Something to Hope For

Instead of attacking Obama and his supporters, Ron Paul congratulates the President elect using Obama's own message of hope as a challenge. He challenges the new administration with something concrete to hope for:

• Hope for less divisiveness through recognizing individual achievement over group-think and identity politics
• Hope for free markets without Government intervention
• Hope for prosperity through American productivity without Government controls, regulations, and corporate cronyism
• Hope for sound money
• Hope for peace and diplomacy
• Hope for national sovereignty
• Hope for a nonintervention foreign policy

These are the standards that "we the people" should use to judge the new administration. If we can keep these points of "hope" in front of the public view and measure Obama's progress against these, we have a mechanism to help others see the false hope they succumbed to.

Dollar Standard Coming to an End

Ron Paul talks about what he thinks will be discussed during the Global Economic Summit that is occurring this weekend. He thinks they will discuss the internationalization of a central bank combined with a new monetary system to replace the failing dollar standard.

Lexington KY Smoke Free? Bingo!

Apparently it is time to shorten the leash of freedom a bit more in Lexington. It has been four years since the original smoking ban was passed by city council. The council will hold a public forum on October 23, 2008 to discuss the additional restrictions.

Crazytown USA

Peter Schiff, author of "Crash Proof" has accurately predicted the housing bubble. However, the so called experts at CNBC loved to laugh at him. But, now they don't laugh so loud.

I'm a Man of Means by no Means

Regardless of your position on the debate between a fiat monetary supply system or a gold-backed standard, you have to admit that those currently in charge of the money supply are destroying our wealth. In 1983, Ron Paul argued against the fiat monetary system believing it took the power away from those that created the wealth and gave it to those that printed the paper that represented the wealth. For Ron Paul, misrepresentation of wealth is a moral issue.

Trailers for sale or rent

Rooms to let, fifty cents

No phone, no pool, no pets

I ain't got no cigarettes

Ah, but two hours of pushin' broom

Buys an eight by twelve four-bit room

I'm a man of means by no means

King of the road

-Roger Miller / King of the Road

It's Just a Little Liquity

Thanks to Bob Lancaster.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&referralObject=3147244

Send In Martin Sheen

to take down Colonel Kurtz...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ItC_nT4rS8

Sleep Walking

Bill Huff writes on Lew Rockwell's blog:

The rest of the world is watching our financial debacle right now – and someone is learning from it you can be sure. Do you think the Russians and the Chinese are completely ignorant regarding how the US is ignoring its own principles, laws, and Constitution in a Naked attempt to consolidate a Global Fascist Hegemony? They can read our Constitution; compare it to our behavior, and realize the world can only become less safe and less secure if we continue to abandon our first principles. No clairvoyance is required to recognize the fact that someone must do something – sooner or later – to curb the trend toward global domination.

Let there be no mistake, our Globalist efforts, whether through war or Global Socialism, are endeavors of world domination. One does it through force and the other through the dependency of entitlements. They both manipulate their audience through false pretense. The war mongers use fear and the Socialist hide behind the guise of good will and brotherly love.

As Huff points out, even though the American people are sleep walking, other countries are awake to what is happening. I guess it is easier to see from the outside. Will the United States succeed in World Domination where others have failed? I think not. The question is who will stop it, those within, or those outside? For the sake of liberty it must be done within. Our job is to wake up and then shake others out of their sleep walking torpor.

Is There Only One Choice for President?

Do we have a real choice from the two-party system? Should we consider the third-party candidates? But, none of the third-party candidates have a chance to win. Most people are not familiar with the third-party platforms or their candidates. If you are like many people, you are not satisfied with either candidate from the two main parties, but you will vote either Republican or Democrat primarily to vote against the party that is most evil in your eyes. You may even be aware of a third-party candidate that represents your views, but since they don’t have a chance to win, you fall back to your two-party strategy.

What would you do if the two candidates and the two parties were exactly the same? By that, I mean exactly the same on all the issues. They look different, their presentation styles are different, they focus on different issues, but deep down, they have the same position on all the issues. Would you still vote for one of them? I have to believe most of us would not because now they embody that which we despise.

The candidates for the upcoming presidential race are not exactly the same. But, how much different are they? Most importantly, how much different do they need to be in order to get your vote?

As Ron Paul pointed out in his opening statement at the September 9th National Press Club:

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both party’s candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there’s "not a dime’s worth of difference" between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as
independents.

The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.

Is Ron Paul right? If the debates between Obama and McCain are conducted similarly to the Republican and Democrat primary debates, it will be hard to disagree with him. Seldom did the narrators ask a question of any real substance and if they did, the candidates basically gave the same answer. Afterwards, the political pundits mostly argued about which one stated it more eloquently or which one looked "presidential."


It is obvious even to the most casual observer that both McCain and Obama have made great efforts to attract supporters from both sides. It's almost humorous to watch them walk the tight rope of pandering to their political base and at the same time trying to appeal to the moderates. So, if the two-party system can't be trusted as a means to differentiate candidates, by what mechanism should we judge politicians?



W. Cleon Skousen wrote in his book, "The 5000 Year Leap": "It is extremely unfortunate that the writers on political philosophy today have undertaken to measure various issues in terms of political parties instead of political power... It is popular in the classroom as well as the press to refer to "Communism on the left" and "Fascism on the right."" He goes on to say, "Communism and Fascism turned out to be different names for approximately the same thing - the police state. They are not opposite extremes but, for all practical purposes, are virtually identical."

He points out that the founding fathers used a different means of measurement. For them, "the yardstick is not political parties, but political power. Using this type of yardstick, the American Founders considered the two extremes to be ANARCHY on the one hand, and TYRANNY on the other...They recognized that under the chaotic confusion of anarchy there is "no law," whereas at the other extreme the law is totally dominated by the ruling power and is therefore "Ruler’s Law." What they wanted to establish was a system of "People’s Law," where the government is kept under the control of the people and political power is maintained at the balanced center with enough government to maintain security, justice, and good order, but not enough government to abuse the people."


So, are the candidates from the two-party system different enough for you? Should you consider one of the third-party candidates (Barr - Libertarian, McKinney - Green Party, Baldwin - Constitution Party, or Nadar - Independent)? At least consider the "real issues." Make a choice based on a candidate that is most in line with your values and measure the candidates against a yardstick that has real meaning, one that allows you to accurately position all the candidates. Don't waste your vote on someone who doesn't represent your political philosophy. Vote for a person, not a party. If you are still worried that one of the two-party candidates is the modern day Hitler, use something like Vote Pact that gives you the opportunity to vote for someone you really like without jeopardizing your efforts to defeat the evil one.

Daily Paul - A Ron Paul Republican No More!

Today, on the Daily Paul forum there was an article titled "A Ron Paul Republican No More!" It's not what it sounds like. The "No More" in the title refers to being a Republican. The author, Michael Nystrom, explains his disgust with the Republican Party. He decided to abandon the Republican Party as a future means to promote Dr. Paul's message of liberty.

I'm writing about Mr. Nystrom's article because it relates to yesterday's entry, "Liberty - A Philosophical Argument". Mr. Nystrom explains how his involvement in the Ron Paul campaign gave him an appreciation for liberty. He writes, "One of the most important things I've taken away from the last 18 months is (surprised?) personal freedom and liberty. Without understanding the nature of personal freedom and liberty, we cannot ever hope to build a free nation."

Although he decided to abandon the Republican Party, he wanted the reader to know that this was his choice and he did not pretend to know the best methods for other Ron Paul supporters. He writes, "Like Dr. Paul, I don't want to control your life, or coerce you into thinking that I know what the best path is for you. There is only one person who knows that, and that is you".

It is clear to me that Mr. Nystrom understands the benefits of liberty. For the full article go here.

Liberty - A Philosophical Argument

As humans, what sets us apart from all other animals is our self awareness. It gives us the ability to identify our individual existence and makes us aware of our personal responsibilities. But, most interestingly, it forces us to create a philosophy. This philosophy becomes the blue print by which we live. We use it to make decisions and decide right from wrong. Everyone has a philosophy whether they admit it or not. Some philosophies are more advanced than others and enable its owner to live a more effective life. Effective philosophies have a strong sense of self awareness. These philosophies are based on the axiom that we are individuals with a moral responsibility for one thing -- ourselves. We cannot be responsible for others because we are not fully aware of their existence. Therefore, the best philosophies recognize the inability to effectively control others because we don't have complete awareness of those outside the self.

What does this mean? It means the best philosophies value freedom -- freedom to live according to our philosophy and freedom for others to live according to their philosophy. Since no one can effectively control others outside their awareness, the best philosophies promote and protect every one's right to be free according to their own self awareness. This is the best means to protect our own freedom and live a fully effective life. If we don't protect and respect the freedom of others, we jeopardize our own freedom by enabling others to do the same.

Therefore, our freedom to control is limited to our self. To maintain that freedom we must confine our control to only that which we are completely aware. By protecting the freedom of others, we protect our own freedom and we all live more effective lives together. As Ron Paul says, "freedom brings people together." In fact, that is why so many people are attracted to Ron Paul's message. He doesn't want to control anyone or anything outside of himself. In that way, Ron Paul is not a typical politician. In fact, he really isn't a politician; he is a philosopher who uses politics as an avenue to protect his own freedom.

The founding fathers realized this and that is why they constructed the Constitution. It is the best set of rules ever created to protect the freedom of those who agree to participate in a society of self responsible people. It is an agreement of liberty between people. It is an agreement to live free and respect the freedom of others. It is the philosophy of our society.

Unfortunately, those with a less advanced philosophy have taken control of this country and they do not adhere to the Constitution and its underlying philosophy of liberty. They are not advanced enough to see the beauty that results from it. Their philosophy is flawed because they cannot see how liberty for all ensures them the most effective existence. They fail to see that being a pilot of their own life doesn't make them a good pilot for someone else. They over extend the power and control their self awareness gives them. They don't respect the ability of individuals to effectively control their own existence. Fundamentally, they don't understand the benefits of liberty.

So, this blog is intended to help explain and promote those benefits. We must help others understand that liberty is the essential philosophy for a successful society of individuals. Please be aware, because of its nature, liberty cannot be forced. We can only explain it and promote it in hope that others will see its beauty.

To repair liberty, we must:

1. Live Free - be true to ourself -be self aware, honest to ourself, and respect our abilities
2. Agree to Liberty - allow others to live according to their own self awareness and agree to protect this right
3. Promote Liberty - help others see its benefits

Also see The Philosophy of Liberty.