Friday, December 28, 2007

The REAL war on terror

War kills people; you cannot have a war without having people to be at war with. Terrorism, although terrible, can never really be an enemy; a terrorist is an enemy that uses terrorism. Before we can conquer terrorism we must first understand what it is and who it is. I am sure that the first thing that comes to mind when you think of terrorism is 9/11 and the Islamic suicidal attack that led the United States to attack the government of Afghanistan. Clearly the terrorist attack on 9/11 defeated us, but we can free ourselves again. That is if we understand the word “terror”.

Terror is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as “1- Intense, overpowering fear, 2- The ability to cause intense fear, 3- One who instills intense fear, and 4- Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes” Terrorism, therefore, is causing intense fear. So who is a terrorist except one who we are extremely afraid of? The terrorist attack on 9/11 changed the majority of the American people; it caused incredible fear that did not exist before. If you are now afraid of Islamic fanatics you are a victim of the terrorist attack.

To overcome that fear, is to defeat terrorism.

Is our military attacking terrorists “over there” in the Middle East? Are they eliminating terrorism? What those questions should picture in your mind is not Islamofascist’s, or rag headed cave men that strap bombs on themselves and commit suicide. Let me re-word the questions:

Are we attacking those who instill intense overpowering fear, in the Middle East? Are we eliminating intimidation and coercion through the threat or commission of violence?

I think a little common sense is needed. How can we defeat those we are afraid of? Doesn’t that require overcoming our fear first? Are we terrified by them? Terrorism is a method to attack your enemy. It is a way to subdue a population; a way to take away their will, yes, their freedom. We have taken away our own freedom exactly to the degree we are afraid. We are our own terrorists. It is impossible for a government to “give” freedom; for the absence of a dictating government is true liberty.

“Man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”- Ronald Reagan

We can find wisdom even from those we disagree with. I disagree completely with most of what FDR did, (our own Hugo Chaves), but I agree completely with this:

“The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself” – Franklin D Roosevelt

Another big government elitist that I disagree with a lot said:

“The best way to defeat this enemy in the long run is to deny them recruiting tools, recruiterments, made possible by resentment” George W Bush

The key word there is “resentment”. Most of the people I know who support the occupation of Iraq could care less about resentment from Iraqi’s, or Muslims, toward us. “Kill them all!” “torture them!” “Remember 9/11!” “Support the troops!” I believe a parallel can be drawn between these Americans now and Europeans during the Crusades. Most Americans are vigilante in spirit, including the President, including me, until we stop ourselves. We must determine the difference between vigilantism and justice. Justice is not what gave us the Iraq war, and it definitely does not keep us there. Justice did not give us the Patriot Act, nor the Military Commissions Act. Perhaps vigilantism didn’t give us this war in Iraq either; maybe it was our own fear, our own terror. I did not like Sadaam, and was glad to see him deposed, but obviously he was deposed by the wrong people, us. To me that was worse than leaving him as a tyrant. For the majority of the Iraqi people believe that we replaced Sadaam as the dictator.

The point is; no one can liberate a people except themselves, for liberty is self responsibility. Dictators throughout history invaded countries as liberators, they just never left.

“Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.” – Sigmund Freud

Terrorism, therefore, cannot be defeated unless we defeat it right here in our own hearts and minds. Stop being afraid and terrorism loses. The government cannot stop terrorism no matter how many wars they fight against it. Terrorism is a security issue, not a military conflict issue, unless we terrorize ourselves into believing that.

“At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reaches us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."- Abraham Lincoln

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Republicans, Vote Ron Paul or Else!

Wolf Blitzer:
“What is the chance that you will run as an independent third party candidate?”

Ron Paul:
“Pretty slim, I have no intention, no plans. The system is biased against third parties and independent runs. It isn’t a very democratic process. You run as an independent you cannot get into the debates, it is hard to get on ballots. I’d like to see the promotion of democracy here in this country. We deserve a little bit of improvement here.”

Wolf Blitzer:
“I want to hear the words “zero chance”, but you say “pretty slim””

Ron Paul:
“99.99 percent, I don’t like saying absolutes. But I have no plans and no intentions to do anything outside of the Republican Primary”

Ron Paul is going to win the nomination of the Republican Party or the party is going to lose in the general election. Take that as a guarantee. One I would bet $500 on. (Gambling is now legal) Now knowing that, how many of you Bush devotees are going to hold your nose and vote for him in the primaries? Are you loyal to the Republican Party and want the party to win, or hate Ron Paul more than Hillary?

Ron Paul is a social conservative Constitutionalist; think if that when it comes to the Supreme Court. He would bring fiscal responsibility to the Whitehouse. VETO! He is an anti-abortion, anti-socialized healthcare, anti-tax, Christian conservative who has been married for fifty years. And has had tons of life long Democrats switching their party affiliation on the war issue alone! Are we that devoted to a war that has no “good” ending anyway?

If he doesn’t win the nomination you are throwing your vote away. It is that simple. Because if he does not win it, we who have held our noses and endorsed the elitist’s Bush are going to vote with him, even if that means the Libertarian Party, (who might seek Pat Buchanan if Ron Paul won’t accept it, with Ron Paul as his vice-president). The 400,000 member Constitution Party is seeking Ron Paul as well, and whomever he endorsed for President is going to get millions of dollars from his supporters. If that is not the Republican Party, the Party will lose, regardless of James Dobson and his third party threat if Giuliani or Romney wins. The scenario that gave us Bill Clinton, and Woodrow Wilson, is lining up again and it is your fault, not Ron’s, if Bill gets access to the Oval Office amenities again. Our Teddy Roosevelt, or Ross Perot is on your ticket.

The ideal scenario for a third party in 08’ is if Hillary is the D. liberal and Giuliani is the R. liberal with a Ron Paul third party. Things in this country could be looking UP! It is like Thomas Jefferson 2008

“I am for preserving to the states the powers not yielded by them to the union; and for preventing the further encroachment of the executive branch on the rightful powers of congress. I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, and for retiring the national debt, eliminating the standing army, and relying on the militia to safeguard internal security, and keeping the navy small, lest it drag the nation into eternal wars. I am for free commerce with all nations, political connections with none…. I am for freedom of religion, and for freedom of the press. And against all violations to the Constitution to silence our citizens” - Thomas Jefferson on his positions for the 1800 election.

“Paper is poverty…it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself” –Thomas Jefferson

“I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be” –Thomas Jefferson

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them” –Thomas Jefferson

“I sincerely believe that banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies” –Thomas Jefferson

“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” -Thomas Jefferson

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.” —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Paine, 1798

Friday, December 14, 2007

Mad Federal Reserve and Ron Paul

Jim Cramer for new Fed Chairman!

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Ron Paul, the United Nations, and Iraq

“The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure” ~George Washington

Here is what Ron Paul said about why he is on the "get out" side of the Iraq war. It is not because it is politically expedient, it is because it was not a defensive war, and Congress ignored the Constitution in favor of the United Nations to give their responsibility for war to the President. Why did they do it? So they could get out from under the blame if it went wrong.

Ron Paul, "Brushfires of Freedom" September 2007:

"In October 2002 we passed legislation that transferred congressional authority to the President to go to war. This piece of legislation I was strongly opposed to. There are two issues involved. We are in war, we can’t deny it. The two issues are the way we go to war, and whether the war is wise or not. I believe that the war was not a wise, Constitutional, defensive war and thus have been opposed to it. The other side of the coin is how do you do it? This is one thing that the founders were very, very clear on. We as a people would only go to war when the people’s opinions were expressed through their members of congress. That is a Declaration of War by the members of congress, that is should be the ONLY way we go to war….

"When that resolution came to International relations, the committee that I am on, I amended and substituted it with a declaration of war. It was very simple, it was three lines long. I copied it from World War two. And I told them at the time "You are going to have to defeat this because I am going to vote against my amendment. But this is what you should do if you want to go to war.” They didn’t like to vote on it, they didn’t like what I was going to do, and of course no one voted for it. Instead they passed this resolution which transfers the power to go to war at will to the President.

"I want to read to you what the chairman of the committee [Henry Hyde] said immediately after I introduced my resolution; his statement was this (he was putting me down):

“There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time; declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. To demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation that is not called for, inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore.”


"That was the chairman of the committee telling me that our Constitution is anachronistic, it is a waste of time. And then the Democrat minority leader in the committee [Tom Lantos] gave a similar talk, and his strongest word was:
“What you are doing, Paul, is frivolous.”

"This is what we are up against. Again, my strength does not come from them; it comes from you, the people who care about our Constitution.

"In that resolution, they never mention Article One Section Eight and declaration of war, that was totally ignored, but they mentioned the United Nations twenty-one times.

"At the same time, and in those months that followed, we did hear in the public a fair amount of criticism about the U.N. The criticism was that the U.N. was not joining on, and they did not respond as our administration wanted them to. It could have been interpreted that this was a strong attack on the United Nations. It wasn’t so much that as a challenge to the United Nations to be stronger and more forceful and let us control the United Nations, but still we were using the United Nations. Even at the State of the Union message, if you listened carefully, it was mentioned four times. He talked about the war and upholding these United Nations resolutions. So we do know that the opposition to the United Nations is not that strong, even though you might hear strong comments coming from our leadership….

"We are still paying far beyond our fair share at the United Nations. We get stuck with responsibility, and the financing, and the burden, and the men lost, all too often. I think the thing we should be concerned about from the United Nations, (the damage that is done to us, and the potential damage that is likely to come), the greatest threat is that we have over these years been willing to turn over to the United Nations much of the control of our foreign policy and when we go to war. And that has to be changed."

We need to get behind this man if we are really serious about keeping our Constitutional Sovereignty. It is no small thing.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Why taxing the rich never works

Before the Sixteenth Amendment legalized the income tax it had been made law several times and the Supreme Court ruled them Unconstitutional. The wealthy, especially the super-wealthy, had anticipated these laws and had created a clever tool to protect their riches. It was called a "charitable foundation".

The idea was to co-sign the ownership of wealth, including stocks and securities, to a foundation and then get Congress and the state legislatures to declare all such charitable institutions exempt from taxes. By setting up boards which were under the control of these wealthy benefactors they could escape the tax and still maintain control over the disposition of these fabulous fortunes.

Long before the federal income tax was in place, multimillionaires such as John D. Rockefeller (who once said "I want to own nothing and control everything"), J.P. Morgan, and Andrew Carnegie had their foundations set up and operating. The next step was to make certain that the new tax bill passed by Congress contained a provision specifically exempting their treasure houses from taxation.

The tax bill which the Sixteenth Amendment authorized was introduced as House Resolution 3321 on October 3, 1913. It turned out to be somewhat of a legislative potpourri for tax attorneys, accountants and the federal courts. In the ensuing years, untold millions of dollars have been spent trying to figure out exactly what this tax law, and those which followed it, were intended to provide. However, tucked away in its inward parts was that precious key which safely locked up the riches of the super wealthy.

Here are the magic words under Section 2, paragraph G:

"Provided, however, that nothing in this section shall apply...to any corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific or educational purposes."

All of the foundations of the super-rich were designed to qualify under one or more of these categories. And they do today. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation did nothing but remove them from the wealthiest taxpayers in the United States into the group of tax-exempt filthy rich.

The Prophet

He said: "I see" And they said: "He's crazy; crucify him!" He still said: "I see" And they said: "He's an extremeist!" and they tolerated him And he continued to say: "I see" And they said: "He's eccentric." And they rather liked him, and smiled at him. And he stubbornly said again: "I see" And they said: "There's something in what he says" And they gave him half an ear. But he said as if he never said it before: "I see" And at last they were awake, and they gathered about him and built a temple in his name. And yet, he only said: "I see" And they wanted to do something for him. "What can we do to express to you our regret?" He only smiled. He touched them with the the ends of his fingers and kissed them. What could they do for him? "Nothing more than you have done" He answered. And what was that? They wanted to know. "You see", he said, "thats reward enough; you see, you see"

-Horace Traubel

Monday, December 10, 2007

This will change the way you look at Hugo Chaves, or else you are blind




“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened” – Winston Churchill

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Who agrees with Ron Paul?

Well Ron Paul is hated by the Republicans for believing what this man said:




AND
What this man said:



What a FOOL! He should have believed them AFTER they became President and Vice President. How could he believe Bush? Cheney? Hell, they didn't even believe themselves!

Saturday, December 8, 2007

The NEXT Ten Amendments to the Constitution

Amendment 28
The Federal Government cannot borrow money.
Congress can (and must exclusively) authorize the issue of a quantity of currency created by the purchase and/or storage of hard assets such as silver, gold, diamonds, title of real property, or purchase and storage of any non perishable commodity. The unit of money is the Silver Dollar Note and $1 is redeemable in ___oz of Silver, or any equivalent of ___oz of Silver.

Amendment 29
Repeal the 16th amendment allowing the personal income tax (Jokes over)

Amendment 30
Members of the House of Representatives are limited to 16 year total term, and are designated by districts of approximately 1 million in population as determined by census. House members can be impeached by petition within their district for any reason.
Senators are limited to a 12 year total term in office
Repeal 17th amendment, State legislatures elect Senators and can impeach them for any reason
Supreme Court Justices can be impeached by petition of _(qty)_ lower court or state Supreme Court justices for any reason
The President can be impeached by super-majority of congress for any reason
The Reason for removal from office by any officeholder must be disclosed publicly

Amendment 31
Presidential Electors shall be selected and vote according congressional district majority, each district getting 1 vote, AND each state legislature getting 2 votes total. Instant runoff voting shall be used if there are more than 2 candidates for the office.

Amendment 32
Campaign donations are unlimited to individual citizens, but must be fully disclosed by name and amount. PAC money cannot be collected or spent by the candidate. All campaign funds not spent go into the disaster relief fund.

Amendment 33
Congress cannot delegate any part of its authority without amending the Constitution
No foreign Country can be attacked, or foreign person injured or killed except by congress declaring WAR, issuing warrants, or letters of Marque and Reprisal

Amendment 34
All bills passed by congress that violate the Constitution (as decided by the President, the Supreme Court or State Convention), even if signed by the President, are null and void, and each member who voted for it (including the President) is subject to possible impeachment, and trial for treason.
All executive orders issued by the President that violate the Constitution (as decided by Congress, the Supreme Court, or State Convention) are null and void, and the President is subject to possible impeachment, and trial for treason.

Amendment 35
No permanent Bureau or Department can be created except by Amendment to the Constitution. All Departments not expressly authorized by Amendment will become abolished as of 4 years from _(specific date)___

Amendment 36
Congressional, Presidential, and Judicial pensions are equal to 70% of their salary, and are paid annually for a total in years equal to time spent in office. If convicted of any crime while in office, no pension is paid.

Amendment 37
All land owned or controlled by the United States must become Territorial, and new States be proposed by them.

Friday, December 7, 2007

Ron Paul says stop allowing them to "Monetize the debt"

What does it mean to "monetize the debt"? The Banking system is not merely paper money, it is much worse. It is debt money. To illustrate:

OK, here is the simple version of what our banking system does and why it is so crappy. The system we have is less viable now than it was during the Great Depression, but because of the added peace of mind that the FDIC (Federal Depositor Insurance Corporation) gives us we milk it along expecting it to last forever. It won’t, it can’t.

We Poe folk who actually work for a living have been continuously robbed since 1913, actually long before if you look into it. The ability for banks to manufacture money by merely loaning it out has been around for over 300 years. Governments in Europe looked to bankers for money when they went to war, and the bankers loaned out more money than they had. This has happened time and time again. It is how the rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. As soon as a poor man gets rich, he either gets involved in the scheme, or his heirs go poor again. What I am saying is if your last name is Rothschild, Rockefeller, Schiff, Roosevelt, Morgan, Kennedy, or Bush, or you probably don’t have to work if you don’t want to, no matter how much money you spend. Just buy a Central Bank

The best way to illustrate the scheme is to simplify the operation. So let’s say there are only two banks and then the Federal Reserve above them. Picture a triangle. OK, I am Bank1, and in competition is Bank2. I have $100 and he has $100. I get a thousand people to deposit $1 in my bank to store it for them totaling $1000 plus the $100 of my own. I send out a monthly statement telling all my customers they have their full amount in my bank, but I can loan out all $1000, as long as I keep my $100 in reserve for those who spend their $1 out of my bank. This is the 10% required “reserve” in our fractional reserve system. This works great if not too many come in at the same time and take their money out. Cool for me and the FDIC for you.

But that’s nothing.

I loan out $1000 at interest by writing a check to my loan customer, he deposits the $1000 into Bank2. Now Bank2 has $1000 + $100 investment. He can loan out $1000 now too. His customer gets a check for $1000 and deposits it into my Bank1. Now I can lend out $900 of that. Bank2 gets that new deposit and can loan out $810, I can loan out $729, he can loan out $656.10 and on and on and on until all the money is loaned out, and all of it is tied up in the 10% reserve. It doesn’t matter if my customers spend their money, because whomever they give it to will usually just deposit it anyway! Cool eh?

Is everybody happy? So far the loans I am making interest money on total $2629, and my customer statements show a total of $3466.10, while I only spent $100. Cool. Interest money comes in, people take their money out, spend it, and others put it back in. All is well. Until, rats, the fool I loaned the $1000 to disappears with the loot. All heck breaks loose until, thank goodness, the Fed rescues me and loans me whatever I need into my reserves to keep the ship afloat.

Guess where the Fed gets the money it loans to me? Well, it used to be monetized gold, but now, it is 100% monetized debt. The Fed loans money to me that is backed by Government debt or my debt to them. They storing the debt paper makes the money they spent buying it have value. As a result, the total money supply grows by no other means than by loaning it.

The ability to manufacture money from loans has put lots of money in supply, and made it easy to get loans for houses and cars. But it requires more loans to sustain itself. Stop borrowing, and all the money disappears to the banks long before the loans are paid off; keep borrowing and the money becomes worthless, and most of it goes to the banks in interest.

This system is corrupt, and it is a house of cards waiting to be knocked over. There are toothpicks and band aids continuously stuck into it to keep it up. Bank owners are making a killing on interest, but all that interest money is created by debt, which creates a need for more inflation to cover the interest. There is no way this can sustain itself forever. The national debt is VITAL to keeping this joke afloat. Pay it off, and we get the great depression once again. Keep borrowing and we get runaway inflation and the great depression German style.

The solution is simple. Eliminate dishonest fractional reserve banking, and inflate the currency through government action, not bank action. BOTH must happen; neither will work independently. This is the only solution, there is no other way. Money must also have intrinsic value; not credit value, but tangible asset value. This would make our economy the wealthiest in the world again. And everyone would be wealthy, not just tax exempt bankers.