In order to achieve the massive spending cut, the government workforce will be reduced by 10% through attrition and the Departments of Energy, Commerce, Interior, Education, and Housing and Urban Development would all be eliminated with certain functions moving to remaining departments.  The plan will end the wars and cut all of that funding, while maintaining Defense spending and cutting all foreign aid.  It will cap all Federal Government spending at 2006 levels as well as abolish the TSA and turn those security duties over to the private sector.

To foster an environment in which the economy can recover and jobs can be created Dr. Paul would eliminate legislation such as ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sorbanes-Oxley.  A full audit of the Federal Reserve would also be conducted.  Which no doubt will lead to the elimination of the Fed entirely once the corruption is fully brought to light.

This is exactly the type of plan we need.  It provides real spending cuts and a balanced budget without further crippling the economy with taxes.

No one else in the Republican field has put forth such a plan.  Herman Cain’s plan “999″ is simple, but dangerous and does not address the real issue – spending.  The government does not have a revenue problem.  It has a spending problem.  Cain’s plan would wipe out the current tax code in favor of a 9% corporate tax, and 9% personal income tax, and a 9% national sales tax.  This is great news for the companies, but no so great for the people.  “999″ does not allow deductions.  It has been shown that many in the middle class would be paying more taxes than they currently are.  The addition of a national sales tax is disastrous, just as the introduction of the income tax was.  A 9% rate today could easily be a 15% or 20% rate or more in the future.  The government is an addict.  It is time for the citizens to hold an intervention. We cannot allow another avenue for government thievery.

Mitt Romney’s plan is also severely flawed.  In the way of spending cuts, all it does is seek to cap government spending at 20% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and to cut 5% from non-security discretionary spending which equates to a cut of around $20 billion.  $20 billion in cuts is an insult.  Currently our government faces an annual deficit of approximately $1.5 trillion.  Cutting $20 billion is no more than a wholly insufficient gesture.  By itself it may sound significant, but once put into prospective we see plainly that this is not the case.  Aside from the nearly non-existent cut in Romney’s plan, let us consider his proposed 20% GDP cap.

By seeking only a 20% cap, Romney is admitting that he disagrees with the Founder’s view of the role of government and prefers it in its current bloated state.  If the government were doing only what the Constitution authorizes there would be no reason for spending anywhere near 20% of GDP.  Additionally, GDP is not a fixed value.  It changes with the condition of the economy, meaning that when the economy is doing well, the government can spend more within that 20% cap.  The 20% cap if anything should be a limit, not a goal for the government to meet.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who has presented a plan that makes the significant real spending cuts that are essential to an American recovery.  He is the only candidate who will end the unconstitutional militarism of the United States Empire.  He is the only candidate with an understanding of the problem.  He has been playing the part of Cassandra for more than 30 years and now as our economy burns like ancient Troy, he is the only one who can put out the blaze.

In their quest to ensure the blessings of liberty for future generations our nations Founding Fathers established a supreme law of the land, known as the United States Constitution.  At the behest of the States they established 10 amendments to the new Constitution which comprise what we call the Bill of Rights.  Upon those 5 pages the foundation of the United States system of government was laid.  Some argue that the Constitution is no longer relevant, or that it is incapable of addressing the issues of our modern era.  Some believe in the idea of a “living” Constitution which is the notion that the document is fluid and can be interpreted in such a way as to fit it to whatever the current needs of government require.  Others believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders.  Sadly, it seems that the majority does not know about the Constitution, does not think about the Constitution, and are not aware of just how significant it is.

Say you are an architect and you design a new skyscraper.  How do you relay your design to the contractors who will be constructing the new building?  You would use a blueprint.  The blueprint would lay out the exact specifications of the building, and it would provide the foundation needed for the contractors to commence building.  Now what would happen if that blueprint were modified by some of the contractors who did not care for the placement of some of the steel I beams?  What if the blueprint were ignored entirely?  Obviously the resulting structure would be unstable, if it could remain standing at all.

That is what has happened to our country.  The blueprint has been ignored by those whose job it is to follow it to the letter.  As a result, our foundation is compromised, and our nation is teetering.  We the people who were responsible for ensuring that our officials honor the Constitution have failed in our responsibility.

The Constitution institutes the structure of the federal government.  It dictates that there shall be a legislative, judicial, and executive branch.  It divides and limits the power of each to ensure fairness and institute checks and balances to dissuade the excessive collection of power in a single branch and the abuse that inherently comes with it.  It assigns specific duties to each branch and denies all powers not specifically enumerated.

The Bill of Rights guarantees the rights of the citizens.  It protects the free expression of ideas and religion, as well establishing the right for citizens to assemble and protest against government policies.  It provides for the privacy and security of the people and their property against unreasonable search or seizure.  It solidifies the right to a fair trial for all accused of a crime and provides for the humane punishment of the convicted.  It empowers the people to secure themselves and gives teeth to the claim made in the Declaration of Independence that “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish [destructive government], and to institute new Government” insomuch as it provides a last resort against tyranny in the right of citizens to own and carry firearms.  Lastly, the Bill of Rights dictates clearly that any powers not delegated to the federal government so long as they are not prohibited of the states, are to be expressly reserved to the states and the people.

This is the core of the United States.  These are the words that our nation is built upon.  Without them, the Republic is no more.  It is vital that our elected representatives be held accountable by us.

Those who believe in a “living” Constitution undermine the foundation of liberty.  We see the current state of affairs at the federal level.  We are in this situation because of those who choose to ignore the Constitution entirely, or who interpreted it to their liking.  A common excuse is the “necessary and proper” clause.  This argument is a reckless bastardization of the original intent.

The Founders made it clear what their intent was.  Alexander Hamilton had this to say on the matter:

“It may be affirmed with perfect confidence that the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same, if these clauses were entirely obliterated…” – From Federalist #33

Thomas Jefferson had this to say:

“The Constitution allows only the means which are “necessary,” not those which are merely “convenient” for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to everyone, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed. Therefore it was that the Constitution restrained them to the necessary means, that is to say, to those means without which the grant of power would be nugatory.”

George Nicholas clarified further before the Virginia ratifying convention:

“[the necessary and proper clause] only enables them [Congress] to carry into execution the powers given to them, but gives them no additional power.”

This could not be clearer.  The Founders intended the clause to allow the government to institute what was necessary for it to carry out only the powers enumerated.

Once it is accepted that the Constitution may be interpreted in whatever way is most pleasing to the government at any particular time it, as a whole is lost.  Such an idea makes it possible for the government to interpret away any and all of the protections that the Constitution exists to enforce.  It violates the amendment process, by making it permissible for the government to justify its actions using fallacious arguments.  In this way, the Constitution is ignored, and the government ceases power that it was never intended to have.

The Founders recognized that from time to time it would be necessary to make adjustment to the Constitution.  That is why they created a process for amending it.  Using this amendment process is the only acceptable way for the government to modify the Constitution.  Simply side-stepping the entire rule of law as it is laid out is unacceptable and highly damaging to the Republic and to liberty.  This is the reason the United States is in its current condition.  The federal government ignored the Constitution and as a result has set our nation upon a path to ruin.

Only through strict adherence to the very letter of the Constitution can we regain our freedoms, conquer our oppressions and ensure the fruits of liberty for our children and for generations to come.  The Constitution as an ideal must be kept alive at all costs; as law, it must be to our representatives as inescapable as death.

At this point, we should regard the Occupy movement as a potential danger.  It is very volatile.  I do not suggest that we should be concerned that it will escalate to a point of violence, though that is not out of the question, it seems unlikely at this point it time.  The danger stems from the fact that the protestors are so very disjointed.  There is no leader, and there is no clear mission or set of demands.  The protestors might as well be there for the simple fact that they have nothing better to do.  Clearly they share in their frustration and anger over the direction of the economy.  This seems to be about all though.

So what we have are thousands of angry individuals who have taken to the streets to protest a vague concept of what they feel is wrong.  This is not a good situation.  While the protestors all agree that there exists a serious problem, they either do not recognize the problem at all or fail to identify the true problem.  Nor for the most part do they seem to have any concept of how the problem came about, or how it can be remedied.  Establishment forces are at work trying to harness the energy of the protestors and direct it toward their own ends.  Primary among these forces are unions, which act as parasites draining the productivity and profit from industry, enabled by their big government mercenaries.  The Occupy movement will do great harm should its power be exploited by purveyors of the liberal agenda.

Already, while not acknowledging the existence of the movement directly, the Obama re-election campaign is strategizing on how they can tie the GOP candidates to Wall Street in an attempt to turn the wrath of the protestors upon the GOP hopefuls.  Moveon.org, another liberal group has expressed its support for the Occupy movement.  The left is attempting to assimilate the Occupy movement in much the same way the Neo-Con right attempted to gain control of the Tea Party.

There are members of the Occupy group who are loudly calling out the left for trying to take over the movement, and they are fighting it.  What remains unclear is just how many in the movement feel this way, versus the number who can be easily led astray by the liberal cronies.  Given how fluid the group is, it will be hard to say.  Currently it is difficult to tell what information regarding the group is actually representative of the group since there are no leaders, and no official platform.  Some of the ideas that are being presented are very conservative, while others are libertarian, and still others are purely socialist.

Advocates of liberty need to get involved with these protests and act as guides to educate fellow protestors as well as to repel those who come with malicious intent.  If we are able to steer the energy of the protestors toward the restoration of liberty and prosperity though constitutionally limited government, sound money, and the free market it may be possible to make great strides in restoring our Republic.

The important distinction is that Wall Street is not the root of the problem.  While Wall Street has benefited greatly, it was government that made it possible.  By allowing the creation of a private bank and giving it unrestrained control of the currency and instituting policies that stifle competition the government has created an atmosphere of corruption which has allowed the banksters to leech off of the rest of society.  There is nothing wrong with being rich.  That is a facet of the American dream.  There is however a problem when riches are obtained by stealing from everyone else.  Capitalism is a good model, if it functions within the framework of an unrestricted free market.

Do not allow the establishment to hijack the Occupy movement.  With education and the right direction, Occupy Wall Street could be the citizen-based movement needed to turn our country around.  Get involved!

The newcomer Rick Perry has been at the last three debates.  While new ideas and approaches should always be welcomed, Perry did not have any to offer.  His only contribution to the debates so far has been to give Mitt Romney someone to bicker with – which now happens at every debate.  Generally the topic of the bickering is who flip-flopped on what when.  The only thing this proves is that they are both inconsistent and would rather sling mud at one another than address the real issues in a thoughtful and creative way.

Michele Bachmann who narrowly won the Iowa Straw Poll has slipped in the polls since Perry’s entry in the race and now she sits outside of the top three, with Ron Paul taking her spot.  This has been evident in the debates as more focus has been diverted from her to Perry and Romney.  All of the other candidates, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and (included for the first time in the most recent debate) Gary Johnson get few questions, and little time to speak.

Aside from the obvious bias of the debate moderators toward Romney and Perry, the questions are something I take great issue with.  Many of the questions are not hard-hitting, and are only posed to a single candidate.  If we really want to see who stands out in the field, the questions must get more serious, and all the candidates must be given the opportunity to answer, and explain their reasoning briefly.  Too often candidates are permitted to sidestep questions that they either do not want to answer, or cannot answer.  This needs to stop.  The moderators need to step up and drill any candidate who doesn’t answer a question directly.  These are supposed to be debates, not the “how would you make the world a better place” round of a beauty pageant.  The questions must be solid and deep and the answers must be logical, precise, and intellectually sound.

Candidates should be questioned on the important issues of the day.  A lot of the focus is on jobs, which is an important issue but is a symptom of far deeper problems.  Those deeper problems need to be addressed head-on.  Over-regulation, the policies of the Federal Reserve, our currency, trade relations with other nations, our foreign policy… all of these need to be addressed in profound ways.  I would like to see more focus on these, and less on issues like abortion (which all of the candidates oppose), Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, or whether the candidate prefers hot or mild buffalo wings.

The bottom line is that each debate feels a lot like a remixed version of the previous one.  The moderators need to step it up and start asking the deep fundamental questions that need to be addressed in an unbiased, take-no-prisoners fashion.  All of the candidates need to be given the opportunity to answer and if they are unable to offer a concise answer to the question asked, the moderators need to follow up until they do or they make it clear that they cannot.  There were nine candidates at the last debate.  It is time to thin the herd.

The American people need a president who understands economics and the delicate position our Republic is in regarding foreign policy.  Barack Obama has already highlighted his shortcomings in both areas.  Now it is time to analyze the Republican field for similar weaknesses.  The country cannot afford to continue on this path.

A common mindset among many of the Republican candidates (and a portion of the Republican base) seems to be that any one of them would be better than the current President.  I reject this concept.  We already know what our circumstances are like under Barack Obama.  We do not know what they would be like under any of the GOP candidates.  Sure, it can be argued that we will be better off, but all we have to go on is what the candidates say now, which historically is unreliable information.  So what are we to do?

I suggest we take a critical look at each candidate, their record, and their platform.  Do they address key issues like monetary policy, the Fed, over-regulation, and our empire abroad?  Do they advocate real change, or a different variation of the status que?  Do they believe that individuals are best empowered to run their own lives, or should the government have significant sway in that?  How does their record back up their platform?  Does consistency or waffling define their political history?  Do they believe in a constitutionally limited government, or a government that subscribes to the notion of a “living constitution” which can be interpreted however best fits the ever-changing wants of those in power?

No candidate, regardless of party affiliation will be better than the current President if they maintain the same core policies.

This election is not about Republican vs. Democrat.  This election is about saving what is left of our Republic.  It is about restoring the Constitution to power.  It is about taking back liberty and guaranteeing its existence for our children and the rest of posterity.  Look past the empty rhetoric.

The protestors are non-violent and receiving significant support from the Internet.  The protest was suggested by the Canadian magazine AdBusters and has been heavily promoted by the “hacktivist” group known as Anonymous.  The protest website (https://occupywallst.org/) is updated frequently on the current activities of the protestors.  Twitter is also being utilized heavily as a medium of communication from the people on the ground to the rest of the world.  Donations are being taken for the protest in general, and for food, camping supplies, and other needs.  The goal of the leaderless group is to occupy Wall St. for a few months in an effort to express their anger with what they claim is the fault of bankers and politicians being in bed with one another.  The protestors have been encountering heavy resistance from the NYPD, who has resorted to arresting people wearing masks, citing an 1845 “masquerade party” law.

The participants of this event are comparing it to the “Arab Spring” and the liberation of Egypt.  This seems to be the first organized effort to oppose some of the causes of our current economic crisis.  The protestors are an eclectic mix of people from different ages, races, religions, and political persuasions.  They have come to the collective realization that there is something very wrong with the United States as it exists today.  While I agree with the idea behind the protest, I disagree with some of the points of the protest, like advocating for unions, higher taxes on the rich, or the sentiment that this mess is all purely related to corporate greed.  The important point is that they recognize that there is a problem and they are doing something about it, even if it the theory that some protestors subscribe to for righting the wrongs is somewhat misguided.

The group posted a list of demands on their website:

“On September 21st, 2011, Troy Davis, an innocent man, was murdered by the state of Georgia. Troy Davis was one of the 99 percent.

Ending capital punishment is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, the richest 400 Americans owned more wealth than half of the country’s population.

Ending wealth inequality is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, four of our members were arrested on baseless charges.

Ending police intimidation is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, we determined that Yahoo lied about occupywallst.org being in spam filters.

Ending corporate censorship is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly eighty percent of Americans thought the country was on the wrong track.

Ending the modern gilded age is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly 15% of Americans approved of the job Congress was doing.

Ending political corruption is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly one sixth of Americans did not have work.

Ending joblessness is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly one sixth of America lived in poverty.

Ending poverty is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly fifty million Americans were without health insurance.

Ending health-profiteering is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, America had military bases in around one hundred and thirty out of one hundred and sixty-five countries.

Ending American imperialism is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, America was at war with the world.

Ending war is our one demand.”

From: https://occupywallst.org/

I believe all of these demands are good motives.  However, the way in which they are reached could be dangerous.  An approach that relies on government will fail, and will take away even more of our liberties.  The only way to meet these demands successfully is through the founding principles of our Republic; through honoring the Constitution and adhering to small limited government, a sound currency, and a free market.

I see this protest as a good thing and hopefully the start of something bigger.  The first step to fixing any problem is recognizing that a problem exists.  This is what we need if we want our state as a nation to improve.  People need to recognize the problem, get educated in how and why it is, and do something about it.  If nothing else, perhaps Occupy Wall Street will help others see the problems we face and motivate them to become involved.  I’m writing about this event because I believe it is important and it is being virtually ignored by mainstream media, even the New York Times which is the newspaper of the city where the protest is taking place!  If the mainstream will not cover this, the true Free Press will.

The economic problems we face are not simple.  They are deeply rooted in nearly 100 years of government overreach and corporate corruption.  It is important to note that capitalism is not the problem.  Irresponsible and unrestrained government is the problem.  Infidelity to the Constitution is the problem.  Corruption and the lust of power is the problem.  Fiat currency and ignorance of the free market is the problem.  But above all, the apathy and blind acceptance of United States citizens is the problem.  Hope and change come not from a smooth talking politician, but from the actions of educated, conscientious and dedicated individuals who are fighting for the ideals that founded our Republic and for the restoration of liberty.

Those of us who share the ideals of Constitutionally limited government, free markets, fiscal responsibility, liberty and sound money should see this as an opportunity to spread the message of liberty and galvanize support for it.  We know the problems, and we have the solutions.  We need to educate others and motivate them to act.  Through thoughtful and determined action we can take our Republic back.

To the protestors: I wish you the best.  Remain peaceful and stay safe.  Your actions will not go unnoticed.  Let this be the beginning of something truly great.  Never lose sight of the goal.  Never surrender.

As one dedicated individual said, “You cannot arrest an idea.”

Must people have likely heard the term before, but few seem to understand it, or recognize the damage it causes.  Inflation is basically the creation of new money.  At first, this does not sound like such a terrible thing.  I mean, who wouldn’t like more money?  But we have to take into account that the US dollar is (like all other major currencies) fiat.  A fiat currency is one which derives its value entirely from the authority of the government.  In other words, the US dollar in its present form only has value and buying power because the US government says it does.  Essentially, the dollar in physical form is nothing more than paper, and coins made of common metals such as copper and nickel.  None of these physical materials have any particular sustaining or widely recognized value.  Remember all of that gold stored in Fort Knox?  It is not in anyway tied to our money anymore.

Since a fiat currency derives 100% of its worth from government, and has no link to anything of physical value, such as gold or silver, the government is free to create new money as it sees fit.  In a currency backed by precious metal this is impossible to do honestly unless you can obtain more of the precious metal, which generally does not see much supply fluctuation.  The way around this for the government to issue more bills of credit (paper money) than it has gold or silver to back them.  This is unethical and dangerous, but has happened repeatedly throughout history.  In ancient Rome they would “clip” the coins by removing small amounts of material from around the edges which they then used to create new coins, thereby allowing the creation of more money without the need for more physical gold, thus diluting the currency. With a fiat currency, there is no need for this.  They simply print more.

As new money enters the market, the market responds by raising prices.  This takes place because as the supply of money increases, the value of it decreases.  When I say value, I am not referring to the numeric denomination of the paper ($1, $2, $5, $10, etc…) but rather to the buying power of the paper; how much of a desired good or service it can purchase.  As the money supply is increased and the dollar becomes more common, or readily available and as a result it loses it’s buying power.

A testament to the weakness of fiat money and the strength of gold as currency is this:  In 1910 the average price of gold was $18.92 per troy ounce.  In 2010 the average price of gold was $1,224.53.  In 1910 you could buy a loaf of bread for about $.03.  In 2010 a loaf was closer to $3.00.  The bread didn’t get any more expensive, in fact, due to automated baking and mass production, it could be argued that the bread got cheaper to produce.  The price shift is a reflection on the buying power of the dollar, not on the cost of the bread.  The real cost of the bread hasn’t gotten higher.  The buying power of the money has gotten significantly weaker.

The current Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has been utilizing inflation heavily in an attempt to cut off the recession.  The problem is that it is causing prices to go up.  No one can deny that prices are going up.  It is the direct result of this inflation.  Now you may think that if inflation makes everything more expensive, what’s the point of the Fed doing it?  Well, inflation does not make everything more expensive until the new money is in the market.  The Fed prints the money, and then loans it to the US government, who spends it.  The government, being the first to spend the new money, is able to use it before the market knows it exists.  This allows them to take advantage of the inflation, without paying the penalty in higher prices, which is what we see from it.  While the government gets to have its cake and eat it too, we are left to starve as a result of their reckless actions.

So back to taxation without representation… inflation is a tax.  It is a tax because it is a way in which the government takes hard earned money from citizens.  It is a very insidious form of taxation because the government can do it without most people even recognizing that it is being done to them.  It is done with no regard to class, or economic standing.  It damages the wealth of all individuals equally as a universal percentage of value taken from every dollar.  It hurts those who save, because it decreases the buying power of their savings.  Inflation also keeps interest rates low, which further damages the fortunes of people who save because they cannot get a decent interest rate on a savings account, or COD.  Since the inflation is carried out by the Federal Reserve, which is a private bank, the Congress has very little control over it.  In fact, the Congress cannot even get the Fed to show all of their books.  So our elected representatives are unable to represent our interests in regard to the practices of the Federal Reserve.  This is a form of taxation without representation.

Fun fact: Since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 the dollar has lost about 97% of its buying power.

In the 1770s the taxation was direct, and everyone could plainly see what was being taken from them.  In the current era, the theft is more subtle, and few recognize it for what it is.  This needs to change.  Do not simply accept rising prices as normality.  Question it, and seek understanding.  Learn about the mechanisms used to dilute your money.  Knowledge is power.

Suggested areas of research: The Federal Reserve, Keynesian economics, fiat currency, inflation, Austrian economics, and the gold standard.

On Sunday, we should all take some time to reflect on the lives lost on that day 10 years previous, and on the lives lost since that day as a result.  Prayers and kind wishes go out to those who lost friends and loved ones in the attacks, and in the wars that followed.  When we heard the news, the foremost question was ‘why?’  Why would a group of people plan and execute such a horrific act against the United States?  We were told by our leaders that “they hate us because of our freedom”.  At the time, this was a good enough response for most.  However if we consider this more closely, it simply does not hold up.

The leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden stated his reasons for the attacks many times.  He issued statements before 2001 which mirrored his sentiments and reasoning after 9/11 took place.  We were not attacked because we are free (though as a result of the attacks we are less free).  We were not attacked because we are largely viewed as a Christian nation.  We were, according to Osama bin Laden, attacked because of our own actions.  Osama bin Laden gave three primary reasons for the attacks of 9/11:

1. U.N. sanctions imposed against Iraq.
2. The presences of U.S. Military in Saudi Arabia.
3. The U.S. support of Israel

Based on the grievances given by the Al-Qaeda leader, 9/11 was the result of a phenomenon known as ‘blowback’.  Blowback is defined as the violent, unintended consequences of military action.  The case, as presented by bin Laden fits the blowback scenario perfectly.  The U.S., in league with the U.N. helped to enforce sanctions against Iraq throughout the 1990s.  Osama bin Laden issued a fatwā in 1998 calling for a jihad against Americans.  He used all of the points listed above to justify such a calling:

“…despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million… despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.”

In that same 1998 fatwā Osama called out the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, home of the holiest sites in Islam such as Mecca.

“First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.”

He also addressed the issue of America’s interest in Israel.

“…if the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel’s survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.”

The mass murder committed on 9/11 was terrifying.  It was unjustified and it was evil beyond description.  From the prospective of our enemies, were our actions against them any more justified?  The point I seek to make is that were we in their position, with a foreign power occupying our land, barring our trade, and fostering relations with a country we did not like, would we not also be of mind to seek hostile retribution for wrongs committed against us? Let me be perfectly clear: the attacks of 9/11 were evil, and the loss of life was devastating.  Nothing can excuse such a violent and demonic act.  I am in no way seeking to absolve or justify Islamic terrorism perpetrated against the United States or any other entity. I vehemently condemn the use of violence in all by purely defensive actions generated as a response to direct hostile aggression after all other avenues have failed. I am merely suggesting that perhaps our failed policies of foreign interventionism planted the seeds of animosity from which people like Osama bin Laden, and organizations like Al-Qaeda sprung forth.

Had we as a nation followed our Constitution and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers we would not be involved with the U.N., have troops stationed anywhere overseas, or be getting involved with the affairs of another nation such as Israel.  Perhaps we as a country need to take a step back and acknowledge that our actions have consequences and that those consequences may have devastating effects.  It is exceptionally arrogant and foolish to believe that we can simply do as we please without regard to the natural rights and sovereignty of other nations and their respective peoples without repercussions.  We have been meddling in the affairs of the Middle East since the early 1950s.  Is it really any wonder that we were stung for prodding the hornets nest?  How would the citizens of the United States react if China decided to set up a base on our land and use its presence to exert influence over the practices and policies of our government?  There would be an uprising.  There would be resistance.  There would be revolt.

Instead of learning from our mistakes, we have taken the path of escalation.  We have not only retaliated against Afghanistan, where bin Laden was believed to be, but we have also entered into a pointless and unconstitutional war with Iraq, and now we have intervened in Libya. The total cost so far? According to a study by the Eisenhower Study Group, $3.8-$4 trillion is the projected total monetary cost of the wars at this point in time.  The cost in human life is far greater.  The death toll for U.S. military personnel is 6,051.  That is more than double the number of lives lost on 9/11.  The loss of life to Iraqi, Afghan, and Pakistani forces is greater at a total of 19,030.  The greatest toll, while written off by our leaders as collateral damage was upon the citizens of those regions.  Afghan citizens accounted for 12,000 to 14,000 deaths.  Iraqis suffered more than 125,000 deaths.  The people of Pakistan faced at least 35,000 killed.  These are just the number of individuals killed as a result of our unconstitutional wars.  This does not even take into account the vastly larger number of those injured and maimed.  These are human lives.  They are no more or less valuable than the life of any American, or any other person on this Earth.  Our leaders claim that we are spreading democracy, and that we are helping these people.  Obviously there exists a massive void between the intent and the execution of our “help”.  As a result of these wars, we are responsible for deaths many times in excess of those caused by the attacks of 9/11.

Aside from the moral issue of war, we are also faced with the reality that we cannot from a financial and economical position continue to expand and support our military actions.  We are bankrupt as a country.  43 cents of every dollar the government spends is borrowed.  I am not aware of the statistic regarding how much of that money was created by inflation, but given that the Federal Reserve doubled the money supply between 2007 and 2008, it stands to reason that the percentage is significant.  Meanwhile our economy is crumbling.  We simply cannot continue to sustain this “War on Terror”, which by definition cannot be won.  Terror is not a physical thing.  You cannot shoot it, blow it up, or kill it.  Terrorism is a tactic of war.  It does not take a centralized physical form which can be destroyed as is the case when war is declared upon a country.

While the cost of war resulting from 9/11 has been a horrific affront to the sanctity of human life and to the economy of the United States, the tragedy does not stop there.  9/11 was the catalyst that triggered a full-on attack against the liberty and freedom of United States citizens.  Officials in government used the emotion that was generated by this terrible event to fleece the people of liberty in the name of safety and apprehending those responsible.  The sickeningly named “Patriot” Act was passed, giving the federal government sweeping new powers which undermined the Constitution; the foundation of our Republic.  The 4th Amendment was made optional.  The government authorized itself to violate the privacy of individuals by allowing warrantless wiretaps, searches of e-mail, telephone, medical, financial, and other records.  It expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism to widen the number of activities that could be used as an excuse to exercise these provisions.  The Secretary of the Treasury was given extended authority to interfere with financial transactions.  Anyone designated as an “enemy combatant” can now be held indefinitely without being charged.  The right of habeas corpus, as specifically articulated in Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution was thrown out the window.

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” – United States Constitution, Article I, section 9

The fact that Congress decided to call this piece of legislation the Patriot Act just adds insult to injury.  There is nothing patriotic about the Patriot Act.  A bill that undermines the very foundation of our country and grossly expands the scope and power of the federal government is furthest thing from patriotic.  Patriotism is defined by Merriam-Webster as: “love for or devotion to one’s country”.  While it is true that there are many different ways of showing patriotism, it is deceitful to use the term, in addition to the events of 9/11 to foster support for a bill that so clearly violates the supreme law of our nation.  In 2009 the Missouri Information Analysis Center put out a report titled “The Modern Militia Movement” which the report presents as a domestic terrorist group.  The report lists as possible members people who supported Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr for president.  It also lists people who display images of the Gadsden Flag, which is a historic symbol frequently used by the Tea Party.  How are these people terrorists?   Supporting ideas that are not found to be in keeping with the opinion of the government does not a terrorist make.  The abuse of Americans perpetrated under the banner of the Patriot Act disgusting.

The events of 9/11 and the war gave the government new incentive to expand.  The Department of Homeland Security was created in a failed effort to facilitate communication within the U.S. intelligence and enforcement apparatus.  From the DHS, spawned the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA.  The TSA specializes in perpetrating the direct assault on privacy by humiliating Americans who seek to travel by air with invasive “patdowns” and so called “naked body scanners” capable of seeing the nude body through clothing.

In the name of fighting terrorism, we have utilized barbaric tools of physical, mental and emotional harm to extract information from suspected enemies.  In doing so, we as a country have taken part in a serious violation of human rights and human dignity.  Studies show that information obtained through torture or “enhanced interrogation” is unreliable and does not produce results any better than those of traditional interrogation.  This Republic is better than that.  We as a people are better than that.  We must condemn such atrocities and hold our nation to a higher standard.  For a nation that is to be a beacon of freedom, liberty, and prosperity to the world, we are a terrible example with our global militaristic empire and the dire state of our economy.

This Sunday, as the powerful memories and emotions of 9/11 again take hold we must focus that energy into a force for restoring liberty here at home.  No good can come of blind patriotism, but for an already bloated government.  We owe our allegiance to our country, our neighbors, our family, and the principles that made our nation great.  The true patriot seeks out the flaws of his or her nation and works to amend them.  Only a fool takes their liberty for granted and ignores wrongs while hiding behind the banner of patriotism.

Let us never forget all who perished on 9/11, or in the 10 years since.  Life and liberty are interdependent.  Without one, the other is meaningless.  9/11 represents a great loss of both to the citizens of the United States.  Let us never forget.

So who is Rick Perry?  Is he just another man running in an already broad field, or is he truly the candidate to beat?  Is he really the kind of person we want in the White House?  Does he have a consistent and Constitutional stance on the issues?  These are a few of the questions that will be addressed as we delve into Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Perry.

♦♦♦

Personal Life

James Richard “Rick” Perry was born on March 4, 1950 in Paint Creek, TX.  His father was a Democrat, which is the party Rick Perry held to until 1989.  He was an Eagle Scout, and graduated high school in 1968.  He went on to attend collage at Texas A&M University and graduated in 1972 with a bachelor’s degree in animal science and a GPA of 2.5.  Perry married his childhood sweetheart Anita Thigpen in 1982.  They have two children, Griffin and Sydney.  Rick served in the US Air Force from 1972-1977 departing with the rank of Captain.  Perry grew up in the Methodist church and is a member of Tarrytown United Methodist Church.

♦♦♦

Political Career

Perry states that his interest in politics began in November 1961 when he attended the funeral of US Representative Sam Rayburn (D-TX) with his father.  His political career began in 1984 with his election to the Texas House of Representatives as a Democrat representing the 64th district.  He held that seat for three consecutive two-year terms.  In 1987 Perry voted in favor of a $5.7 billion tax increase and in 1988 he supported Al Gore’s Democratic primary run and chaired his Texas campaign.  In 1989 he changed parties and became a Republican so that he could challenge the incumbent Agriculture Commissioner, Democrat Jim Hightower.  He won that election in 1990 and remained Agricultural Commissioner until 1999.  Perry next set his sights on the Lieutenant Governorship and was elected to that position in 1999.  On December 21, 2000 Perry took on the role of Governor following George W. Bush’s resignation from the position as he transitioned to the White House.  Perry has held the Texas Governorship ever since, winning reelections in 2002, 2006, and 2010.  Currently Perry is seeking the Republican Party nomination for President.

♦♦♦

Rick Perry presents himself as a fiscal conservative and uses his job creation as Governor of Texas as a main talking point.  Based on the numbers, Perry’s policies as Governor allowed the creation of 237,000 jobs between June 2009 and August 2011.  While this is an impressive number, another interesting fact comes into play.  Texas has the highest number of employed working at or below minimum wage.  The raise in job creation is largely credited to the lack of a state income tax, as well as looser regulations, anti-Union laws and Texas’ advantageously centralized location in the country.  These conditions, while they may have helped unemployment numbers in Texas would not translate to the national level.  The federal government desperately needs to deregulate the market if it hopes to see an economic turnaround, however it is doubtful that such needed deregulation will occur given the position of most Democrats and the influence of corporate lobbyists.  Most regulations are used by various parts of the market to gain unfair advantage over competitors.  In this way, many large corporations have it in their best interest to maintain current regulations.  In addition to that facet, there is also the reactionary approach to regulation.  Anytime something goes “wrong” in the market, Washington uses the problem as cause for more and more regulation and government intervention.  These are reactionary regulations.  Policies created in reaction to a problem or event are usually the worst as they are frequently based on emotion, or use the emotion of constituents to overcome what would at any other time be great opposition.  Examples of these are “Caylee’s Law” and the deceitfully named Patriot Act, respectively.

Furthermore, Perry has not given any indication of seriously wishing to abolish the federal income tax, so that Texan advantage is null and void on the national stage.  Even if he did wish to eliminate the income tax, history of his own practices would not be in his favor.  During Perry’s time as Governor of Texas he increased state government spending by $41 billion, bringing the total to about $90 billion in 2010.  In addition to this, the state debt in Texas has more than doubled during Perry’s governorship.  This is on par with what G.W and Obama have done to the national debt.  If one fact is abundantly certain, it is that we need to reduce the debt, not increase it further.  Based on Perry’s own record, he is not the man for the job.

Governor Perry has a very inconsistent record on taxes.  In 2002 when he was running for governor he faced a Democrat who pledged not to raise taxes.  Perry would not at that time make a similar pledge.  In 2004-2006 he called for, and signed into law a bill that would lower property taxes and in exchange raise taxes on companies, cigarettes, and strip club patrons.  This was done in response to the Texas Supreme Court taking issue with the previous method of utilizing property taxes to fund schools.  In 2009, Perry signed the Grover Norquist Anti-Tax Pledge, which calls for signers to “oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes”.  This comes in stark contrast to his position in 2002 when he refused to make such a pledge.  A shift like this almost seems as if calculated for a 2012 presidential run.  Under the new banner of total tax increase abstinence Perry will find himself in good company as all of his competitors recently stated in a debate that none of them would sign a tax increase as President; even if it were accompanied by a 10:1 spending cut.

Perry was the lead proponent of the Trans-Texas Corridor, which was a proposal to create a super-highway which would have created a direct connection between Texas and Pacific ports in the south of Mexico.  The Corridor was also to form the southern portion of the NAFTA Superhighway, which aimed to connect Mexico and Canada.  These projects have come under heavy fire as bent on undermining American sovereignty.

Rick Perry has a dismal record on illegal immigration, which is rather unsettling when we consider that he is governor of a state heavily affected by illegal immigration.  In 2001 he praised the enactment of a statute that provided in-state tuition pricing to the children of illegal immigrants saying:

We must say to every Texas child learning in a Texas classroom, “we don’t care where you come from, but where you are going, and we are going to do everything we can to help you get there.” And that vision must include the children of undocumented workers. That’s why Texas took the national lead in allowing such deserving young minds to attend a Texas college at a resident rate.

Perry also opposes the creation of a boarder fence, favoring instead the use of technology and “boots on the ground”.

In February 2007 Perry issued an executive order which made it mandatory for girls in Texas to receive the Gardasil vaccine against HPV, a sexually transmitted disease that can lead to cervical cancer.  The order resulted in national media attention and much outrage among people all over the country.  At the time, Gardasil was the only FDA approved HPV vaccine.  After the executive order it was brought to light that Perry had close ties to Merck, the manufacturer of the vaccine.  Aside from the serious conflict of interest here, we must also consider the much more damning and dangerous idea that the government, or in this case a single politician can dictate what citizens must put into their bodies.  This idea is very caustic to the concept of personal liberty.  Thankfully the Texas legislature recognized this and overturned the executive order in May of 2007, which Perry did not veto, knowing that if he did, the legislature would have the resources to overturn it.

During the 2008 election cycle Perry endorsed Rudy Giuliani for the Republican presidential nomination.  This is concerning given that of the candidates in that race, Giuliani was among the candidates least qualified to run the country.  Giuliani was the mayor of New York City during the attacks of 9/11.  This does not make him worthy of the presidency.  Furthermore, it became quite evident in the primary debates that Giuliani was a very straight party-line war monger like all of the other candidates, excluding Ron Paul.  After Giuliani dropped out of the race, Perry immediately threw his weight behind John McCain.  Again, another very pro-war candidate who’s views differed very little from his predecessor George W. Bush.

In 2007 Perry caused another wave of controversy among some people by attending the Bilderberg conference which was held in Istanbul and meets annually in different locations.  The Bilderberg meeting is a private, invitation-only gathering of around 100 of the most wealth and influential people from governments, corporations, banks, and the media.  The meeting is closed and very secretive, which has led to the belief by some that it serves a nefarious purpose.

So there we have it.  Rick Perry.  He’s inconsistent on taxes.  He has no plan for addressing illegal immigration, and in fact supports policies that encourage it.  He more than doubled the Texas state debt.  He has a record of seizing power to undermine the liberty of citizens.  He is not a Constitutional choice for president.  He talks a good talk, but even a brief glance at his record brings forth serious contradictions.  Rick Perry stands for the establishment and will no doubt receive their full support.  He may well become the candidate to beat in the Primary.  Let us hope that the fact of his record will be his undoing to make way for a more suitable candidate.  We have already had 8 years with a cowboy in the White House.  We have no need of more.

Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom by Ron Paul

Photo by Gage Skidmore

In Congressman and Dr. Ron Paul’s latest book he tackles alphabetically 50 of the issues that he believes are the most important to the cause of liberty.  Each of the 50 issues commands its own chapter, beginning with Abortion and ending with Zionism.  The format of this book enables a more in depth look at the issues, unlike Rep. Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto which provides a more general, wide angle view of the liberty message.  While the format breaks the content up, the underlying message of individual liberty and freedom still pulls everything together nicely.  Dr. Paul makes it clear how each issue relates to the central theme.

Relating his personal experiences as well as citing numerous sources Dr. Paul builds a solid case for each of the issues he touches upon.  Some of the issues are more riveting then others, and some seem to have a stronger personal significance to the author.  In the very first chapter, dealing with the subject of abortion, Dr. Paul relates his experience as an OB/GYN resident during the 1960s in a time when abortion was still illegal.  He tells how he witnessed both sides of the issue, giving a powerful account of a 2lb newborn who was left in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe while it was ignored by the medical personnel until the crying eventually stopped.  He went on to describe in another room how a premature baby was delivered and how everything possible was done to save the life of this child, while the other was simply left to die.  It is clear that the moral implications of this had a profound effect on Dr. Paul’s view of the abortion issue.  He explained how abortion allows for a subjective view of human rights and personal liberty.  It allows a human to arbitrarily decide the worth of another human life based solely on its developmental state.  This concept stands in glaring contradiction to the principles of liberty, which are based on all people being of equal worth, regardless of age, race, gender, or any other characteristic.

The book touches on a mix of issues, some of them being of a more political nature such as taxes, monetary policy and terrorism, as well as a number of moral and intellectual issues that play into politics and government like demagogues, envy, moral hazard, the noble lie, etc…  These intellectual topics all provide a new prospective on the political system and encourage further thought on how it works, how it became what it is today, and how we can steer it back to its original purpose.  They are what really make this book interesting.  Many talk about the political issues, but few challenge the intellectual principles in the way Ron Paul does in this book.

The chapter on moral hazard was particularly interesting to me.  Rep. Paul explains that the term originated as an insurance term which referred to the change in ones behavior after acquiring insurance.  In other words the tendency for someone who has insurance to engage in risky behavior is greater than it would have been previous to owning insurance.  The modern meaning, according to Dr. Paul came into being in the 1960s and is used to describe the unintended ramifications of governmental interference in the free market.  He presents a case for the definition of moral hazard being widened to include the unforeseen consequences of all government policies.  This is a fair argument given that we can see the moral repercussions of government action nearly everywhere we look.  Welfare is a good example.  It breeds reliance on government to provide for all needs.  The idea of providing for those less fortunate is a noble endeavor — that is unless the government is doing it.  First, the government does not have the Constitutional authorization to offer handouts to anyone.  While the cause may be noble, the execution and consequences are not.  Nothing is free and government welfare is no exception.  The government does not produce anything; therefore anything it gives it must have first taken.  So we see how a morally attractive policy results in stealing from many either in the form of direct taxation or inflation to benefit the few.  This same concept can be applied to those at the opposite end of the wealth scale who benefit from so-called “bailouts”.  I would suggest that a significant majority of the issues we face today are a result of the moral hazard created by well-intentioned policy.

I enjoyed reading this book greatly.  As someone who has been closely following Ron Paul since the early stages of his 2008 Presidential bid I was already well acquainted with his positions.  The added insight and background information provided in this book gave me a more thorough understanding of those positions and provided a peek into Dr. Paul’s personal experiences that I felt added a powerful new dimension to the subject matter.  For someone who is relatively new to Dr. Paul’s ideas, this book provides a very good granular look at the issues and does well to answer more specific questions related to them.  For readers seeking a more general overview, I would recommend reading The Revolution: A Manifesto first.

While some parts may border upon dull depending on the interests of the reader this book is an excellent read for anyone interested in a Constitutionally limited government, and the principles of liberty.  Dr. Paul provides a smart, well developed premise and succeeds in pulling all 50 topics together as they relate to liberty in a way that any reader can understand.  This book is recommended highly!

Amazon Link: Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Effect Our Freedom by Ron Paul

For more about Ron Paul: Who is Ron Paul?

In recent history some important top stories have been influenced heavily by the bias of news organizations.  One that everyone is likely familiar with is the trial of Casey Anthony.  Judicially she was found “not guilty” of the murder of her daughter by a jury of her peers.  In the court of public opinion, Casey Anthony was well… utterly crucified.  This was largely precipitated by the mainstream media reports on the trial, personalities such as Nancy Grace, and even some celebrities.  Whether you are in agreement with the outcome or not, the system worked in the case of Ms. Anthony.  If anything can be said to have failed it would be only the prosecutor’s case.  The point is that the media has incredible power to shape the opinions and views of the public.  This power should not be taken lightly, and its abuse should not be tolerated by those possessing the fortitude to question the information being fed to them.  Wielding this influence, the news apparatus is capable of bending public opinion to its every whim.  This idea becomes all the more disturbing when we consider that all of the world’s leading news sources are owned by a handful of obscenely wealthy elites with close ties to government and banking institutions.  Everyone has an agenda, and the more avenues one has available to push their agenda, the more influence one can exert toward meeting one’s goals.  This is particularly true of mainstream media, where all sources of information are practically monopolized with each news organization essentially parroting the words of the others.

A most unsettling media bias was brought to light this past weekend.  Saturday, August 17, marked the date of the Republican Straw Poll in Ames, Iowa.  This event is widely watched by the media as the first real test of Republican candidates for President.  The poll can make or break a campaign depending on the results.  This year was no exception.  The winner was Michelle Backmann.  Following the results of the poll she has been all over the media, on countless interviews and the subject of many talk shows and newspaper articles.  Coming in third was Tim Pawlenty, followed by Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Rick Perry (as a write-in), Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, and Thaddeus McCotter, respectively.   Tim Pawlenty decided to drop out of the race as a result of his third place showing.

Take a moment and read those results again.  Notice anything?

Yes, that’s right.  There was no mention of the candidate who finished second by less than 1/10 of a percent.  A man many are likely familiar with, but few in the mainstream care to acknowledge, as evidenced by the utter media blackout following his virtual tie for victory in the poll.  The gentleman to whom I elude is none other than 12 term Texas Congressman and doctor Ron Paul, who finished with 4,671 votes; a mere 152 votes behind Michelle Bachmann.

This is blatant media bias. From: http://www.journalism.org/numbers_report/are_media_ignoring_ron_paul

For those unfamiliar with Rep. Paul, he served in the US Air Force as a flight surgeon before going into private practice as an OB/GYN.  This marks the third occasion he has run for the Presidency.  His previous runs were in 1988 as a Libertarian, and in 2008 as a Republican.  His 2008 run gave birth to the “Ron Paul REVOLution” and is credited with creating the foundation that became the Tea Party.  He has a record of constancy in his voting as a Congressman that is second to none.  He takes a strict Constitutional approach to government.  As a result he opposes the current interventionist foreign policy if the United States and favors the recommended policy of the Founding Fathers; free trade with all, no entangling alliances or interference with the affairs of other nations.  He is also a strong advocate of monetary reform, free market economics and a return to the gold standard.  Dr. Paul takes a libertarian approach to social issues and believes that most should be left to the states.

As the title character of the film ‘V for Vendetta’ put it, “Ideas are bulletproof”.  Ron Paul has ideas about liberty and the country that no other politician in modern times has offered.  His ideas on the economy and US foreign policy, (which he has been vocal about for decades) alone make him worthy of your attention.  Current events now fully confirm and vindicate his long-held positions, and for that he deserves consideration by every discerning American.  He has been praised as a “modern day Thomas Jefferson” and has well earned his title as the “Champion of the Constitution”.

It is the job of the citizenry of the United States to select their next President.  It is the job of the news media to supply the citizenry with unbiased information on the candidates so that the citizenry can make an educated choice.  While it is understandable that certain candidates who consistently perform poorly in polls may not command much media attention, it is without question a total absurdity that a candidate who performs well in every poll in which he is included should be found in such a state of neglect.  Americans have a right to hear about Ron Paul, just as they have a right to hear about every other candidate running.  Perhaps it is more important that people hear about Ron Paul as he is the orange in the bushel of apples we call the Republican field.  He is unique among his peers.  This is why the media shuns him.  He is deemed an anomaly; a specter, who if ignored will simply cease to exist.  The political machine cannot allow Ron Paul to receive his due.  He already claims as his own a very well organized and passionate following.  Should his ideology gain traction in the mainstream and become accepted by the masses, it would be nothing short of catastrophic for the bloated establishment and its ever-increasing thirst for war, spending, and international power.

As always, the goal of those with power is generally to maintain and expand that power at all costs.  Our government’s ever growing lust for control can only continue at the expense of liberty.  To facilitate the continued fleecing of the American people, the government must convince us not to resist.  More precisely, those in power must convince the populace that what they are doing is actually for the good of the people and anyone opposing that notion must be dismissed as harsh, uncaring, lacking compassion, inhuman, selfish, and evil.  The media is a vital tool utilized to bring about such a mindset by making it fashionable to comply.  By spinning stories, appealing to the emotions of the audience and erecting straw men to then knock down the media purveys the propaganda necessary to lull the citizenry into oblivion.  The dangers inherent in this manipulation are obvious and have many unrealized ramifications which damage liberty at every conceivable level of American civilization.

Regardless of the media’s best attempts to paint Dr. Paul as “fringe”, “crazy”, or simply “unelectable”, it is far too early in this race to count anyone out; especially someone who has current events and history validating his positions at every turn.  The best the establishment can hope is to snuff out these ideas before they have the opportunity to broadly cultivate in the minds of Americans.  Unfortunately for them, Pandora’s Box is already open.  Slowly the spark of liberty is reigniting in the hearts of Americans and soon enough the establishment will meet its rightful end.

It is necessary that time be taken to conduct proper research and fact checking.  The establishment media seeks to provide for their own interests by maintaining the status quo, and in doing so is severely undermining the foundations of liberty.  They will do this by selecting the candidates that support their interests (Perry, Romney, Obama) and displaying those select candidates in a positive light and as “field leaders” as they work to silence and marginalize those who are hostile to the establishment agenda (Paul).  This is why the media immediately jumped on Rick Perry’s announcement that he would be joining the race and began parading him around as “top tier” along with Bachmann and Romney on the very first day of his official campaign!  The media is picking favorites and essentially doing their best to rig the election.

Thomas Jefferson stated in a letter to Dr. James Currie in 1786 that, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”  Sadly the press we see today has been limited, and therefore lost.  The press was lost when it gave up reporting the news in favor of spewing the propaganda of establishment associates.  The information fed to us is tainted and cannot be relied upon.

In the interest of liberty and saving our country from itself, everyone should consider Ron Paul as a viable and worthy candidate for the office of the President of the United States of America .  Research his points.  Research the Federal Reserve, Keynesian economics vs. Austrian economics, foreign policy, terrorism, the gold standard, fiat currency etc… His ideas deserve serious thought.  The fact that the mainstream media is terrified of him should be a big indication of his significance as a candidate.