Thursday, October 23, 2008
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.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
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.
Monday, October 13, 2008
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
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
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.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
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: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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)