Who's Can is Getting Kicked?

So the news is that the Senate will pass a “clean” Continuing Resolution and a raise in the debt ceiling (borrow more money we don't have to fund programs we don't need)  The House will cave in to the demands of the dictator in the White House and he will stop hurting us. Oh and have to do this again in January 2014 because they have another sequester mandate that will kick in. In other words, another debt crisis and political wrangling for our entertainment purposes only. The media pundits refer to this as kicking the can down the road. Whose can?

Once again the party politics in Washington proves that We the People need to really step up and clean houses: The House of Representatives (who don't represent us,) The House of the Senate, and the White House. Our government is infested with criminals and we need to clean up the mess they left behind.

In order to make this happen we need to reform the nomination and election procedures to assure honesty and integrity. In Protecting the Vote is detailed information on how to assure that the balloting is kept transparent and accurate. Speed is secondary to the accuracy of the People's choices.


The method of getting nominated and on the ballot varies by state and by county so you will have do the research if you really want to make changes in who represents you in your state and in DC.


Seems to me that the can getting kicked is the American People's and I guess it doesn't hurt enough yet before you'll get off your can and take action. Or does the welfare state outnumber patriotic Americans?

Trampling on Tyranny

Spinning propaganda to promote policies that have nothing to do with the issues is now the way party politics operates at all levels of government. A look at the facts will demonstrate the fallacy of what the politicians and government wants us to believe.

No background checks or bans to weapons or magazines would have had any bearing on the most recent attacks on Americans. Most of these deaths were not caused by guns. In the bombings in Boston, a more vigilant policy to enforce immigrantion laws may have prevented it since it was learned that these two were interrogated by the FBI due to information provided by Russian authorities. 

In the case of mentally unstable individuals who commited murders with guns, knives, and even baseball bats, it seems obvious that background checks would not have helped either. Most crimes involving deaths by shooting are weapons that were obtained by the criminals in illegal transactions. New laws will not stop bad people from breaking those new laws as they do with current laws.

But there is a much larger issue at the forefront of all of this. The issue most relevant is that of rights and limits. Regarding rights, there are some who feel that the government has the authority to infringe on the rights of the people if it can demonstrate it is for the good of the people or the security of the nation. The government cannot take that which it did not give. Our rights are not obtained from the government nor do we get them from the Constitution. And the Constitution only spells out some of those rights, rather concentrating on the duties and limits of the federal government, primary of which is protecting the rights and safety of the people.

There are many Americans today who think that government has the duty to provide many things for the people of America. These are people who have been taught by institutionalized schools, mandated and regulated by federal government, being indoctrinated into thinking as they are told to think, what to think, and allowing authority of the government prevail. More and more examples of individualism being suppressed and even punished make the news in between this recent major distractions from the real issues of a government that is so corrupted by greed and power, that they will sooner bankrupt the nation rather than admit they can't fix the problem without cutting the spending and reining in the Federal Reserve System that is further destroying our economy.

Our nation is under attack, not only from foreign extremists, but from within by a corrupted representation of the people, who cater to the whims of corporate interests to the detriment of the citizens they are supposed to protect.It is up to us, We the People, to defend our nation when our government fails. We must restore our nation ourselves!

The End is Near!

It has been my experiences over the past four decades to question everything that is said by the media and by government. Half truths and omissions of facts, outright lies are passed on as facts more often than not. So it was up to me to educate myself by research to discover for myself what truth is.

The November Election is more than just about who will be our President for the next four years. It is about whether we as Americans want to be a free and sovereign people or wards of a corporate-controlled state, ruled by those who hold protection of profits as greater than the rights of the people they swore to protect.

The time of your vote counting for something has long past. In the present day, it is a fraud of free elections when political parties make the rules and hold elections that represent the party and not the people. We are faced now with the most important choices this nation has come up against since the resolve to break from the tyranny of the British Crown. We are faced with the choice of losing our rights entirely and having a dictator instead of a chief executive in the form of a president that is held in check by the judicial and legislative branches of a federal government.

We no longer operate under constitutional government. Our federal and state governments are corporations and operate under admiralty or maritime law. We the free and sovereign individuals have been tricked into becoming property of the state and our rights have been usurped by the laws and mandates of corporations.

Most Americans still believe they have rights. We do not. Slowly those rights have been taken away by legislation that is the very laws that were written by the British barristers, who have infiltrated every level of government through trickery. The title of Esquire, granted to those who are members of the Bar Associations, are themselves loyal not to the Constitution of the United States, but to the laws of the corporate state created by the banksters in Europe to control the currency of the nations.

Did we truly win independence from Great Britain or were we fooled into believing we were truly free? I would tend to think that the former is true. And we now have in place a President who if elected for another term, will take complete control and we will have no rights at all, only privileges granted if we are obedient subjects.

Some will have us believe that we can stop this from happening by electing Mitt Romney, a true corporate statist and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, another group of globalists who want to make the United States a province of a North American Union under laws of the United Nations and the global elitists that control them.

A minority of people even suggest that backing Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson would stop the decline in our economy and restore constitutional integrity to government. I look at facts and not just the speculation.

Facts demonstrate that the only person who has consistently demonstrated integrity and honesty in both his personal and professional lives is Ron Paul. In fact he was denied the nomination by both parties and not just the GOP, although it does make we wonder why they picked Romney over all the others. Romney finished a distant third in the 2008 delegation and convention behind both eventual candidate John McCain and former Governor Mike Huckabee. Now we know how poorly McCain lost to Obama, and now the GOP wants us to support Romney?

Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan has demonstrated his dishonesty by voting for a raise in the debt ceiling after he promised the Tea Party who endorsed him and supported his victory in Congress that he would not vote for an increase. Speaker of the House, John Boehner also lied to his constituents and America by “compromising” with the Democrats in control of the Senate.

So when will Americans finally wake up and take responsibility and vote the party politicians out of office? We don’t have much time to reverse the disaster we are surely heading for.

Open Letter to Congressman Peter DeFazio

---

The letter below is the full text that was sent to the Democratic incumbent by his challenger, Art Robinson. I am supporting Dr. Robinson (PhD) because everything he stands for demonstrates integrity, honesty, and his knowledge and pledge to limit federal government to those powers delegated to it by We the People in the Constitution.

July, 18, 2012

Congressman Peter DeFazio
P.O. Box 1316
Springfield, OR 97477

Dear Congressman DeFazio,

Your recent “reply” to my debate challenge is just more of the same sort of falsehoods and cowardice that we have come to expect from you during the past two years. You are apparently unable to tell the truth even long enough to arrange debate events with your opponent.

On June 7, 2012 on the floor of the U. S. House of Representatives, you yelled and pointed at a Marine Corps veteran, Congressman Paul Broun, and claimed to all listeners that he hates his country. When this Marine challenged your claim, you compounded your lie with yet another lie in a failed attempt to escape from the truth. Afterward, you refused to apologize to him and branded the other concerned congressmen as “idiots.” (See www.politico.com, June 8, 2012)

I know how this Marine must feel. For two years you have told one lie after another about my family and about me in your attempt to ruin our personal and professional reputations. In my book Common Sense in 2012 (which is now in the homes of a majority of District 4 voters and which you claim to have read), I list 15 specific falsehoods that you have told about us during your ongoing smear campaign – and I provide answers to your claims.

Also, of course, you continually misrepresent political issues, too. The truth, when known and understood by a majority of the voters, will end your political career.

Consider just three examples.

Gasoline prices. I would like to ask you about your co-sponsorship in Congress of H.R. 1683 on April 2, 2009. This bill would amend the IRS code to gradually raise taxes on motor fuels in the United States, through a permit system, until the use of motor fuels by Americans is reduced by 80% – reduced to one fifth of the fuel used now. How are Americans going to adapt to a one-fifth ration of motor fuel?

This tax would cause the cost of gasoline to skyrocket to more than $10 per gallon and possibly as high as $20 per gallon. Yet, simultaneously with cosponsoring this bill, you loudly complain that gasoline prices are too high and claim that you are working to reduce those prices. How does H. R. 1683 reduce prices?

Education. I would like to ask you about your “no” vote against amending H.R. 2556 on September 5, 2003, to provide school vouchers for Washington, D.C.’s mostly African American students? Parents want these vouchers so that their children can attend the better schools. Fortunately, the bill passed over your “no” vote, and, as a result, the high school graduation rate of these mostly poor and disadvantaged minority students increased and the cost of educating them decreased. Yet, when the voucher program was up for renewal under H.R. 471, you again voted “no” on March 30, 2011 in another failed attempt to kill this program. Why do you still oppose this successful education program for D.C. students?

You have also voted against merit pay for teachers, teacher testing, tenure reform, charter schools, education savings accounts, and state waivers from federal rules. Why do you (and the big education monopoly you pander to) oppose these attempts to improve American schools?

During my lifetime in education at the K through 12, college undergraduate, and university graduate school levels, I have taught many thousands of students. So far as I know, you have never taught a single student. Yet, you constantly claim that I am anti-education and that you are pro-education. (You buttress your claims about me by word-searching the large amount I have written during a lifetime in education and pulling out of context tiny bits and pieces, while ignoring the rest.) In a free discussion about education between the two of us, your duplicity would be immediately apparent.

Wall Street. I would like to ask you about your many campaign advertisements and fund raising letters in which you continually claim to be “targeted” for defeat by Wall Street and paint me as a Wall Street shill.

During your campaigns against me, you have received (as of April 2012) $264,499 in campaign contributions from 45 Wall Street listed corporations; $254,100 from 67 other corporate and industry groups; and a great many large “individual” contributions from Wall Street CEOs (the exact numbers are uncertain because many of these are disguisable under FEC rules). My contributions from these sources total only $3,000. (You also complain that independent expenditures favor me, but neglect to mention your own extensive independent expenditure help.)

The only Wall Street targeting of you that I see is the hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash that you receive from Wall Street in return for your misuse of taxpayer money and congressional power to do favors for these corporations and special interests.

If you ever face me in real debate – a prospect that apparently frightens you, you will be asked about your lies and smears of my family and me. And, you will be called to account for your real record in Congress and your poor representation of Oregon voters. The three issues listed above are just examples of many more, of which you are well aware.

You simply do not have the courage to face my questions and to question me in a format where we both can freely and completely respond.

During this year’s primary election, you even refused to face a 24-year-old OSU graduate student, Matthew Robinson, in one-on-one open public debate. Instead, you spent more than $100,000 smearing his reputation, including arranging the filing with the Oregon Secretary of State and nationwide publication of false claims about him and his family during the primary voting – lies that were, of course, disproved (and rejected by the Secretary of State) after the voting was over.

There should have been not one, but 10 or more students challenging you in that primary. There should have been so many students on the primary ballot that voters would have had trouble finding your name. Your policies in Washington are seriously damaging the future prospects of all of the students at OSU.

The public already knows, Peter, that you are a liar. Do you really want to be known as a coward, too? Why don’t you stand up and debate me in events in which we ask each other questions and the public – freely admitted to the event – evaluates our answers? If you can overcome your fear; if you can face me man to man in actual timed, back and forth debates of the real political issues – rather than continuing to hide yourself behind “moderators” and “forums” where rules made by you and your friends protect you from your opponent, you might at least rise to the level of a courageous liar – a level considerably higher than your current situation.

In my debate challenge to you this year (appended below and posted on our campaign web site at www.ArtForCongress.com), I tried to make this easier for you. I offered to attend one of the “forums” staged by your friends for each real debate you participate in with me. I suggested that you choose four event sponsors and I choose four (one in each of the seven District 4 counties and one in Portland).

You could continue to read your pre-prepared answers to softball questions selected by your friends in the “safe” environment that you prefer – at half of the events. In the other half, you would need to summon the courage to face your opponent one-on-one in real debate and without the protection of your friends.

Your recent “answer” to my challenge is typical.

You gripe about “partisan” sponsors and refuse my challenge. Yet, in your letter, you list five sponsors that you prefer, at least four of which are partisan. You say that you have accepted these five events. Apparently you are in planning discussions with these people. Three of them have not contacted me.

Let’s simplify this.

You choose one sponsor Mr. DeFazio – any sponsor, any format, any place, any time. I will be there. I will also choose one sponsor and one format. We will agree to attend both. If you have the courage to face me more than twice, we’ll each pick another set of sponsors.

In the case of your pick, you can have it any way you wish (so long as the public is not prevented from freely observing the event – as you did in one event in 2010) – designer questions, rules against discussions of topics not satisfactory to you and your sponsors, rules against standing while speaking, excessive time spent with candidates of "minor" political parties who favor your views, etc., etc. You can have it all.

In the case of my pick, you will probably find yourself in open debate of the issues between yourself and your opponent – fairly timed so that each of the two candidates has equal time to question his opponent and answer questions put to him. You will not be able to hide behind a moderator. After that formal debate – an American custom that dates back at least 200 years and is today participated in by high school and college debaters throughout our country, we can both respond to audience questions (again timed to be fair to both of us).

And, if I may suggest, try something new. Try to tell the truth. Your recent letter says that my proposal “deprives residents of the 4th congressional district of . . . audience questions” and that “voters should be able to ask questions.” You imply that I want to avoid audience questions. Yet, my challenge to you suggested that the formal debate “be followed by questions from the audience alternated and timed to be fair to both of us.”

You letter misrepresents my challenge in several additional ways. You apparently hope that the public will read your letter (and not mine, reproduced below) which you, of course, have published widely.

You also complain about my suggestion that you accept Lars Larson’s challenge to both of us (which I have already accepted). You have no problem with Lars. You have appeared on his program many times. He treats you fairly and charitably. Your problem is that he has offered you and me three full hours of radio airtime to debate our differences. It is me you fear, not Lars. You are absolutely afraid to appear in free and open debate with me, and you know that Lars will likely permit that debate.

One of your five proposed sponsors is KOBI television, a well-known partisan media outlet that is favorable to your side of the political issues. Fine, Mr. DeFazio, let’s go unedited (just the two of us) on live KOBI television – providing that we accept Lars Larson’s offer of a live radio program, too.

You, Mr. DeFazio, still have many supporters in Oregon. Many of them seem to prefer your policies of over-taxation, over-regulation, and over-indebtedness in Washington. They may prefer the big government socialism that you represent. Most of them, however, do not really know your views and do not fully understand the effects of your actions on their personal lives.

Most Americans have, on the other hand, a visceral dislike of liars and cowards. These are not personal characteristics that they want to see in their congressional representatives.

In 2010, you managed to avoid the real political issues by means of a million dollar media campaign of lies about your opponent and his family. This strategy against a new, publically unknown opponent was unprincipled but partially successful. You won the election, but lost – for the first time in your 24 years in Congress – in four counties (Josephine, Curry, Douglas, and Linn) and approximately tied in Coos County. You came closer to losing your office than in any other election in your 25 years as a career Washington politician – and your approval rating among the voters dropped precipitately.

This time, in 2012, you need to debate the issues. If you continue your 2010 campaign of smears and falsehoods (as your advertisements so far indicate you plan to do), it is your own personal lack of character that will become the primary issue.

Stand up with courage, Mr. DeFazio. Debate the real issues one-on-one with your opponent. Why not give Oregon District 4 voters a gift of honesty and openness this time, rather than hiding behind just another false advertising campaign?

Art Robinson

Appended Robinson original challenge to DeFazio:

To: Peter DeFazio May 17, 2012

Debates between the candidates are very important in giving the opportunity for the voters to see the candidates and evaluate them. The voters deserve in-depth debate between the candidates that involves a detailed discussion of the issues with more than just sound-bites and bullet points.

During 2010, I repeatedly urged that you and I schedule real debates – one in each of the seven counties of Oregon District 4. You refused and eventually arranged for four “forums” sponsored by organizations of your choice – which we ultimately attended.

For 2012, it would be much better to hold real debates. A format similar to the one I suggested last time would be ideal, in which we alternate speaking in intervals with only a time keeper. This could be followed by questions from the audience alternated and timed to be fair to both of us. One debate in each of the seven counties would be ideal and give every voter a chance to attend. Choice of a time keeper, exact details of the debate, as well as scheduling would be easy to work out between our campaigns.

If you want to hold “forum” events in addition to these, I would, of course, be happy to attend as long as they are open to the public.

If, however, you still refuse to hold real debates yourself, then I suggest our events be arranged as follows to be fair to both campaigns.

1) The DeFazio and Robinson campaigns cooperate in working out a joint event schedule for these appearances.

We plan eight appearances – one in each of the seven counties in the District and one in Portland.

The Portland event be the one that Lars Larson has already proposed. (Given his stature, neither campaign can afford to turn him down.)

Each side chooses the sponsors for four events. (One of our four can be Lars.) So, you would be choosing four sponsors and we would choose three plus Lars.

We simply alternate. You choose one sponsor in one county; we go next; and so on. Each choice must be from the counties not yet scheduled. You go first. We alternate until seven are chosen.

2) The format etc. of each event be entirely up to the sponsor. Some may be more “forum” like and some may be more “debate” like. This is up to the sponsors. They set the rules. (We assume that the campaigns will be talking with their sponsor choices about this and probably advising them. That is OK with us.)

All events be freely open to the public and held in large enough rooms to accommodate the crowds that are likely to come. Judging from 2010 and allowing for the increased interest now, we would expect between 500 and 1,000 at each event. Rooms that seat 600 to 800 and have room for a substantial standing overflow should suffice. (This should be no problem except in the case of Lars, whose facility is smaller. In his case, the radio broadcast suffices.) We should work out a plan so that the seating arrangements do not favor either side.

It be recognized that these are “campaign” events. Campaigning, handing out literature, etc. before and after you and I are engaged and speaking will be welcomed, but no audible distractions will be permitted during the speaking. (The usual admonitions to hold ordinary applause, etc. will likely be made – and fail as usual.)

The events be about 2 hours long.

Seating near the speakers be arranged so that it has approximately equal numbers of partisans from each side.

The events be a week or so apart, with alternation of the seven sponsors in an order agreed to by the campaigns. Lars fits his event in whenever it is convenient for him.

Art Robinson

Americans Must Believe

Those people who spend their time and energy advocating a litany of proposed actions or services the U.S. Government really needs to consider right now, calls for an expansion of government. There are times when an issue or issues are presented which strikes an emotional public chord. People become emotionally engaged in the particulars and the bigger picture fades from view or is ignored. It often helps at times like these to stand back and examine the issue or problem from different points of view. 

Clever politicians are forever coming up with new schemes to engage the U.S. Government into doing one thing or another; to address some issue of concern, to solve a particular problem, or to fill someones need somewhere. In many of the newer programs that have been enacted in one way or another, there has been absolutely no consideration of the means to pay for some of these programs that have become law. It should be apparent to all U.S. Citizens it is time to propose that we step back and actually inspect and then think about a few of the these problems facing America. For the moment, shall we Put aside the endless lists of things for government to do and focus on the bigger picture.


The encyclopedic collection of broken promises, failed programs, and wasted trillions should be sufficient to invoke the public attention. The programs or services that never quite materialized, the flashy programs that fizzled, the problems government was supposed to solve but only managed into expensive perpetuity, or programs that failed so badly they forced politicians to point to shiny objects at other locations which had been uncovered, while the original problem was quickly covered over with fresh rolls of turf-grass. 

The following should be read and understood by all Americans; Democrats, Republicans, Independents, EVERYONE! The person occupying the Presidency and all 535 voting members of the Legislature, minus a handful, are now declared officially, to be ALL incompetent, negligent Politicians: 

a. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 237 years to get it right and it is broke. 

b. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 77 years to get it right and it is broke.

c. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.

d. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 48 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

e. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 47 years to get it right and they are broke.
 
f. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 42 years to get it right and it is broke.

g. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 35 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

h. The Department of Education was created in 1953 and became a solitary Cabinet Department in 1979. Every year billions are spent to insure Americans have developed basic skill levels in reading, writing, and reasoning. This was done to supposedly insure that as a nation, America would remain competitively dominant on a global basis. At the close of 2011 America ranked below 45th place in countries around the world. You had 59 years to get it right and as test scores continue to fall it has become a national embarrassment and failure.

i. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA a.k.a. Obamacare), which just had to be passed so the U.S. House of Representatives could be able to read all 2,700 plus pages according to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, is now in question. It has now been revealed by Senator Jeff Sessions, budget chief of the Senate that: 

Senate Republican staffers have continued to look though the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to see what’s in it, and their latest discovery is a massive $17 trillion funding gap. “The more we learn about the bill, the more we learn it is even more unaffordable than was suspected,” Sessions said, “The bill has to be removed from the books because we don’t have the money,” he said. The hidden shortfall between new spending and new taxes was revealed just after Supreme Court justices grilled the law’s supporters about its compliance with the Constitution’s limits on government activity. If the court dose not strike down the law, it will force taxpayers to find $17 trillion they do not have, to pay for the increased spending shortfall. You had 2 years to figure out it can not be gotten right and it is broke.

The government has FAILED in every "bloated government service" that has been shoved down our throats while spending our tax dollars, with no spending limit in place it makes no difference if any program budget or the entire U.S. budget is balanced or not. There are Services which have a real purpose and were never put into place to be a business and produce a profit (revenue stream), the U.S. Postal Service is an example.

OBAMA WANTS AMERICANS TO BELIEVE HE AND HIS PLAN CAN BE TRUSTED TO HANDLE A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FOR THE U.S. CITIZENRY!   It Is Only Money They Could Be Spending On Food:  Even If There Is No Proof, Americans Must Believe!

The American Dream: Has It Become a Nightmare?

Is there no sanity left in America?  Are we so well socially engineered by the propaganda machines that we no longer can see reality?  

We are quickly approaching the most important election in recent history, many of of the presidential candidates are thumping for war against Iran and dictators and terrorists around the world. This kind of irrational rhetoric of the war-mongering conservative right is a direct reflection of the lobbying influence that has been used since World War II:  remember President Eisenhower's warning concerning the Military Industrial Complex?

As a veteran and Statesman, Dr. Paul stands firm on national defense. He objects to militarism not the defense of the nation against real threats. We were once the richest nation on the planet, had no income tax, did not have a large military, remember the fleet at Pearl Harbor?  Although we were not "prepared for war" we were able to motivate our citizens and manufacture supplies to defeat major enemies on two fronts with the aid of our allies. We could have returned to that pre-war footing after WWII were it not for the vast profit potential of the war footing developed by major corporations.

Dr. Paul opposes the Patriot Act: American citizens need not be treated as criminals and subjected to indefinite detention to prevent terrorism and voted, “Nay.” President Barack Obama's staff has indicated he will sign the indefinite detention bill into law. The bill, called National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the Fiscal Year 2012, has provisions that explicitly spell out the authority of the U.S. President to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or supporting terrorists. This law completely bypasses the rights (like due process) promised to citizens in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Dr. Paul is equally opposed to the TSA's X-ray, Strip, and Grope behavior which displays an attitude unwarranted toward American Citizens. He explains that the airlines themselves need to make passengers feel safe to fly on aircraft, not the government. In maintaining the appearance of political correctness, we don't "profile" people, who because of their religion, might be terrorists. Dr. Paul points out the fact that Israel does not have a TSA-like "search and grope" but they have a secure airport and airline there. The Israelis do "profile" because it works for them.

Maintaining a secure national border and coast is a constitutional power granted to the federal government by the People. National Border Security is an important concern of the federal government:  But, that does not prohibit nor restrict the law enforcement branches within any state from enforcing State and federal laws to provide protection for its own residents. Illegal immigrants are certainly a problem and a burden on State Revenues and Resources. Dr. Paul being from Texas is well aware of these problems and similar problems faced by Arizona and California. Dr. Ron Paul explains this and demonstrates the respect for State sovereignty and States rights to protect their own borders and Citizens.

Many politicians are reactionary and want to pass laws to prevent every possibility of people harming others and themselves. In the name of a safe and secure citizenry, the majority of both House and Senate representatives we have elected and entrusted with protecting our freedoms which ensure our protection, they have instead usurped the U. S. Constitution and passed unconstitutional laws further eroding the sovereignty of the individual and of the States that comprise the union. Party favorites, Romney, Gingrich, Perry are clearly offering and pushing political agendas that do not include the corrective reduction of the Federal Government and which continue to blur the basic and fundamental rights of the States. During his entire political career, Dr. Paul has stood alone in his convictions and are reflected by his voting record which has demonstrated a solid understanding of the U. S. Constitution and the concepts on which it is based.

The European Union is wrought with debt:  many of its member nations are on the brink of economic collapse. E. U. member nations have followed the policies of the European Central Banks and if they continue they will join all the other bankrupt countries around the the world. If the United States continues to follow these same polices of the central banks and their U. S. representative, the privately owned Federal Reserve Banking System, America will soon join the ever growing number of bankrupt nations that have relied on policies of the central banks. Regardless of which presidential candidate you listen to, save one, all say they will slow the collapse but they cannot prevent it. All the presidential candidates are unwilling to take any action to correct this problem. The exception, Dr. Paul.

Dr. Paul accurately predicted the destruction of the American Economy and offered the reasons for it. He exposed the true nature, a system designed on the basis of debt, of the Federal Reserve System and explained how the United States can regain a sound global and national economic stance for its citizens by returning to a currency backed by real assets. Not on a system designed on the basis of debt. This is the reason that we, our children, and their children can never get out of debt: the debt only increases. Halting the Central banks from creating an unending flood of worthless Federal Reserve Notes is the solution. 

Mitt Romney has been very critical of China's manipulation of its currency and he suggests high tariffs are needed. Dr. Paul has offered what is needed is a solid and sound monetary system to insulate the United States from any effects of what any nation does to manipulate its own currency. Dr. Paul understands the current monetary system and why it cannot be repaired as so many other presidential candidates have insisted. It cannot be repaired because it is designed to be a debt-based system which always increases the national debt. Dr. Paul has stated that Congress should take its constitutional mandate and responsibility to enact a monetary system that is immune from manipulation by other nations and central banks. It has been demonstrated over thousands of years of commerce and trade, a monetary system that is backed with real assets is the only system.

All of the candidates have talked about a balanced budget amendment at one time or another; however, only Dr. Paul explains that balancing the budget is only part of the issue. If Congress wants to increase the budget and remain "balanced" they will have to (as they do now) create a source of revenue (fees/taxes) or borrow it from the Federal Reserve System to pay for it. A balanced budget in and of itself does nothing to curb spending and reign in the spending power of Congress. But Dr. Paul has explained that many of the programs funded by the federal government are unconstitutional and need to be eliminated. 

If We the People are to restore our liberties, to remain a sovereign nation, to rebound from the economic collapse close at hand, we must do something that is radically different from the actions that have led us to this point in history. We must stop choosing between the party favorite candidates that have always done exactly the same thing after being elected. The opposite of what they promised to do or nothing. We need to elect representation that will look out after our interests. We need a revolutionary candidate. There is a glimmer of light shining on the nation's darkest hours. 

There is only one man running for President who has withstood all of the hype and spin, and has been relentless in his defense of liberty, freedom, and upholding his oath of office. As the primaries loom ever closer, a viable presidential candidate is urgently needed but not to the extreme that any one will do. The gathering of presidential hopefuls have now adopted the concepts and ideas that one candidate has been explaining and discussing for thirty years. You have heard his name only occasionally. Romney, Gingrich, and Perry are not presidential material. 

Only one presidential candidate understands that actual change needs to occur. The necessary changes must conform to The U. S. Constitution. Dr. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate willing to make the changes necessary to return our nation to one of freedom and liberty for all.

Cronyism Costs Taxpayers Trillions

It doesn't take a PhD. in economics to see how much taxpayer revenue and borrowed funds are being wasted on "investments" in alternative energy projects. And while the President in busy with campaigning and finger pointing at the GOP-led House to pass another "stimulus" bill disguised as a jobs bill, there are several bills stacked up in the Democrat-controlled Senate that Harry Reid & Company have been ignoring. Several of them are budgets which will prevent another last-minute panic to push through a budget so that government won't be shut down. Sound familiar?

Now subpoenas are sent to the White House because the Administration is stonewalling and not providing information about the Solyndra scandal. The President however pokes at Congress passing a reaffirming resolution to keep "In God We Trust" as the national motto while his jobs bill gets no vote of confidence.

The biggest contributors to the Obama campaign are the same ones that received huge bailouts, many that pay no taxes (General Electric) and yet Obama says he wants the rich to pay their "fair share." The jobs in his "jobs bill" will create "thousands" of jobs in construction, bridges and highways, all union and all costing the taxpayers. The budgets thus far all have not cuts spending, instead they raised the credit limit (Can you do that with your bank or credit card company?) for themselves and spent more money that they had to borrow.

With the support of grassroots patriots, organized as the Tea Party Movement, the majority in the House shifted to the right, and gains were also made in the Senate, although short of the desired majority. But in a way, that is good for Americans who can plainly see (if they choose to) where the real problems are and with whom. They are not found in examining the sexual harassment allegations of Herman Cain, or the religious beliefs of Mitt Romney.

I can go down the list of the candidates vying for the GOP nomination and I am sure to find good things to say about each. But in all but one of them, we can discover past indiscretions, that even as isolated incidents, call into question their integrity and ability to serve the People and their Constitution.

There are many things that are going wrong in the United States, many issues that the government, the President cannot solve. The best thing for them to do is remove the barriers to free markets and lower taxes to stimulate business development. There are too many laws and department level regulations that inhibit business development and growth, moving innovation and jobs overseas along with revenue from profits. ARRA and TARP are but two prime examples of wasted spending and a burden to the American taxpayer. Guaranteed loans in excess of one half billion dollars to Solyndra is an exclamation point at the end of the phrase, "government waste and total ineptitude."

After listening and reading all of the so-called solutions that all these candidates are offering, and as we watch and listen to the debates and the analysis of those debates, one thing seems evident to me. Only Ron Paul is offering the tough and truthful answers to all of the questions, with the same consistency and persistence that We the People need and want in a President. A man who seems almost meek, but don't let that fool you, as he has been as tough as anyone in Congress that you will find. Not once can you find him changing his mind on issues, it is why the GOP and media resort to name-calling when they do have to acknowledge him. Mostly they just tend to ignore him.

We know that the major media will do whatever it is paid to do, regardless of how "fair and balanced" they profess to be. It is We the People that need to take back our liberty and choose our President, not from the rank and file party favorites, but from the Spirit of Liberty, the Constitution, Free Markets and Sound Money.

Ron Paul is that President!

If Things Were Right

In the vision of our founders as is demonstrated by the careful word crafting in the documents that we now call Founding Documents, the explicit limits to federal government are plain. In all of them the rights to all were equal, not that all are equal. One who works for wages or starts their own business or trade is not equal to someone who feels those businesses and trades and workers all must pay support for them because they are entitled. Charity is voluntary not mandatory.

Freedom is something you must both earn and and pay for if you are to keep it. The rights of others cannot be infringed upon by you as you would have your rights not be infringe upon by others, without your wanting and willingness to take action to defend those rights. What right did you give to the federal government to use your tax dollars to give to foreign nations? And at what point did you feel obligated to fund "entitlement" programs for people that are not citizens or plain and simply lazy Americans who use excuses instead of brains or physical dexterity to at least earn their own keep?

Somewhere in our not so distant past we began to lose our rights. Property rights, individual rights, privacy rights, and most Constitutional rights were all systematically taken away and there wasn't hardly a heated public debate to defend those rights. The right to determine where our tax dollars are spent was something that was much simpler to understand when the Constitution limited taxation with apportionment and a budget had to be approved by the Representatives and the People of the many States were heard through the voices of those elected to that post of service. They aren't our leaders at all, they are our followers. If they are not following our lead then we need to remedy the problem.

If things were right in this country, our currency would be stable regardless of what other nations currencies are worth. It would based on a standard weight of tangible asset whose worth is based on real industrial value and not a formula that requires a four-year degree in Economics.

If things were right we would think $100.00 as a weekly wage was doing pretty good. Fuel prices would be less than 25 cents per gallon and a brand new American built automobile would cost less than $5,000.00 with all of the optional extras.

If things were right, schooling would be the total responsibility of the parents and not the state. Home schooling, charter schools, and eventually no schools at all. All the-libraries in the world made available on DVD and online for the world to gain knowledge. The classics as told be those who wrote them and not just the opinions of those teachings written by others. Discussions and debates can take place at meeting places or online since that enables communications across the continents.

If things were right we can easily transition from fueled vehicles into electric powered vehicles with technology that even today is making that possible but at a premium price that few can afford to pay.  Sound and stable currency, lower taxes and easing of regulatory obstacles that add unnecessary fees and certifications to manufacturers would make employment opportunity always there for a younger generation to go out into the world to seek their dreams and their goals.

If things were right I would have work to do and would be self-sufficient instead of desperately trying to produce the rent for this month. I also would be typing less and talking more as the host of an online talk show. But reality is not the same as being right.


If things were rights there would be simple treatments to cure cancer and other illnesses that are so often fatal. If only things were right.

It is the right and the patriotic duty for all American sovereign individuals to voice their grievances to those who represent them in government for remedy. And that remedy begins when we cast our ballots to choose just who will represent us and carry forth our wishes to a compliant and not a complacent federal government.

Democrats and Republicans as political parties have taken away out ability to be fairly represented. Those who do not embrace  and expound the party ideology are removed from candidacy with support by the privately-owned major media, who spoon feed the public with the party choices while they ostracize the nominees who do not toe that party line.

I have worked for and have been involved with government at all levels and feel there is no level that is not corrupted by lobbying and funding from special interests. While the media will point fingers at individuals, groups and corporations, the problem gets worse and never better.

The next presidential election in 2012 will be noted as the most important one in the history of the United States of America. It will determine whether America will rise from the ashes like a phoenix, or crash and burn and become absorbed by the global elitist who have been taking over the world through their banks and the corporations they created.

If we keep voting the same party people into office, we will lose our sovereignty and become slave labor to the statists.

Unconstitutional Health Care Bill

Several judges in several states have dismissed law suits and others are moving forward with them. It seems that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is being questioned not for its validity by Constitutional law, but by the Commerce Clause and what Congress can do when faced with economic decisions.


In the case of State of Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Judge Roger Vinson reminds us that even in the face of a perceived crisis, such as the number of uninsured and rising health care costs, it is not enough that a law be wise and expedient, it must also respect the limits imposed by the U. S. Constitution.


It is obvious to me that this gentleman truly respects that Constitution and will allow the case to move forward. Not all jurisdictions are of the same opinion, and that seems to display a propensity by judges to legislate from the bench. Clearly, that is also restricted by Constitutional law, but the United States Supreme Court seems to ignore it regularly.


Access to health care can be seemed a "right" by some, but it is clear that does not indicate "entitlement" to health care, that is, you are not and should not expect that someone else must pay for your needs if you are unable to afford them yourself.


While I do feel that people do need to have medical assistance to remain healthy and productive citizens, that does not burden the rest of the nation to provide their care and treatments. Perhaps the health insurers and the pharmaceutical manufacturers that have enjoyed such enormous profits and growth, despite the economic downward spiral of nearly every other sector of business and finance, can give their support to the "crisis" in health care.