From dailypaul.com:
Please add other sponsors or additional contact info in the comments.
• Crest Whitestrips & Dawn (both Proctor & Gamble) 513-983-1100
• Delphi (Driving Products) 1.888.809.9800
• Mercedes Benz 1-800-367-6372
• Comcast 1-800-COMCAST
• Subaru 1-800-782-2783
• GMC Suv's 1-800-551-4123
• Best Buy 1-888-237-8289
• Travelocity 1 888.872.8356
• Capzasin 1 (423) 822-5020
• New Phase
• Orbitz 1-888-656-4546
• Ditech.com 1-800-DITECH-3
• eloan.com (415) 786-3317
• Toyota 1 800-331-4331
• Centrum (Wyeth) 1-800-322-3129
• Nextel (aka Sprint)1-800-639-6111
• Vehix.com 1.866.698.3449
• Gold Bond (Chattum) 423-821-4571
• Aspercreme " "
• webmd.com via email or webmd.com via other (212) 624-3700
• American Express 1-877-877-0987, 1-800-525-3355
• Holiday Inn Express 1 800-315-2621
• M Professional unk
• priceline.com 1-800-774-2354
• L. L. Bean 1-800-441-7513
• Jet Dry (Dishwasher Products) 1-800-820-8939
Chemistry (Matchmaking Web Site)
Bankrate.com (Mortgages)
Cars Direct.com
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
The Official Media Guide to Attacking Ron Paul
Liberty Maven has uncovered a letter from the office of the “Main Stream Media Czar”. Unfortunately, the letter was not signed by name, only title. We didn’t even know there was such a thing as a “Main Stream Media Czar” prior to discovering this letter. My only reaction to this letter was, “it all makes so much sense now.” Here is the letter itself, transcribed word for word.
read more | digg story
We in the main stream media all know that Ron Paul cannot win the presidency because of his extremist views. Given this fact, it is important we don’t allow him the same media coverage as our preferred candidates. It is true that we must give him some coverage, but it is also true that we must adhere to the “Mass Media Ron Paul Rule” when giving him coverage during this campaign season. Generally, the “Mass Media Ron Paul Rule” can be summed up in two words:
Marginalize him.
Here are some wonderful tactics to utilize when applying the “Mass Media Ron Paul Rule:
Continually label him as a long shot candidate. This is the most important of all the tactics so we list it first. Sure, it is true that Ron Paul has won or placed high in many straw polls across the country but we must never mention it. Instead, in every article or television news story copy we should use one or more of the terms “dark horse”, “long shot”, “barely registering in the polls”, “quixotic”, or “gadfly”. If we can do this consistently, our job is complete.
Attack his supporters. Ron Paul has a stellar personal record with his marriage of over 50 years, 5 children, and 18 grandchildren. His political record is also exemplary with him never voting to raise taxes and always voting in accordance with the Constitution. Because of this, attacking him on his record is a daunting task. The best method to marginalize him is to attack his supporters. This can be accomplished by calling his supporters names like “kooky”, “crazy”, “conspiracy nutjobs”, “paultards”, and the like. This is classic “guilt by association” and works well on the apathetic electorate.
Call him “Libertarian” as much as possible. Continually giving him the libertarian label is a great covert method of Ron Paul marginalization. This reinforces that he’s not really a Republican even though he has held office as a Republican for 10 terms. We find that if you are in radio or television you may even say the word “libertarian” using a negative tone during questions. This perpetuates the extremism inherent in Ron Paul’s policies even though the word libertarian simply means: one who believes in liberty.
Continually ask him if he’s planning on running as a third party candidate. This tactic should be used often. It accomplishes two things. First, it suggests that he is not a serious candidate for the Republican party. Second, it will get him on record as saying he won’t run for a third party. If he should happen to run third party at a later date he can be attacked for changing his position.
Ask him if he would support the GOP nominee if he doesn’t win. Ron Paul is against the Iraq war and wishes to bring the troops home from overseas in order to help stem the tide of government overspending. This makes him different than all of the other Republican candidates who support keeping our troops overseas indefinitely. As media we must make all attempts to not only marginalize his candidacy, but also marginalize his steadfast message of linking the cost of the war on terror to our economic woes here at home.
Focus on his campaign strategy rather than his message. Ron Paul’s message of freedom, prosperity, and peace should be overshadowed by talk of his successful grassroots campaign. The more we focus on how he raises money and the types of supporters he has, the less time he has to talk about his message that is sure to resonate with most Americans. We must make all attempts to block or cloud that message. If it were to get out, it could spell doom for our chosen candidates.
Attack him for not returning donations from fringe supporters. White supremacists and prostitutes have donated money to Ron Paul and that is bad. We can use our political correctness and superior morality as a weapon and ask him why does he not return that donation money. After all a white supremacist would do more good with having an extra $500 in his pocket than a doctor who has delivered over 4000 babies while preaching peace and equal rights for everyone.
Abolishing the IRS is crazy. Attacking his stance on abolishing the IRS and replacing it with nothing is also effective. After all most Americans don’t know that we could do without the income tax if we just went back to the same level of government spending that we had in the 1990’s. A great method is to reply to his answer with an incredulous “replace it with NOTHING? How can the government function?” comment. This tactic will scare people into believing in how the government always has our best interests at heart. It will help people ignore the fact that Ron Paul also wants to cut government spending drastically in order to balance the budget.
Label him an isolationist for his foreign policy views. Since he wants to bring our troops home from not just Iraq, but all of the 130 other occupied countries he should be deemed an isolationist. It doesn’t matter that Ron Paul wants free trade and travel with other countries and thus is not truly an isolationist. The people will believe what we tell them to believe.
This directive gives us several tactics to be used in the fight against Ron Paul’s candidacy for president. We should use them all and use them often. After all Ron Paul’s message of freedom, prosperity, and peace is antiquated and has no place in our authoritarian world.
Sincerely,
The Main Stream Media Czar
read more | digg story
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Joe Scarborough interviews Ron Paul 12/18
Thank you Joe Scarborough for showing proper respect to the doctor. You are a refreshing change from the MSM robots.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Top 10 Reasons to Overthrow Your Government
From openjesus.org:
The Top 10 Reasons to Overthrow Your Government
10. The “Two Party System” is not democratic. Democrats and Republicans work hard together to keep additional parties from gaining momentum, even to the point of staging presidential debates themselves to lock other candidates out (ask anyone from the League of Women Voters, they’ll explain it). Any party which operates over a long period of time becomes irreparably corrupt, as do the individuals who come from those parties.
9. The War on Drugs is unjust. First and foremost, the full text of the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” If the Constitution doesn’t call for something as a specific function of the federal government then it can’t get involved. Anyone locked up on a federal drug charge is well aware of their actual status as political prisoner. Besides being an absolute violation of the Constitution itself, the War on Drugs is largely unjust because it is the primary tool by which people are commoditized for use in the prison system, which brings me to my next point.
8. Your prison system is random and for-profit. Based on the existing laws, more than half of all Americans are already criminals. Obscure, rarely-enforced, and sometimes unjust laws are used to maintain a massive prison population for the sole purpose of generating continuous profit for the bloated justice system and corporations which supply and maintain penitentiaries. Your government has put capitalism above human rights by regulating crime as a lottery system where you are the ticket and prison is the prize.
7. The illusion of safety. The Constitution outlines only a few legitimate functions of the federal government, one of which is to “provide for the common defense.” Instead of providing this Constitutionally-mandated function, however, your federal government makes you take your shoes off and steals your deodorant before you can board an airplane.
6. The government is intentionally keeping you stupid. Not that it matters anymore, but the federal government does not have the Constitutional power to mandate or involve itself in any way with education. Why is it that children are not provided the most basic education, that the United States continues to fall behind in science, and that very few of you even recognize the flagrant criminality in your own “elected” officials? An uneducated population is a docile population, at least on the political front. Eighty percent of you probably couldn’t tell me what a federalist is, but that’s not your fault.
5. The Internet. The most functional tool for the spread of Democracy in the history of mankind (perhaps excepting the Maxim gun) is under assault by communications companies attempting to remove its core neutrality, and your government is barely resisting. In fact, some might go so far as to suggest that your government is actually complying in this effort. Given the government’s track record with education, insurance, and finances, I’d say the Internet in its current state has about six months to live. As a side note, China also imposes federal controls in the Internet.
4. Your government spies on you. If you told General George Washington that the federal government of the United States of America was tapping phones, snatching emails, and laying down more complex infrastructure to collect the daily lives of Americans he would join Al-Qaeda. The 4th Amendment makes it extremely clear that personal privacy is not to be violated by any level of government. There is no excuse for this type of behavior.
3. You could get arrested for even reading this. Voiced dissent has always been critical to the democratic process, but ruminations unsupportive of the political status quo will always be something of a target to those wield the dual blades of power and corruption. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then.” To quote George Bush, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” I am deservedly a little scared, as you also should be.
2 . Your politicians are criminals. One of the early tenets of the United States of America was “no taxation without representation.” Politicians accept huge wads of cash from corporations and interest groups to pass laws which benefit only the top few men (and a couple of women) in industry. Sometimes they store this cash in their freezer. Sometimes they have the corporations make a “donation” to their private charities. Even when you, The People, reach a frenzied consensus your demands are ignored, but only because you didn’t bring a suitcase full of Benjamins.
1. Because you’re supposed to. The United States was born of rebellion and maintains that its citizens cannot be disarmed. You are a nation of checks and balances, one of which contains the dual assertion that The People are armed and that poppycockery should not be tolerated. The founding fathers wanted you to use your voices to keep your government from becoming corrupt and unconstitutional, but left you a loophole in case they managed to seize power regardless. Loophole, meet the present; The present, allow me to introduce the 2nd Amendment.
*Note to the FBI: The preceding column was written purely as satire, and is not in any way suggesting that I am “with the terrorists.” I love the USA! Go USA! USA! USA! USA!
.
read more | digg story
The Top 10 Reasons to Overthrow Your Government
10. The “Two Party System” is not democratic. Democrats and Republicans work hard together to keep additional parties from gaining momentum, even to the point of staging presidential debates themselves to lock other candidates out (ask anyone from the League of Women Voters, they’ll explain it). Any party which operates over a long period of time becomes irreparably corrupt, as do the individuals who come from those parties.
9. The War on Drugs is unjust. First and foremost, the full text of the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” If the Constitution doesn’t call for something as a specific function of the federal government then it can’t get involved. Anyone locked up on a federal drug charge is well aware of their actual status as political prisoner. Besides being an absolute violation of the Constitution itself, the War on Drugs is largely unjust because it is the primary tool by which people are commoditized for use in the prison system, which brings me to my next point.
8. Your prison system is random and for-profit. Based on the existing laws, more than half of all Americans are already criminals. Obscure, rarely-enforced, and sometimes unjust laws are used to maintain a massive prison population for the sole purpose of generating continuous profit for the bloated justice system and corporations which supply and maintain penitentiaries. Your government has put capitalism above human rights by regulating crime as a lottery system where you are the ticket and prison is the prize.
7. The illusion of safety. The Constitution outlines only a few legitimate functions of the federal government, one of which is to “provide for the common defense.” Instead of providing this Constitutionally-mandated function, however, your federal government makes you take your shoes off and steals your deodorant before you can board an airplane.
6. The government is intentionally keeping you stupid. Not that it matters anymore, but the federal government does not have the Constitutional power to mandate or involve itself in any way with education. Why is it that children are not provided the most basic education, that the United States continues to fall behind in science, and that very few of you even recognize the flagrant criminality in your own “elected” officials? An uneducated population is a docile population, at least on the political front. Eighty percent of you probably couldn’t tell me what a federalist is, but that’s not your fault.
5. The Internet. The most functional tool for the spread of Democracy in the history of mankind (perhaps excepting the Maxim gun) is under assault by communications companies attempting to remove its core neutrality, and your government is barely resisting. In fact, some might go so far as to suggest that your government is actually complying in this effort. Given the government’s track record with education, insurance, and finances, I’d say the Internet in its current state has about six months to live. As a side note, China also imposes federal controls in the Internet.
4. Your government spies on you. If you told General George Washington that the federal government of the United States of America was tapping phones, snatching emails, and laying down more complex infrastructure to collect the daily lives of Americans he would join Al-Qaeda. The 4th Amendment makes it extremely clear that personal privacy is not to be violated by any level of government. There is no excuse for this type of behavior.
3. You could get arrested for even reading this. Voiced dissent has always been critical to the democratic process, but ruminations unsupportive of the political status quo will always be something of a target to those wield the dual blades of power and corruption. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then.” To quote George Bush, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” I am deservedly a little scared, as you also should be.
2 . Your politicians are criminals. One of the early tenets of the United States of America was “no taxation without representation.” Politicians accept huge wads of cash from corporations and interest groups to pass laws which benefit only the top few men (and a couple of women) in industry. Sometimes they store this cash in their freezer. Sometimes they have the corporations make a “donation” to their private charities. Even when you, The People, reach a frenzied consensus your demands are ignored, but only because you didn’t bring a suitcase full of Benjamins.
1. Because you’re supposed to. The United States was born of rebellion and maintains that its citizens cannot be disarmed. You are a nation of checks and balances, one of which contains the dual assertion that The People are armed and that poppycockery should not be tolerated. The founding fathers wanted you to use your voices to keep your government from becoming corrupt and unconstitutional, but left you a loophole in case they managed to seize power regardless. Loophole, meet the present; The present, allow me to introduce the 2nd Amendment.
*Note to the FBI: The preceding column was written purely as satire, and is not in any way suggesting that I am “with the terrorists.” I love the USA! Go USA! USA! USA! USA!
.
read more | digg story
Friday, December 14, 2007
Immigration Controls and the Police State
One of the things that fascinate me about the immigration debate is those people who say that they favor closed borders but simultaneously oppose the police-state programs that are necessary to enforce such a policy.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Ron Paul on Mad Money
Finally, somebody in the media is smart enough to question the Federal Reserve.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
The Soviet-Style Attack on NORFED
by Jacob G. Hornberger, November 21, 2007
It would be difficult to find a better example of federal heavy-handedness than the recent six-hour federal raid on NORFED, the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Code. In fact, it would be virtually impossible to distinguish the NORFED raid from similar raids conducted by Soviet and Chinese communist officials against private businesses operating in those countries.
After all, by confiscating all the assets of the company, including its coins, computers, records, and equipment, the feds have totally shut down the NORFED operation. But where is the court order authorizing them to shut down this privately owned business? The answer: There is no such court order. All federal agents had was a search warrant issued by a federal magistrate.
Here’s what the feds did that enabled them to engage in their Soviet-style attack on NORFED. Unlike the system that existed in the Soviet Union and that still exists in Communist China, the U.S. government is precluded by law from simply closing down businesses it doesn’t like or that it is feels are violating the law. If the government wishes to have a business shut down, the law provides a remedy called an injunction, which is a formal order issued by a judge that requires a person or business to cease and desist from engaging in a certain operation.
In order to secure a federal injunction, the petitioner files an application for the injunction with a federal district judge. The judge sets a date for the hearing on the application and gives notice to the respondent of the application and the hearing. What is significant about the hearing on the temporary injunction is that the respondent has the right to be present to defend his side of things. He can have his lawyer present, cross-examine witnesses, present witnesses, introduce evidence, file motions and briefs, and make legal arguments to the judge.
At the conclusion of the temporary-injunction hearing, the judge can either grant or deny the request for a temporary injunction. If he grants it, he sets a bond as a prerequisite to the issuance of the injunction, in order to protect the respondent from damages suffered if it later turns out that the injunction was wrongfully issued. The respondent has the right to appeal the grant of the injunction to the federal court of appeals, which ordinarily grants priority to such cases because of their importance and urgency. Unless the court of appeals vacates the temporary injunction, it remains in effect until a trial on the merits is later held, which may be a trial by jury. At that time, it is determined whether to make the temporary injunction permanent.
What makes the injunction process fair and just is that it permits both sides to be heard. It also protects the respondent by requiring the petitioner to file a bond in an amount intended to compensate him for damages suffered during the pendency of the injunction, including claims filed by irate customers. (Among the assets the feds seized were coins that had been purchased and paid for by NORFED’s customers.)
So, did the FBI and Justice Department employ the injunction process to close down the NORFED operation? Did they ask a judge for a temporary injunction to shut down the operation? Did a federal judge enter an order enjoining NORFED from continuing to operate its business?
The answer is “No” to all of those questions. Instead, what the feds did was engage in a sneaky, back-handed, perhaps even fraudulent, trick of using a search warrant to accomplish the same thing that an injunction accomplishes, but without the procedural due-process protections provided by the injunction process.
A search warrant and an injunction involve two completely different procedures, and each serves a distinct function. For one thing, a search warrant is used in criminal cases while injunctions are used in civil proceedings. The search warrant is used when law-enforcement officers suspect that there is evidence of criminal activity inside a particular location. An officer will appear before a federal magistrate, which is a position lower than a federal district judge, and ask for permission to search the particular locale. In support of the application for a search warrant, the officer must file an affidavit (i.e., a statement under oath) describing with specificity the evidence, the suspected crime, and why he believes the evidence is located in that place.
For example, suppose the cops receive information that a gun used in a murder is located inside a person’s home. They are not permitted to simply drive up to the home, enter it, and begin searching. Instead, they must apply for a warrant. If the warrant is issued, they go to the home, enter it, and search for the weapon. If they find it, they can seize it as evidence.
That’s the purpose of a search warrant — to seek evidence in a criminal case, not to shut down a person’s privately run business. After all, it’s not as if selling coins is akin to selling drugs — just ask the Franklin Mint or any coin dealer.
When the FBI went to the magistrate in the NORFED case, its affidavit alleged that NORFED was engaged in illegal activity, primarily violating the government’s monopoly over the issuance of money.
One problem, however, is that NORFED denies that it has broken the law in any respect. It contends that the issuance of its coins is not illegal, a position that is at least inferentially substantiated by the fact that the feds have taken no action to seek injunctive relief for the several years that NORFED has been in business, not even in the context of a federal lawsuit that NORFED has filed seeking a declaration that its activities are legal, a suit that is still pending in federal district court. Indeed, while the feds have known of NORFED’s operation for years and have even had agents secretly infiltrate the organization, they have never secured a criminal indictment against the operation.
Moreover, even if the government is correct in its allegation that NORFED is violating the government’s money monopoly, as an American business NORFED nonetheless has the right to argue and show that the government’s money monopoly is unconstitutional. While NORFED would have had the opportunity of presenting its constitutional arguments in a temporary injunction hearing, the government’s Soviet-style search-warrant ruse prevented NORFED from doing so prior to its business being shut down and its assets confiscated and carted away.
Did the FBI and the Justice Department have sufficient time and opportunity to seek injunctive relief instead of using the sneaky search-warrant procedure that enabled them to mount their Soviet-like raid? Absolutely. For one thing, federal judges are a dime a dozen in Washington, D.C. The feds could have sought an injunction from any of them, including the federal judge who is presiding in the pending litigation between NORFED and the feds. That of course would have permitted NORFED to be heard and to present its case before a federal district judge, something that the FBI and the Justice Department obviously feared or abhorred. At such a hearing the government would have had the burden of proving that NORFED had truly been violating some federal law with its coin business. NORFED, for its part would have had the opportunity of showing the contrary or of showing that such a law is unconstitutional. But who needs some stinking injunction before a federal judge, where the victim has notice and the opportunity to be heard, when one can simply use the sneaky device of a criminal search warrant to shut down someone’s private business, Soviet-style?
Consider a comparable example. Suppose someone opens a postal delivery business to compete against the U.S. Postal Service in the delivery of first-class mail. Can the FBI legally send its gendarmes out and conduct a Soviet-style raid on the business, as it has done with NORFED? No. Instead, the government must go to federal court and secure an injunction requiring the privately owned business to cease and desist its competitive ways. In fact, that is exactly what happens whenever someone has the audacity to compete against the U.S. Postal Service in the delivery of first-class mail.
But here we have the feds using Soviet-style tactics to raid and shut down a privately owned business without providing the victim advance notice or opportunity to be heard. Even worse, in order to deceptively preserve the appearance of legal process to cover up its Soviet-like behavior, government officials abuse the criminal process, perhaps even with the fraudulent failure to disclose their real intentions to the federal magistrate who issued the search warrant.
In a civilized country based on the rule of law, people cannot have their lives, liberty, and property taken away from them without notice, hearing, opportunity to be heard, and other fundamental aspects of procedural due process. Unfortunately, in the post-9/11 world in which we now live, anything goes as far as federal power is concerned. The heavy-handed, perhaps even fraudulent, Soviet-style attack on NORFED is proof-positive of that.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
It would be difficult to find a better example of federal heavy-handedness than the recent six-hour federal raid on NORFED, the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Code. In fact, it would be virtually impossible to distinguish the NORFED raid from similar raids conducted by Soviet and Chinese communist officials against private businesses operating in those countries.
After all, by confiscating all the assets of the company, including its coins, computers, records, and equipment, the feds have totally shut down the NORFED operation. But where is the court order authorizing them to shut down this privately owned business? The answer: There is no such court order. All federal agents had was a search warrant issued by a federal magistrate.
Here’s what the feds did that enabled them to engage in their Soviet-style attack on NORFED. Unlike the system that existed in the Soviet Union and that still exists in Communist China, the U.S. government is precluded by law from simply closing down businesses it doesn’t like or that it is feels are violating the law. If the government wishes to have a business shut down, the law provides a remedy called an injunction, which is a formal order issued by a judge that requires a person or business to cease and desist from engaging in a certain operation.
In order to secure a federal injunction, the petitioner files an application for the injunction with a federal district judge. The judge sets a date for the hearing on the application and gives notice to the respondent of the application and the hearing. What is significant about the hearing on the temporary injunction is that the respondent has the right to be present to defend his side of things. He can have his lawyer present, cross-examine witnesses, present witnesses, introduce evidence, file motions and briefs, and make legal arguments to the judge.
At the conclusion of the temporary-injunction hearing, the judge can either grant or deny the request for a temporary injunction. If he grants it, he sets a bond as a prerequisite to the issuance of the injunction, in order to protect the respondent from damages suffered if it later turns out that the injunction was wrongfully issued. The respondent has the right to appeal the grant of the injunction to the federal court of appeals, which ordinarily grants priority to such cases because of their importance and urgency. Unless the court of appeals vacates the temporary injunction, it remains in effect until a trial on the merits is later held, which may be a trial by jury. At that time, it is determined whether to make the temporary injunction permanent.
What makes the injunction process fair and just is that it permits both sides to be heard. It also protects the respondent by requiring the petitioner to file a bond in an amount intended to compensate him for damages suffered during the pendency of the injunction, including claims filed by irate customers. (Among the assets the feds seized were coins that had been purchased and paid for by NORFED’s customers.)
So, did the FBI and Justice Department employ the injunction process to close down the NORFED operation? Did they ask a judge for a temporary injunction to shut down the operation? Did a federal judge enter an order enjoining NORFED from continuing to operate its business?
The answer is “No” to all of those questions. Instead, what the feds did was engage in a sneaky, back-handed, perhaps even fraudulent, trick of using a search warrant to accomplish the same thing that an injunction accomplishes, but without the procedural due-process protections provided by the injunction process.
A search warrant and an injunction involve two completely different procedures, and each serves a distinct function. For one thing, a search warrant is used in criminal cases while injunctions are used in civil proceedings. The search warrant is used when law-enforcement officers suspect that there is evidence of criminal activity inside a particular location. An officer will appear before a federal magistrate, which is a position lower than a federal district judge, and ask for permission to search the particular locale. In support of the application for a search warrant, the officer must file an affidavit (i.e., a statement under oath) describing with specificity the evidence, the suspected crime, and why he believes the evidence is located in that place.
For example, suppose the cops receive information that a gun used in a murder is located inside a person’s home. They are not permitted to simply drive up to the home, enter it, and begin searching. Instead, they must apply for a warrant. If the warrant is issued, they go to the home, enter it, and search for the weapon. If they find it, they can seize it as evidence.
That’s the purpose of a search warrant — to seek evidence in a criminal case, not to shut down a person’s privately run business. After all, it’s not as if selling coins is akin to selling drugs — just ask the Franklin Mint or any coin dealer.
When the FBI went to the magistrate in the NORFED case, its affidavit alleged that NORFED was engaged in illegal activity, primarily violating the government’s monopoly over the issuance of money.
One problem, however, is that NORFED denies that it has broken the law in any respect. It contends that the issuance of its coins is not illegal, a position that is at least inferentially substantiated by the fact that the feds have taken no action to seek injunctive relief for the several years that NORFED has been in business, not even in the context of a federal lawsuit that NORFED has filed seeking a declaration that its activities are legal, a suit that is still pending in federal district court. Indeed, while the feds have known of NORFED’s operation for years and have even had agents secretly infiltrate the organization, they have never secured a criminal indictment against the operation.
Moreover, even if the government is correct in its allegation that NORFED is violating the government’s money monopoly, as an American business NORFED nonetheless has the right to argue and show that the government’s money monopoly is unconstitutional. While NORFED would have had the opportunity of presenting its constitutional arguments in a temporary injunction hearing, the government’s Soviet-style search-warrant ruse prevented NORFED from doing so prior to its business being shut down and its assets confiscated and carted away.
Did the FBI and the Justice Department have sufficient time and opportunity to seek injunctive relief instead of using the sneaky search-warrant procedure that enabled them to mount their Soviet-like raid? Absolutely. For one thing, federal judges are a dime a dozen in Washington, D.C. The feds could have sought an injunction from any of them, including the federal judge who is presiding in the pending litigation between NORFED and the feds. That of course would have permitted NORFED to be heard and to present its case before a federal district judge, something that the FBI and the Justice Department obviously feared or abhorred. At such a hearing the government would have had the burden of proving that NORFED had truly been violating some federal law with its coin business. NORFED, for its part would have had the opportunity of showing the contrary or of showing that such a law is unconstitutional. But who needs some stinking injunction before a federal judge, where the victim has notice and the opportunity to be heard, when one can simply use the sneaky device of a criminal search warrant to shut down someone’s private business, Soviet-style?
Consider a comparable example. Suppose someone opens a postal delivery business to compete against the U.S. Postal Service in the delivery of first-class mail. Can the FBI legally send its gendarmes out and conduct a Soviet-style raid on the business, as it has done with NORFED? No. Instead, the government must go to federal court and secure an injunction requiring the privately owned business to cease and desist its competitive ways. In fact, that is exactly what happens whenever someone has the audacity to compete against the U.S. Postal Service in the delivery of first-class mail.
But here we have the feds using Soviet-style tactics to raid and shut down a privately owned business without providing the victim advance notice or opportunity to be heard. Even worse, in order to deceptively preserve the appearance of legal process to cover up its Soviet-like behavior, government officials abuse the criminal process, perhaps even with the fraudulent failure to disclose their real intentions to the federal magistrate who issued the search warrant.
In a civilized country based on the rule of law, people cannot have their lives, liberty, and property taken away from them without notice, hearing, opportunity to be heard, and other fundamental aspects of procedural due process. Unfortunately, in the post-9/11 world in which we now live, anything goes as far as federal power is concerned. The heavy-handed, perhaps even fraudulent, Soviet-style attack on NORFED is proof-positive of that.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
Ron Paul will soon take to the sky
Enough with research on the Internet, or watching the political debates on television or listening to sound bites on the radio. In just a few days, Ron Paul supporters will give the eastern half of the United States a new way to campaign: from a blimp.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Bush and His Scary (Nonexistent) WMDs in Iran
The CIA and 15 other U.S. spy agencies (yes, 16 in all!) have issued a National Intelligence Estimate reporting that Iran halted its nuclear-weapon program in 2003, contradicting what Bush and Vice President Cheney have been suggesting for the past 4 years.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Should socialist education be saved or scrapped?
I challenge anyone: Show me a better model of socialism than public schooling and use any country you want, including China, North Korea, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union. You’ll have a hard time meeting the challenge. Now, ask yourself: Is it possible that socialism can be made to succeed?
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Cop Mistakes Gun For Taser; Kills man, No Charges Filed
The officer got the order to "electrocute" but thought she heard "execute" so she blasted a handcuffed man in custody, instead of just tasering him. No charges were filed for this "honest mistake."
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Monday, December 03, 2007
The Ron Paul Revolution Movie!
The Ron Paul Revolution is an hour-long introduction to Congressman Ron Paul and his freedom message. Beginning with the amazing grassroots support his candidacy has spontaneously ignited, the video covers his positions on foreign policy, health care, immigration, monetary policy, income taxes, entitlements, civil liberties and more.
The movie is interspersed with clips of Dr. Paul through a twenty-year career in the House of Representatives. Current clips from the 2008 Presidential campaign are virtually interchangeable with past clips, his consistent positions and unwavering defense of the Constitution clearly on display. Ron Paul is not beholden to lobbyists or special interests, he simply does not participate in politics-as-usual.
The movie is interspersed with clips of Dr. Paul through a twenty-year career in the House of Representatives. Current clips from the 2008 Presidential campaign are virtually interchangeable with past clips, his consistent positions and unwavering defense of the Constitution clearly on display. Ron Paul is not beholden to lobbyists or special interests, he simply does not participate in politics-as-usual.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Des Moines Register openly displays anti- Ron Paul bias.
If you thought the New York Times and Washington Post were bad: Despite the doctor's success in Iowa, he will be excluded from 8 editorials comparing candidates on important issues. It's not hard to figure out why this paper's circulation has dropped to below 150K. Is this a local bias or did the order come down from their Gannett masters?
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Friday, November 30, 2007
Get High for Ron Paul
That's right, It's the Ron Paul Revolution Blimp!
Do I get to fly in the blimp if I donate?
Anyone who donates $25 or more will be entered into a raffle of twenty tickets to ride the blimp. Each ticket will include a 1 day flight on the blimp. You must provide your own transportation to the blimp wherever it may be located. An individual who donates the maximum amount of $5,000 will receive 3 days of flying on the Ron Paul Blimp. There is a total of 12 seats and 100 flying hours so that equals 1,200 flying hours or 200 individual days.
• $25 or more donation enters you into a raffle drawing for 1 of 20 tickets. (6 flying hours or 1 day)*
• $5,000 donation gets you 3 flying days (18 hours) guaranteed + you are entered into the drawing.for additional tickets.
• If there are more flying days left and not many 5k pledgers we will just have more 1 day tickets in the drawing because we know how hard some of you work to promote Ron Paul and maybe just do not have the funds but would really like the opportunity to ride the Ron Paul Blimp. Having these extra drawings will increase your chance of you winning a ticket!
* The raffle will be webcast live. It will show every single name actually being written on paper and then picked from a hat without cutting the camera to ensure there is no fraud (setting an example for our upcoming elections).
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Remembering Aaron Russo
Gary Franchi, National Director for Restore the Republic requested some pictures of Aaron Russo in action.
I'll never forget the time I spent with Aaron in 2004. He was a true inspiration. His passion and vigorous pursuit of liberty were infectious. His legacy lives on in film and in our hearts.
Tenacious Aaron Russo fired up Libertarians at Valley Forge Brewing Company
Aaron Russo with former LPPa Chair David Jahn.
Aaron Russo assists ballot access petitioner Chuck Moulton.
Aaron Russo on the campaign trail with Montgomery County Libertarian, Charles Fournier.
I'll never forget the time I spent with Aaron in 2004. He was a true inspiration. His passion and vigorous pursuit of liberty were infectious. His legacy lives on in film and in our hearts.
Tenacious Aaron Russo fired up Libertarians at Valley Forge Brewing Company
Aaron Russo with former LPPa Chair David Jahn.
Aaron Russo assists ballot access petitioner Chuck Moulton.
Aaron Russo on the campaign trail with Montgomery County Libertarian, Charles Fournier.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Our best chance to repeal the American Empire...
Hillary and Giuliani have endless special interest groups trying to buy a spot at the federal trough. Ron Paul has us. Please dig deep for the future of our country. Victory will be expensive, but it's a bargain compared to price of failure.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Friday, November 23, 2007
The Second Amendment: American’s Guarantee of Freedom by Jacob G. Hornberger
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide the gun-control case arising out of Washington, D.C.’s, ban on handguns. You know — the city in which there are no murders with handguns because criminals obey gun-control laws. (Sarcasm!)The major issue in the case is whether the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right or whether it pertains instead to the National Guard.Hopefully, the Court will bear in mind that the primary purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is so that people will be able to resist violently the tyranny and oppression of their own government. Unfortunately, all too many Americans have lost sight of this, believing that gun ownership is about shooting deer and burglars.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Real Thanksgiving Story
In the middle of December 1620 the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, leaving behind the sinfulness of the “old world” to make a “new Jerusalem” in America. Three years later, in November 1623, they had a great feast thanking God for getting them through an earlier famine, and now for a bountiful crop.What had created the earlier famine and then the bountiful crops? The story is told in the diary of Governor Bradford, who was one of the elders of that early Puritan colony.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
I Used To Not Be Anti-Cop
Manuel Lora says the police state is making him anti-police, a change of heart from his previously held belief 'that the police had a duty to serve and protect, to care for our property and to keep criminals away.'
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Monday, November 19, 2007
Media notices local Ron Paul outreach
Drivers honked their horns and gave the activists thumbs-ups, as the grassroots campaigners braved the brisk weather to chat with residents and hand out various literature to citizens. Many of the placards and posters were hand-made, including one carried by Al Pigeon who supports Paul because the congressman promises to “restore the constitution.”
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Media notices local Ron Paul outreach
Drivers honked their horns and gave the activists thumbs-ups, as the grassroots campaigners braved the brisk weather to chat with residents and hand out various literature to citizens. Many of the placards and posters were hand-made, including one carried by Al Pigeon who supports Paul because the congressman promises to “restore the constitution.”
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Friday, November 16, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Feds pull off massive gold heist!
Update 4:13 pm: The FBI in Indianapolis wouldn't confirm or deny anything. They did refer me to:
Sue Ellen Pierce, Public Information Officer in North Carolina (704-338-3120). I left a message.
If there was no raid, wouldn't they be able to say that, without referring me to another state?
This morning I received the email below. I was hoping that it was a sick hoax, but corroborating information is trickling in. The Liberty Dollar website is not taking orders. This appears to be the largest gold heist in modern times and the fed's latest attempt to trample our rights. It is a truly sickening development.
Dear Liberty Dollar Supporters:
I sincerely regret to inform you that about 8:00 this morning a dozen FBI and Secret Service agents raided the Liberty Dollar office in Evansville.
For approximately six hours they took all the gold, all the silver, all the platinum and almost two tons of Ron Paul Dollars that where just delivered last Friday. They also took all the files, all the computers and froze our bank accounts.
We have no money. We have no products. We have no records to even know what was ordered or what you are owed. We have nothing but the will to push forward and overcome this massive assault on our liberty and our right to have real money as defined by the US Constitution. We should not to be defrauded by the fake government money.
But to make matters worse, all the gold and silver that backs up the paper certificates and digital currency held in the vault at Sunshine Mint has also been confiscated. Even the dies for mint the Gold and Silver Libertys have been taken.
This in spite of the fact that Edmond C. Moy, the Director of the Mint, acknowledged in a letter to a US Senator that the paper certificates did not violate Section 486 and were not illegal. But the FBI and Services took all the paper currency too.
The possibility of such action was the reason the Liberty Dollar was designed so that the vast majority of the money was in specie form and in the people’s hands. Of the $20 million Liberty Dollars, only about a million is in paper or digital form.
I regret that if you are due an order. It may be some time until it will be filled... if ever... it now all depends on our actions.
Everyone who has an unfulfilled order or has digital or paper currency should band together for a class action suit and demand redemption. We cannot allow the government to steal our money! Please don’t let this happen!!! Many of you read the articles quoting the government and Federal Reserve officials that the Liberty Dollar was legal. You did nothing wrong. You are legally entitled to your property. Let us use this terrible act to band together and further our goal – to return America to a value based currency.
Please forward this important Alert... so everyone who possess or use the Liberty Dollar is aware of the situation.
Please click HERE to sign up for the class action lawsuit and get your property back!
If the above link does not work you can access the page by copying the following into your web browser. http://www.libertydollar.org/classaction/index.php
Thanks again for your support at this darkest time as the damn government and their dollar sinks to a new low.
Bernard von NotHaus
Monetary Architect
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Great Salon.com article: Ron Paul distortions and smears
For a long time now, I've heard a lot of people ask: "where are the principled conservatives?" -- meaning those on the Right who are willing to oppose the constitutional transgressions and abuses of the Bush administration without regard to party loyalty. A "principled conservative" isn't someone who agrees with liberals on most issues; that would make them a "principled liberal." A "principled conservative" is someone who aggressively objects to the radicalism of the neocons and the Bush/Cheney assault on our constitution and embraces a conservative political ideology. That's what Ron Paul is, and it's hardly a surprise that he holds many views anathema to most liberals. That hardly makes him a "fruitcake."
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Hypocrisy and Cowardice in China and the U.S.
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Members of Congress are upset with Yahoo officials for giving Chinese officials confidential online information about one of their customers in China. The Chinese authorities used the information to send the Yahoo customer to jail for 10 years for engaging in subversive, anti-government activity.
Meanwhile, Congress is talking about the importance of giving immunity to U.S. telecommunication companies for illegally giving U.S. officials confidential online information about their customers in the United States. The U.S. officials say that they needed the secret information to ferret out subversive activity against the U.S. government.
Oh, well, no one ever accused Congress of a lack of hypocrisy.
Yahoo’s general counsel, Michael J. Callahan, said that Yahoo employees had little choice but to comply with the Chinese government’s demands.
Ironically, that’s what the U.S. telecommunication companies are saying as to why they complied with the U.S. government’s demands!
The fact is that all these executives are the par excellence of cowardice. Yahoo does have a choice — stand up for your customers or don’t do business in communist countries. And U.S. companies also have a choice — stand up for your customers and tell the feds to take a hike, even if it means they come after you with a retaliatory indictment, as they did with Qwest, which, unlike Yahoo and the U.S. telecommunications companies, said “No” when the little tyrants came demanding their information.
For decades both the American and Chinese people have loved their big governments, mostly because their big governments take care of them like parents with education, health care, social security, and other forms of welfare. But as we are learning with the Yahoo and U.S. telecommunications scandals, there is big price to pay for big government.
Isn’t it ironic that Americans have the most powerful government in history and the most terrified citizenry in the world? It is not a coincidence. Big government produces small, frightened people. As earlier generations of Americans could attest, small and weak government, on the other hand, results in strong, self-reliant, and courageous people.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email (jhornberger@fff.org).
read more | digg story
Members of Congress are upset with Yahoo officials for giving Chinese officials confidential online information about one of their customers in China. The Chinese authorities used the information to send the Yahoo customer to jail for 10 years for engaging in subversive, anti-government activity.
Meanwhile, Congress is talking about the importance of giving immunity to U.S. telecommunication companies for illegally giving U.S. officials confidential online information about their customers in the United States. The U.S. officials say that they needed the secret information to ferret out subversive activity against the U.S. government.
Oh, well, no one ever accused Congress of a lack of hypocrisy.
Yahoo’s general counsel, Michael J. Callahan, said that Yahoo employees had little choice but to comply with the Chinese government’s demands.
Ironically, that’s what the U.S. telecommunication companies are saying as to why they complied with the U.S. government’s demands!
The fact is that all these executives are the par excellence of cowardice. Yahoo does have a choice — stand up for your customers or don’t do business in communist countries. And U.S. companies also have a choice — stand up for your customers and tell the feds to take a hike, even if it means they come after you with a retaliatory indictment, as they did with Qwest, which, unlike Yahoo and the U.S. telecommunications companies, said “No” when the little tyrants came demanding their information.
For decades both the American and Chinese people have loved their big governments, mostly because their big governments take care of them like parents with education, health care, social security, and other forms of welfare. But as we are learning with the Yahoo and U.S. telecommunications scandals, there is big price to pay for big government.
Isn’t it ironic that Americans have the most powerful government in history and the most terrified citizenry in the world? It is not a coincidence. Big government produces small, frightened people. As earlier generations of Americans could attest, small and weak government, on the other hand, results in strong, self-reliant, and courageous people.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email (jhornberger@fff.org).
read more | digg story
Sunday, November 11, 2007
CNN's Ron Paul rally coverage (hilarious)
This must be the latest tactic to down-play Ron Paul's success: send in the most idiotic interviewer you can find. This coverage is a testament to what has become of this once respected news source.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Freedom is popular in Philadelphia
Five thousand (or so) freedom lovers packed into Independence Mall to welcome Ron Paul. It was my privilege to work with the grass-roots volunteers that made this the campaign's biggest rally to date. This was definitely my kind of crowd. Not even rain and cold wind couldn't dampen the spirit.
I posted a photo galley of the days events, including the meet-up briefing with Dr. Paul and the post rally after party at Buffalo Billiards.
My friend Henry Whitney posted some pictures and his reflections on the day here.
You can watch Dr. Paul's full address here.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Ron Paul On CNN The Situation Room 11-8-07
Dr. Paul hits another one out of the park! Why am I still amazed?
Monday, November 05, 2007
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Parents Are Idiots, or So Believes the State
Thank goodness parents are idiots. Otherwise, at least half of the current tax-funded bozos – the so-called public servants whose sole mission is to supplant parental rights and decision-making – would be unemployed, taking their aggressive panhandling to the streets nonetheless. And, we can't have that, can we?Of course, not all parents are idiots. One special class of the omniscient exists; those parents employed by government or associated organizations (can you say teachers unions). These folks are never idiots since they drink from the fountain of enlightenment. The fountain whose source is the never-ending stream of tax dollars, and whose drain is the never-clogged pipeline of bloated salaries.Parents are idiots. Yes, that is a harsh statement. However, from what I read – from what the state and its minions believe, it is absolutely true. Offensive, but true.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
The Fraud of the War on Terror
Immediately after he denounced Fidel Castro for being a dictator, President Bush unilaterally decreed new sanctions against Iran, moving the United States closer to war against Iran. Would someone please tell me how it is that Bush exercises such omnipotent power, without even a peep from both Congress and the mainstream press?
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Friday, October 26, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
How to get banned on RedState.com
After reading about the ban at RedState on Ron Paul information from new subscribers, I posted a message of "agreement" on their site. Because I have been a registered user for nearly 2 years, the new policy did not apply to me. None the less, it appears that someone eventually recognized my post as sarcastic and alerted the polit bureau. My account is now suspended.
I was a bit surprised at their cowardice and lack of sense of humor regarding differing opinions, but I have no problem with RedState banning anyone for any reason because I respect private property. Although I followed their usage guidelines, it's their site to do with what they please. It must be hard to justify their imperial agenda when presented with actual facts and wit, so banning dissenters makes perfect sense. Why not take a page from the playbook of another red state?
Brad Spangler also had a great post on this topic. For his sake, I hope he gets banned as well.
This development can only be seen as progress for the Ron Paul Revolution. The big-government wing of the GOP is on the defensive.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Support the Ron Paul ban on Red State
RedState should remain a place of comfort for pro-war, big government Republicans. Where else can we have a forum that supports OUR agenda for the world? We have spent too much energy increasing executive power to be turned back now. God forbid, we get a president without the balls to shoot first and ask Congress later.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Monday, October 22, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
On Fixing Social Security
It's a shame that I'll have to pay $15,300 in FICA taxes next year, plus another $5,000 in Federal income taxes, since FICA payments are not deductible from income on my 1040 form. I will also pay at least $7,000 in income taxes on my income from Social Security. Oh, yes, plus state income taxes on the income I will use to pay FICA.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Friday, October 19, 2007
Sanctions and Embargoes Are Immoral and Counterproductive
by Jacob G. Hornberger
In an unusual moment of candor, President Bush revealed why so many people around the world hate and resent the U.S. government for its foreign policy. In his news conference this week, Bush pointed out how he is hoping that the U.S. sanctions against Iran encourage the Iranian people to oust their rulers from power. According to the New York Times:
“Mr. Bush sought in the news conference to make clear that his pressure tactics, including economic sanctions, were aimed at persuading the Iranian people to find new leadership. ‘The whole strategy is that, you know, at some point in time leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, ‘This isn’t worth it,’ and to me it’s worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government,’ Mr. Bush said.”
So, there you have it — the same nasty, cruel strategy of sanctions that was aimed at the Iraqi people for more than 10 years and against the Cuban people for more than 50 years.
Bush knows that sanctions and embargoes attack the citizenry, not the rulers. He knows, for example, that it wasn’t Saddam Hussein who paid the price for the sanctions against Iraq but rather the Iraqi people, who lost hundreds of thousands of their children as a result of the sanctions. He also knows that it hasn’t been Fidel Castro who has paid the price for the embargo against Cuba but rather the Cuban people, who live on the verge of starvation.
The idea is that if the citizenry are sufficiently squeezed economically, especially through the prospect of death, they will have the incentive to oust their rulers and install a pro-U.S. regime in their stead, which will cause U.S. rulers to drop the sanctions, establish friendly relations, and flood the country with U.S. foreign aid.
Unfortunately, all too many Americans have yet to figure all this out — that this is the core element of U.S. foreign policy — regime change — the ouster of independent regimes and their replacement with pro-U.S. regimes. They prefer to convince themselves that the lofty pronouncements issued by U.S. officials regarding democracy-spreading, liberation, and loving foreigners are true despite the manifest evidence to the contrary, including the willingness to kill an unlimited number of foreigners to achieve their goals. Thus, Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the sanctions was “worth it.”
Another factor to consider with respect to Iran, of course, is that U.S. officials have never forgiven the Iranian people for ousting the pro-U.S. shah of Iran, whom the CIA installed in a coup in 1953, and replacing him with an independent regime during the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
On top of the immorality of sanctions and embargoes, there are two other important factors to consider.
One, sanctions and embargoes produce anger, hatred, and resentment, which manifests itself with terrorist blowback. In fact, one of the primary reasons for the 1993 and 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (along with the attacks on the USS Cole, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the Pentagon) was the rage that the continual deaths of the Iraqi children produced among people throughout the Middle East, not to mention the effect that Albright’s unbelievably callous statement had on people in the Middle East.
Two, sanctions and embargoes are a direct infringement on the economic liberty of the American people because they deprive people of the fundamental right to spend their money the way they want.
Sanctions and embargoes are immoral and counterproductive. Americans should constitutionally prohibit the federal government from ever imposing them again.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
In an unusual moment of candor, President Bush revealed why so many people around the world hate and resent the U.S. government for its foreign policy. In his news conference this week, Bush pointed out how he is hoping that the U.S. sanctions against Iran encourage the Iranian people to oust their rulers from power. According to the New York Times:
“Mr. Bush sought in the news conference to make clear that his pressure tactics, including economic sanctions, were aimed at persuading the Iranian people to find new leadership. ‘The whole strategy is that, you know, at some point in time leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, ‘This isn’t worth it,’ and to me it’s worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government,’ Mr. Bush said.”
So, there you have it — the same nasty, cruel strategy of sanctions that was aimed at the Iraqi people for more than 10 years and against the Cuban people for more than 50 years.
Bush knows that sanctions and embargoes attack the citizenry, not the rulers. He knows, for example, that it wasn’t Saddam Hussein who paid the price for the sanctions against Iraq but rather the Iraqi people, who lost hundreds of thousands of their children as a result of the sanctions. He also knows that it hasn’t been Fidel Castro who has paid the price for the embargo against Cuba but rather the Cuban people, who live on the verge of starvation.
The idea is that if the citizenry are sufficiently squeezed economically, especially through the prospect of death, they will have the incentive to oust their rulers and install a pro-U.S. regime in their stead, which will cause U.S. rulers to drop the sanctions, establish friendly relations, and flood the country with U.S. foreign aid.
Unfortunately, all too many Americans have yet to figure all this out — that this is the core element of U.S. foreign policy — regime change — the ouster of independent regimes and their replacement with pro-U.S. regimes. They prefer to convince themselves that the lofty pronouncements issued by U.S. officials regarding democracy-spreading, liberation, and loving foreigners are true despite the manifest evidence to the contrary, including the willingness to kill an unlimited number of foreigners to achieve their goals. Thus, Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the sanctions was “worth it.”
Another factor to consider with respect to Iran, of course, is that U.S. officials have never forgiven the Iranian people for ousting the pro-U.S. shah of Iran, whom the CIA installed in a coup in 1953, and replacing him with an independent regime during the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
On top of the immorality of sanctions and embargoes, there are two other important factors to consider.
One, sanctions and embargoes produce anger, hatred, and resentment, which manifests itself with terrorist blowback. In fact, one of the primary reasons for the 1993 and 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (along with the attacks on the USS Cole, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the Pentagon) was the rage that the continual deaths of the Iraqi children produced among people throughout the Middle East, not to mention the effect that Albright’s unbelievably callous statement had on people in the Middle East.
Two, sanctions and embargoes are a direct infringement on the economic liberty of the American people because they deprive people of the fundamental right to spend their money the way they want.
Sanctions and embargoes are immoral and counterproductive. Americans should constitutionally prohibit the federal government from ever imposing them again.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Big Brother at school
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | October 17, 2007
"FREEDOM of education, being an essential of civil and religious liberty . . . must not be interfered with under any pretext whatever," the party's national platform declared. "We are opposed to state interference with parental rights and rights of conscience in the education of children as an infringement of the fundamental . . . doctrine that the largest individual liberty consistent with the rights of others insures the highest type of American citizenship and the best government."
That ringing endorsement of parental supremacy in education was adopted by the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1892, which just goes to show what was possible before the Democratic Party was taken hostage by the teachers unions. (Wondrous to relate, the platform also warned that "the tendency to centralize all power at the federal capital has become a menace," blasted barriers to free trade as "robbery of the great majority of the American people for the benefit of the few," and pledged "relentless opposition to the Republican policy of profligate expenditure.")
Today, on education as on so much else, the Democrats sing from a different hymnal. When the party's presidential candidates debated at Dartmouth College recently, they were asked about a controversial incident in Lexington, Mass., where a second-grade teacher, to the dismay of several parents, had read her young students a story celebrating same-sex marriage. Were the candidates "comfortable" with that?
"Yes, absolutely," former senator John Edwards promptly replied. "I want my children . . . to be exposed to all the information . . . even in second grade . . . because I don't want to impose my view. Nobody made me God. I don't get to decide on behalf of my family or my children. . . . I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right." None of the other candidates disagreed, even though most of them say they oppose same-sex marriage.
Thus in a little over 100 years, the Democratic Party - and much of the Republican Party - has been transformed from a champion of "parental rights and rights of conscience in the education of children" to a party whose leaders believe that parents "don't get to impose" their views and values on what their kids are taught in school. Do American parents see anything wrong with that? Apparently not: The majority of them dutifully enroll their children in government-operated schools, where the only views and values permitted are the ones prescribed by the state.
But controversies like the one in Lexington are reminders that Big Brother's ideas about what and how children should be taught are not always those of mom and dad.
Americans differ on same-sex marriage and evolution, on the importance of sports and the value of phonics, on the right to bear arms and the reverence due the Confederate flag. Some parents are committed secularists; others are devout believers. Some place great emphasis on math and science; others stress history and foreign languages. Americans hold disparate opinions on everything from the truth of the Bible to the meaning of the First Amendment, from the usefulness of rote memorization to the significance of music and art. With parents so often in loud disagreement, why should children be locked into a one-size-fits-all, government-knows-best model of education?
Nobody would want the government to run 90 percent of the nation's entertainment industry. Nobody thinks that 90 percent of all housing should be owned by the state. Yet the government's control of 90 percent of the nation's schools leaves most Americans strangely unconcerned.
But we should be concerned. Not just because the quality of government schooling is so often poor or its costs so high. Not just because public schools are constantly roiled by political storms. Not just because schools backed by the power of the state are not accountable to parents and can ride roughshod over their concerns. And not just because the public-school monopoly, like most monopolies, resists change, innovation, and excellence.
All of that is true, but a more fundamental truth is this: In a society founded on political and economic liberty, government schools have no place. Free men and women do not entrust to the state the molding of their children's minds and character. As we wouldn't trust the state to feed our kids, or to clothe them, or to get them to bed on time, neither should we trust the state to teach them.
What 19th-century Democrats understood, 21st-century Americans need to relearn: Education is too important to be left to the government.
Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.
"FREEDOM of education, being an essential of civil and religious liberty . . . must not be interfered with under any pretext whatever," the party's national platform declared. "We are opposed to state interference with parental rights and rights of conscience in the education of children as an infringement of the fundamental . . . doctrine that the largest individual liberty consistent with the rights of others insures the highest type of American citizenship and the best government."
That ringing endorsement of parental supremacy in education was adopted by the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1892, which just goes to show what was possible before the Democratic Party was taken hostage by the teachers unions. (Wondrous to relate, the platform also warned that "the tendency to centralize all power at the federal capital has become a menace," blasted barriers to free trade as "robbery of the great majority of the American people for the benefit of the few," and pledged "relentless opposition to the Republican policy of profligate expenditure.")
Today, on education as on so much else, the Democrats sing from a different hymnal. When the party's presidential candidates debated at Dartmouth College recently, they were asked about a controversial incident in Lexington, Mass., where a second-grade teacher, to the dismay of several parents, had read her young students a story celebrating same-sex marriage. Were the candidates "comfortable" with that?
"Yes, absolutely," former senator John Edwards promptly replied. "I want my children . . . to be exposed to all the information . . . even in second grade . . . because I don't want to impose my view. Nobody made me God. I don't get to decide on behalf of my family or my children. . . . I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right." None of the other candidates disagreed, even though most of them say they oppose same-sex marriage.
Thus in a little over 100 years, the Democratic Party - and much of the Republican Party - has been transformed from a champion of "parental rights and rights of conscience in the education of children" to a party whose leaders believe that parents "don't get to impose" their views and values on what their kids are taught in school. Do American parents see anything wrong with that? Apparently not: The majority of them dutifully enroll their children in government-operated schools, where the only views and values permitted are the ones prescribed by the state.
But controversies like the one in Lexington are reminders that Big Brother's ideas about what and how children should be taught are not always those of mom and dad.
Americans differ on same-sex marriage and evolution, on the importance of sports and the value of phonics, on the right to bear arms and the reverence due the Confederate flag. Some parents are committed secularists; others are devout believers. Some place great emphasis on math and science; others stress history and foreign languages. Americans hold disparate opinions on everything from the truth of the Bible to the meaning of the First Amendment, from the usefulness of rote memorization to the significance of music and art. With parents so often in loud disagreement, why should children be locked into a one-size-fits-all, government-knows-best model of education?
Nobody would want the government to run 90 percent of the nation's entertainment industry. Nobody thinks that 90 percent of all housing should be owned by the state. Yet the government's control of 90 percent of the nation's schools leaves most Americans strangely unconcerned.
But we should be concerned. Not just because the quality of government schooling is so often poor or its costs so high. Not just because public schools are constantly roiled by political storms. Not just because schools backed by the power of the state are not accountable to parents and can ride roughshod over their concerns. And not just because the public-school monopoly, like most monopolies, resists change, innovation, and excellence.
All of that is true, but a more fundamental truth is this: In a society founded on political and economic liberty, government schools have no place. Free men and women do not entrust to the state the molding of their children's minds and character. As we wouldn't trust the state to feed our kids, or to clothe them, or to get them to bed on time, neither should we trust the state to teach them.
What 19th-century Democrats understood, 21st-century Americans need to relearn: Education is too important to be left to the government.
Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Why the GOP Must Nominate Ron Paul
Why the GOP Must Nominate Ron Paul
posted October 2, 2007
Why must the Republican Party nominate a 72-year-old grandfather from the Gulf Coast of Texas, until the past few months little known outside his district, as its 2008 standard-bearer? Very simple: the alternative is eight years of President Hillary Clinton. That ought to be enough to get the attention of every conservative who happens upon these words, so let me explain.
It should come as no big revelation to anyone inside or outside of the Republican Party that the GOP has lost touch with its conservative roots. Massive deficit spending that would make Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter blush; foreign adventurism beyond the wildest dreams of Woodrow Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt; more big government programs than FDR or LBJ (Google "Medicare expansion" for a massive example) ... the Republican Party of the early 21st century is clearly not your father's or grandfather's GOP.
There are no more Robert Tafts, no more Barry Goldwaters, not even any more Ronald Reagans (as imperfect as he turned out to be after reaching the White House) ... except one: Ron Paul. Dr. Paul (an OB/GYN who has delivered more than 4,000 babies) is the last, best hope for the GOP to reclaim its once-upon-a-time status as the party of limited government.
It isn't his status as the leading advocate of limited, constitutional government that makes Ron Paul a must-nominate for the GOP, though. It is true that in the long run, the Republican Party needs him to help it reclaim its spirit, and this indeed will be his lasting legacy. But, in the short run, the party needs him to win the 2008 election and save the country from another Clinton presidency that would be far worse than the first. (Unlike Bill, who was apparently mainly involved in politics to get the attention of the ladies, Hillary is a true believer in socialism; and, with a Democratic majority in Congress, she will have an excellent opportunity to expedite its widespread implementation in America.)
Fact one: Hillary Clinton will win the 2008 Democratic nomination. She is an experienced, cut-throat politician with deep ties in the party, and can take Barack Obama down pretty much any time she wants to. And John Edwards is not serious about pursuing the nomination. He is just positioning himself to be the VP nominee again, because in the wake of the 2006 Congressional elections he believes that Hillary will win the Presidency by taking a few key states where John Kerry fell short. Long story short: forget the others - Hillary is the woman to beat in 2008.
Fact two: The 2008 election will be won by the candidate who most credibly addresses the growing anti-war sentiment that has been embraced by the majority of the country's voters. (Google "2006 mid-term elections.) 70% or more of Americans want out of Iraq, and for many of them, it is the defining issue of the campaign. You may agree or disagree, but it's a fact and it's going to decide the 2008 Presidential election.
If it comes down to Hillary Clinton vs. any of the "establishment" Republican candidates, she wins by default. She may have voted for the war originally, but she will continue to claim that she was misled by the Republican administration, and that we should trust her to make things right. (Of course she won't really get us out of the Middle East mess, but Joe Six-Pack won't figure that out until after she wins the election.)
If any of the supposed "front runner" Republican candidates (Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Fred Thompson) wins the GOP nomination, Hillary Clinton is essentially a lock. Not only will she win over a sizable portion of the independent vote with her (perceived) status as "the anti-war candidate," but - simply put - the GOP will not turn out its base in sufficient numbers to win.
Nominate Rudy Giuliani? Conservative, red-state voters are not going to turn out to support a gun-grabbing Northern liberal faux Republican who dresses in drag and is a charter member of the Wife-Of-The-Month Club. The social conservatives, along with the fiscal conservatives and the key swing voters (libertarians and constitutionalists) will either stay home on Election Day or vote third party. Rudy won't even carry his home state, and ask Al Gore how that usually works out. Slam dunk, Hillary wins.
Nominate Mitt Romney? You get basically the same result as Giuliani without the (bogus) "America's Mayor" 9/11 cachet. Conservatives in the South and West won't turn out for the former governor of "Taxachusetts" who has flip-flopped on virtually every issue they hold dear. The fact that Romney is a Mormon won't help him with the mainstream Christian base, either. He probably can't win the GOP nomination, but even if he does, Romney is toast in the general election.
Nominate John McCain? Not gonna happen. His campaign has taken a nose dive from which it will be virtually impossible to recover. As of the end of the second quarter, even (supposed) long-shot Ron Paul had more cash on hand - and, when the third quarter numbers come in, McCain will be even further behind in the money game. He probably won't even be in the top five on the GOP side. Stick a fork in him, he's done. And even if he could pull off the apparently impossible and come back to win the Republican nomination, he loses to Hillary on the war and many domestic issues as well.
Fred Thompson? He's the last hope of those Republicans who are looking for a "mainstream" candidate to save them from looming, seemingly inevitable defeat in 2008. On the surface, he appears to have more of a chance than the previously mentioned "big three." After all, he has the "actor factor." It worked for Reagan and, more recently, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California - couldn't it work for Fred, too? Well, no, not this time around.
Like Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson is reasonably good at reading a script. Unlike the Gipper, though, Fred is just awful at speaking extemporaneously. In case anyone was wondering why Thompson waited so long to declare his candidacy, it's obvious to those who know anything about his abilities and liabilities: he wanted to avoid as many debates as possible.
Like Obama on the Democratic side, Thompson is an empty suit. He looks reasonably presentable, but sooner or later he has to open his mouth, and when he does he doesn't say anything of substance. The less he speaks in public (especially with other candidates around to rebut him), the better for Fred. Unfortunately for Thompson, while he has so far been able to duck any direct confrontation with his GOP rivals, he won't be able to avoid debating Hillary if he wins the Republican nomination. And about five minutes into the first debate, with no "Law and Order" writers to put words in his mouth, it will be over. Game, set, match, Hillary.
When you look at it objectively, there isn't a single one of the "Big Four" GOP candidates who can beat Hillary Clinton head-to-head. And none of the "second tier" candidates (Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter,
Tancredo, et al) have stepped up to the challenge. Really, there is only one remaining viable Republican candidate: You guessed it, Ron Paul.
Only Ron Paul can take advantage of the Internet the way Howard Dean did before he imploded four years ago. Indeed, he has already captured the Internet ... the Ron Paul Revolution is already in full swing online. It sure was nice of Al Gore to invent the Net for Ron Paul supporters to take over, wasn't it?
Only Ron Paul can outflank Hillary Clinton both to the left on the war, and to the right on everything else ... which is the only winning strategy the Republicans can plausibly employ in 2008.
Only Ron Paul, who is truly pro-family (married to the same woman for over 50 years, with five children and 18 grandchildren - no "trophy wives" here) can motivate the socially conservative base to actually turn out and vote.
Only Ron Paul, who wants to eliminate the IRS (and a host of other federal agencies) and stop the Federal Reserve from devaluing our money through runaway, printing-press inflation, can motivate the fiscally conservative base to cast a GOP ballot in 2008.
Only Ron Paul can keep the Libertarians and Constitution Party members from splintering off to support their own third-party nominees rather than another neo-con, Bush clone Republican. (In fact, the 2004 nominees of the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, Michael Peroutka and Michael Badnarik, have both already endorsed Ron Paul's candidacy.) While the LP and CP may command only a small fraction of the overall vote, that may well be enough to turn the tide in a crucial state or two. Ask Al Gore if he could have used a few thousand of Ralph Nader's votes in 2000....
Yes, when you look at things objectively, there are only two candidates who can win the White House in 2008: Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul. The contrast could not be more stark, nor the results for the future of America more divergent. If you are a social or fiscal conservative, a libertarian, a constitutionalist, or just a concerned independent ... now is the time to consider your options and act accordingly while there is still time to affect the outcome.
The Ron Paul Revolution has begun.
Joe Dumas
joe@joedumas.com
posted October 2, 2007
Why must the Republican Party nominate a 72-year-old grandfather from the Gulf Coast of Texas, until the past few months little known outside his district, as its 2008 standard-bearer? Very simple: the alternative is eight years of President Hillary Clinton. That ought to be enough to get the attention of every conservative who happens upon these words, so let me explain.
It should come as no big revelation to anyone inside or outside of the Republican Party that the GOP has lost touch with its conservative roots. Massive deficit spending that would make Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter blush; foreign adventurism beyond the wildest dreams of Woodrow Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt; more big government programs than FDR or LBJ (Google "Medicare expansion" for a massive example) ... the Republican Party of the early 21st century is clearly not your father's or grandfather's GOP.
There are no more Robert Tafts, no more Barry Goldwaters, not even any more Ronald Reagans (as imperfect as he turned out to be after reaching the White House) ... except one: Ron Paul. Dr. Paul (an OB/GYN who has delivered more than 4,000 babies) is the last, best hope for the GOP to reclaim its once-upon-a-time status as the party of limited government.
It isn't his status as the leading advocate of limited, constitutional government that makes Ron Paul a must-nominate for the GOP, though. It is true that in the long run, the Republican Party needs him to help it reclaim its spirit, and this indeed will be his lasting legacy. But, in the short run, the party needs him to win the 2008 election and save the country from another Clinton presidency that would be far worse than the first. (Unlike Bill, who was apparently mainly involved in politics to get the attention of the ladies, Hillary is a true believer in socialism; and, with a Democratic majority in Congress, she will have an excellent opportunity to expedite its widespread implementation in America.)
Fact one: Hillary Clinton will win the 2008 Democratic nomination. She is an experienced, cut-throat politician with deep ties in the party, and can take Barack Obama down pretty much any time she wants to. And John Edwards is not serious about pursuing the nomination. He is just positioning himself to be the VP nominee again, because in the wake of the 2006 Congressional elections he believes that Hillary will win the Presidency by taking a few key states where John Kerry fell short. Long story short: forget the others - Hillary is the woman to beat in 2008.
Fact two: The 2008 election will be won by the candidate who most credibly addresses the growing anti-war sentiment that has been embraced by the majority of the country's voters. (Google "2006 mid-term elections.) 70% or more of Americans want out of Iraq, and for many of them, it is the defining issue of the campaign. You may agree or disagree, but it's a fact and it's going to decide the 2008 Presidential election.
If it comes down to Hillary Clinton vs. any of the "establishment" Republican candidates, she wins by default. She may have voted for the war originally, but she will continue to claim that she was misled by the Republican administration, and that we should trust her to make things right. (Of course she won't really get us out of the Middle East mess, but Joe Six-Pack won't figure that out until after she wins the election.)
If any of the supposed "front runner" Republican candidates (Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Fred Thompson) wins the GOP nomination, Hillary Clinton is essentially a lock. Not only will she win over a sizable portion of the independent vote with her (perceived) status as "the anti-war candidate," but - simply put - the GOP will not turn out its base in sufficient numbers to win.
Nominate Rudy Giuliani? Conservative, red-state voters are not going to turn out to support a gun-grabbing Northern liberal faux Republican who dresses in drag and is a charter member of the Wife-Of-The-Month Club. The social conservatives, along with the fiscal conservatives and the key swing voters (libertarians and constitutionalists) will either stay home on Election Day or vote third party. Rudy won't even carry his home state, and ask Al Gore how that usually works out. Slam dunk, Hillary wins.
Nominate Mitt Romney? You get basically the same result as Giuliani without the (bogus) "America's Mayor" 9/11 cachet. Conservatives in the South and West won't turn out for the former governor of "Taxachusetts" who has flip-flopped on virtually every issue they hold dear. The fact that Romney is a Mormon won't help him with the mainstream Christian base, either. He probably can't win the GOP nomination, but even if he does, Romney is toast in the general election.
Nominate John McCain? Not gonna happen. His campaign has taken a nose dive from which it will be virtually impossible to recover. As of the end of the second quarter, even (supposed) long-shot Ron Paul had more cash on hand - and, when the third quarter numbers come in, McCain will be even further behind in the money game. He probably won't even be in the top five on the GOP side. Stick a fork in him, he's done. And even if he could pull off the apparently impossible and come back to win the Republican nomination, he loses to Hillary on the war and many domestic issues as well.
Fred Thompson? He's the last hope of those Republicans who are looking for a "mainstream" candidate to save them from looming, seemingly inevitable defeat in 2008. On the surface, he appears to have more of a chance than the previously mentioned "big three." After all, he has the "actor factor." It worked for Reagan and, more recently, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California - couldn't it work for Fred, too? Well, no, not this time around.
Like Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson is reasonably good at reading a script. Unlike the Gipper, though, Fred is just awful at speaking extemporaneously. In case anyone was wondering why Thompson waited so long to declare his candidacy, it's obvious to those who know anything about his abilities and liabilities: he wanted to avoid as many debates as possible.
Like Obama on the Democratic side, Thompson is an empty suit. He looks reasonably presentable, but sooner or later he has to open his mouth, and when he does he doesn't say anything of substance. The less he speaks in public (especially with other candidates around to rebut him), the better for Fred. Unfortunately for Thompson, while he has so far been able to duck any direct confrontation with his GOP rivals, he won't be able to avoid debating Hillary if he wins the Republican nomination. And about five minutes into the first debate, with no "Law and Order" writers to put words in his mouth, it will be over. Game, set, match, Hillary.
When you look at it objectively, there isn't a single one of the "Big Four" GOP candidates who can beat Hillary Clinton head-to-head. And none of the "second tier" candidates (Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter,
Tancredo, et al) have stepped up to the challenge. Really, there is only one remaining viable Republican candidate: You guessed it, Ron Paul.
Only Ron Paul can take advantage of the Internet the way Howard Dean did before he imploded four years ago. Indeed, he has already captured the Internet ... the Ron Paul Revolution is already in full swing online. It sure was nice of Al Gore to invent the Net for Ron Paul supporters to take over, wasn't it?
Only Ron Paul can outflank Hillary Clinton both to the left on the war, and to the right on everything else ... which is the only winning strategy the Republicans can plausibly employ in 2008.
Only Ron Paul, who is truly pro-family (married to the same woman for over 50 years, with five children and 18 grandchildren - no "trophy wives" here) can motivate the socially conservative base to actually turn out and vote.
Only Ron Paul, who wants to eliminate the IRS (and a host of other federal agencies) and stop the Federal Reserve from devaluing our money through runaway, printing-press inflation, can motivate the fiscally conservative base to cast a GOP ballot in 2008.
Only Ron Paul can keep the Libertarians and Constitution Party members from splintering off to support their own third-party nominees rather than another neo-con, Bush clone Republican. (In fact, the 2004 nominees of the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, Michael Peroutka and Michael Badnarik, have both already endorsed Ron Paul's candidacy.) While the LP and CP may command only a small fraction of the overall vote, that may well be enough to turn the tide in a crucial state or two. Ask Al Gore if he could have used a few thousand of Ralph Nader's votes in 2000....
Yes, when you look at things objectively, there are only two candidates who can win the White House in 2008: Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul. The contrast could not be more stark, nor the results for the future of America more divergent. If you are a social or fiscal conservative, a libertarian, a constitutionalist, or just a concerned independent ... now is the time to consider your options and act accordingly while there is still time to affect the outcome.
The Ron Paul Revolution has begun.
Joe Dumas
joe@joedumas.com
Friday, September 21, 2007
Ron Paul's plan to eliminate the Income Tax (without a new replacement tax)
"Individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion-- a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels?"
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Friday, September 14, 2007
Liberty Forum 2008!
Ron Paul, John Stossel, Michael Badnarik, and many more were at the Free State Project's New Hampshire Liberty Forum 2007.
The next Liberty Forum will be January 3-6, 2008. Don't miss out!
http://freestateproject.org/libertyforum
The next Liberty Forum will be January 3-6, 2008. Don't miss out!
http://freestateproject.org/libertyforum
Ron Paul's Speeches of Freedom
Dr. Ron Paul, who has called LRC his favorite website – the one he looks at the first thing every morning – has given five historic addresses on liberty for LewRockwell.com. Now, at this exciting moment, these eloquent speeches are collected for you, your family, and your friends to listen to, to share, and to keep for the future.
Of course, you also help keep LRC on the air by buying these well-priced, handsomely produced, and inspiring recordings.
For a four-CD cased set, the price is just $29 plus $6 shipping and handling in the US.For an MP3 CD, the price is just $15 plus $4 shipping and handling in the US.
For 5 business-card-size MP3 CDs (with all 5 speeches on each) – to hand out to family and friends, and what a great introduction to Dr. Paul! – the price is just $25 plus $4 shipping and handling.
Please add sales tax if we are shipping to a California address.
*Phone Cathy at 800-982-7070 during California office hours to charge to your credit card, or
*Mail your check to LewRockwell.com, 851 Burlway Rd., Suite 202, Burlingame, CA 94010, or
*Pay online by credit card, being sure to indicate what you are ordering and where we should ship it.
Thank you!
read more | digg story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
