought and died for have had generations now to spin their propaganda to the masses through forced government controlled education and the private corporate media that supports those Money Masters behind the curtain.

This nation prospered enormously while the money belonged to the people and the government provided due diligence and vigilance to safeguard the people's money. But we were under attack by the European bankers even before the ink was dry on the Treaty of Paris. They were already plotting how to steal the wealth of this nation long before the amount of wealth was realized. They succeeded several times to get into the nation's money system, but they were identified by those representatives that were courageous and took their oaths of office with integrity and conviction. Lincoln was one, Garfield was another. The last American President to take on the banking elite was John Fitzgerald Kennedy. And he did so against the advice of his father, for his father new that his defiance toward the Money Masters would cost him his life.

It doesn't matter if we trade with copper, gold, silver, or beads. What does matter is who determines what the currency used is worth and what will control that currency to maintain its worth even when there is expansion of currency in circulation.

The answer can be found in the Constitution for the United states of America.

Dumbing Down the Population Creates Corporate Control of Government

Have you ever wondered why we don't have great minds today like Nikola Tesla And Thomas Edison? Or why our government lacks great statesmen like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson or George Washington? The answer lies in government forced standards in education.

Have you ever noticed that with all of the rights stipulated in our founding documents, there is no mention of the rights to schooling? Was it merely an oversight of these great thinkers or a purposeful omission? I will take the latter answer as my own for in all their wisdom, it seems that such an omission was deliberate. They knew something then about education that has been lost on the generations of the present.

Most of these great thinkers were self-taught and what little formal schooling they had played only a minor role in the development of their character and creativity. They knew that not everyone would assimilate knowledge at the same rate, nor would people have interest or need in subject matter at the same ages. Many of these pioneers of ours were well read and self-sufficient before they were sixteen years old. Quite a few were very successful in business and trade before they were in their twenties.

They attended no schools yet knew more of math and the physical sciences than their college degreed counterparts in the modern age. And that is the reason why we have no such great minds stepping forth to solve the economic tribulations we now all face, not only here in the United States, but around the world as well. But there are rare instances where these creative and knowledgeable come forth and offer the solutions to problems. But because they are not only rare, but are bringing forth solutions that are so different than what is offered by the “well-schooled” in positions of commerce and government, they are labeled “radicals” and extremists by their peers, and in some cases imprisoned for their “insurgencies.”

No nation, regardless of its natural and human resources, will survive at length when it depends on institutions to maintain it. In production of goods, no company can survive when it must spend more than it can take in, and instead of prosperity there is bankruptcy at worst and stagnation as best. Innovation dwindles when there are so few that can see beyond what limited learning they get in schools.

The same is true with people as they are treated as resources by the corporations, and the corporations were the influencers of modern education in America. The goal was not to teach young minds how to think, it instead taught them what to think. It produced very rigid curricula in order to suppress self-confidence and free-thinking individuals. It was created to instate a class system that was to have working class and middle class segments of the population, those that would labor with their bodies and others who labored with their minds, but both within limitations so as to keep them in their place as it were.

In limited degree today, we have charter schools and home schooling advancing the idea that children can learn better outside the classroom. This has cause more than a little resistance from the many boards of education and the unions representing educators. And with hood reason they need to be concerned, for it is proven that these “alternative” schools and learning systems are vastly more effective than the government mandated systems in place.

Everyone has the right to an education but no one has the right to go to school. Learning never needs to cost the student or parent of the student, it must be part of the responsibility a parent takes on in raising children, just as instilling ethic and morals upon a developing mind is an obligation of parenthood. It was never meant to be in the province of the State to take on that responsibility.