-
My Presidential Pick – Dr. Ron “The Constitution” Paul
23 Jan 2012 by Jessica Hughes in Balance of Power, Economics, Education, National / 50 Comments
I have offered an open invitation for any reader to plug your preferred candidate here at the website and look forward to the submissions. I have struggled with whether or not to share my own choice and the reasons for it, because I recognize the diversity of our readership, and want to respect it. Much of the reader base resulted from our Tea Party activities in East Texas and I know from experience we run the spectrum in our concerns and therefore those we believe best able to address them. In fact I have run the spectrum myself in the three years or so since I was thrust into politics.It was the very nature of my awakening that eventually convinced me I should share my thoughts on who I will support for President of the United States of America.
Some readers may recall that in 2008 I was interrogated by the Secret Service (see here, here, here, here, here) on the basis of a lie told by an anonymous supporter of Barack Obama. The arrival of agents of the Federal Government on my doorstep, 20 hours after receiving an unsolicited call from the Obama Campaign – their probing inquiries demanding to know how I felt about the then-Senator, the large file they had with my name on it, the fact that I was not allowed to confront my accuser in a court of law, their veiled threats to humiliate me within my community if I refused to cooperate, and the fact that there was no record of the alleged offense except the complaint of a partisan – all of this disturbed me in a way so profound that there are simply no words to express it.
As recently as this past April I was stunned to find that the Department of Homeland Security had frozen my bank account. I received no notice of wrongdoing. I received no notification this would transpire. All I received was an apologetic call from my boss who told me she had spent two days on the phone with the company’s bank trying to send through my direct deposit only to be told in the end Homeland Security had the account under review. After two weeks the account was released and I’ve heard nothing since.
All of this was done under the Orwellianly named PATRIOT Act. Under this act Federal Agents have the authority to search you, your home, your finances without warrant, one of the foremost offenses of the British leading up to our Revolution. They have the authority to break into your home and steal ‘evidence’ and plant wiretapping devices then ransack it to look like a burglary. Just one egregious example which has come to light shows the FBI spending seven years tapping, following, video taping and spying on Scott Crow, an Austin, TX political activist. The surveillance involved installing a video camera across from his home, tracing the plates of cars that belonged to visitors, reading emails, parking across the street for hours “observing” and infiltrating his circle of activists with 5 spies.
Back when I warned on this site of the dangers of the PATRIOT Act some were skeptical and argued that we had to have these rules to keep us safe from terrorists. They also reminded me that if I had done nothing wrong I need not worry. Despite the fact that no attack has been carried out since 9/11 here – a circumstance that some might chalk up to the success of shredding our Constitution – apparently the power displayed in the example of Scott Crow is not enough for the bipartisan Congress. Two years ago they openly discussed allowing the CIA to assassinate US citizens and now they have passed the National Defense Authorization Act, both of which I cautioned against in the same article. Under NDAA the U.S. Military can incarcerate a U.S. Citizen taken on U.S. soil without charges, without a lawyer, without a trial; and they can hold that citizen on suspicion of “belligerence” (no, I don’t know what belligerence means in the context of the bill because it is given none, I assume to allow for it to mean any damn thing these sociopaths want) for “as long as the U.S. or any of her allies is engaged in hostilities.” Now I do know what that means. It means “Until Jesus returns with the Millennial Reign” because that’s when there will be world peace and not before.
Critics of these laws claim they destroy our fourth or fifth or sixth amendment rights. They are downplaying the danger. The truth is these laws effectively negate every right you have under the Constitution and by merit of being the Creation of a loving God. Under these laws the government needs to give no evidence of your wrongdoing to incarcerate you. You will not have an attorney or a public trial in which to air your grievance. Many of us, because we have never been on trial, do not understand how all rights hinge on the right to a public trial of your peers. It is for this reason: Suppose you speak out against the government and they throw you in jail. Then your friends, family, and the press come to your trial and see that there is no evidence against you. These are your allies and the trial your weapon against a system that would wrongfully imprison you. Without this trial your freedom of speech, to practice your religion, of privacy; all these are unenforceable when the powers that be can simply make you disappear.
I can’t help but wonder, were NDAA law in 2008 would it still have been the Secret Service that showed up at my door? Or might it have been Military Police? Many of my conservative brethren feel confident that these laws are there for our protection. They are happy enough when Mitt Romney says he supports NDAA and that he would never abuse the power of indefinite detention. The only problem with that is Mitt Romney (if he wins and if he’s being honest) still won’t be president forever. Do you really want the prospect of gulags and concentration camps to hinge on the next presidential election? Do you feel America has that great of a track record in electing only people of the highest moral fiber to office; so terrific that you would bet the freedom of your children upon it?
In Nazi Germany it didn’t happen all at once. First the job a Jew could hold was limited – but no one revolted. Then the amount of money Jews could have was limited – but no one revolted. Then they were evicted from their homes and moved to communal housing developments – but no one revolted. Then a wall was built around them – but no one revolted. Then trains pulled up to take them to concentration camps – and it was too late to revolt. If we leave these laws in place, we are essentially a plug-and-play dictatorship – a Nazi Germany just waiting for a Hitler. And once he is elected the purges that will be legally within his grasp (remember everything Hitler did was codified in law) will negate any resistance we might have to his plans. It will be too late to revolt. The eventual restoration of liberty will be costly in the blood of your descendants; but you have a chance to stop it now absolutely free of violence.
There is just one man who stands against these atrocities; these most un-American savageries of the Constitution: Ron Paul.
I could fill an entire other column with rebuttals to claims that he is an isolationist (he’s not) or that his foreign policy is dangerous (Israeli PM Ben Netanyahu, the director of Israeli Intelligence Mossad, and the top two CIA agents who worked the Bin Laden case say he’s right) and that he cannot win the election (he ties with Romney head to head against Obama while the other candidates lose by 15% or more) and maybe I will. But for now suffice it to say that I am far more afraid of what my own government is becoming than of anything happening in the Middle East. Not one other person on the ballot objects to big government and has a record to prove it and not one of them recognizes (or admits to recognizing) the dangers inherent in structuring a Police State reminiscent of the worst regimes of modern history. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini: these are not role models for America no matter how afraid we are of terrorists. In your primary, and in November, I urge you to vote to legalize the Constitution. Vote for your children to live in peace, prosperity, and freedom. Vote for Ron Paul.
About the Author: Jessica Hughes
-
50 Comments
William D. Chavis
While I agree with Ron Paul on much more than I disagree it is unfortunate the main disagreement is one I cannot compromise. Not in the least bit will I support Ron Paul for the simple reason he will not regulate our military in no other means than to defend our shores of the USA. He is so very dangerous and silly to think our nation is isolated as in WW II or before.
Ron Paul is dangerous to think we should not be pro active with our troops in strategic sites as Saudia Arabia, Japan, Korea, or other places around the world. He has very dangerous and unsafe ideas of how to best protect our USA. I don’t believe he would side with Israel in the event Syria, Iran, Iraq and other islamic allies come to forces and destroy Israel as Ahmadinijad is determined.
Ron Paul cares less if Iran obtains the nuclear bomb thinking they will not use it or award the same to some silly suicide pilot or person to destroy THOUSANDS and untold destruction.
Ron Paul’s other liberal ideas concerning legalizing marijuana and his abortion stance are far apart to that of the GOP and this conservative voter as well.
All other things regarding the Federal Reserve and such he is right as rain. But the things I mentioned trump his good attributes negating my vote for him.
The other three I can live with. Personally, I favor Newt Gingrich thinking he is a little more conservative than Santorum. Mitt comes in last of the three. I will vote for one of those three but NEVER vote for Ron Paul under any circumstances.
23 Jan 2012 11:01 pm
Eve Marie
My vote is for Ron Paul and Ron Paul only. He's the only one who deserves my vote. I agree with him, we shouldn't be all over the world. Let's bring our troops home from Germany and Korea and put them on OUR border. Let them spend their checks in OUR economy. Just who appointed the USA as "keeper of the world"?
He is the ONLY candidate knowledgable enough to correct our economy. He's the only one willing to make the cuts necessary. The only one who understands the size the federal government should be reduced to.
I'm with you 100% Jessica. He is, IMO, our ONLY hope.
24 Jan 2012 07:01 pm
t.j. hopson
i just have to say that i disagree with most of what you've said, mr chavis. i won't vote for anyone but ron paul. jessica makes extrememly good points, but even if you don't believe them and continue to believe we need our military all over the world, how will we continue to pay for this? we are completely broke! look up what netanyahu, cia expert michael schaer (sp) have to say about israel and dr paul. and re: abortion, dr paul is completely pro-life. he delivered over 4000 babies, he wants roe v wade overturned and power returned to the states, which would effectively end abortion overnight. re: marijuana, come on, really? this shouldn't be a big issue for anyone in this day and age. i will say again, i will not vote for ANYONE but ron paul.
24 Jan 2012 12:01 pm
Lorraine Nessman
What part of Newt’s saying ‘don’t spend’, but he really does spend can you live with?
Do you think that debt is a lesser threat than the military issues?
Ya know, if we drown in debt, we won’t pull through.
OTOH, if we pull troops back home, only to realize we have to send them back out, we can fix that.
23 Jan 2012 11:01 pm
Virginia
I don’t like the Patriot Act and have written my senators and representatives more than once on the subject. I don’t like TSA radiating and groping at the airports and have stopped flying and have written on that also. Although I agree with Ron Paul’s stance on the Constitution, there are more that I do not agree with. I will stand behind anyone that gets on the ballot as the Republican candidate and help with everything I have to kick Obama’s can down the road…even if it is Ron Paul, but initially I will not vote for him. I don’t like Mitt Romney as he is a repeat of John McCain and the Democrats want him to get the nomination too much. Then there is Sanatorum….I like him, but there is just something about him that I feel would not stand up to Obama. So, that leaves me with Gingrich….everything but the kitchen sink has been thrown at him and he is still standing…he has baggage that he has drug out into the open for all to see, so he does know the meaning of transparancy, and I believe he could hold up against Obama in the debates because he will not be gentle and kind as McCain was…so, right now, my vote will go to Newt. I would have preferred a Chris Christi or Allen West, but we have to live with what we have to choose from.
24 Jan 2012 08:01 am
admin
Republicans are still voting for Newt in spite of his lies about lobbying, cheating, and being forced out of the Speakership in disgrace. Democrats and Independents are not. That's why in polls against Obama Newt loses by a landslide and that's BEFORE the Dems bust out the smear machine. Why give them a candidate with so much genuine ammunition?
24 Jan 2012 10:01 am
John Kinnaird
The thing about Newt is that he has performed in a manner that no one else has been able to. It is indisputable that in ’94 he was responsible for the Republican majority in Congress for the first time in forty uears and held it for the next term too. It is indisputable that he had a balanced budget, with a surplus, for four years running. It is indisputable that he worked diligently to get his welfare bill passed, the one that Clinton vetoed twice. Clinton finaly signed it on the third try because Dick Morris warned him he would not be reelected if he didn’t. That resulted in a lowering of the unemployment rate and a general reduction in poverty.
The socalled baggage is largelly a Democrat construct. They propounded the lie that he went to his wife who was in the hospital on her death bed and asked for a divorce. You may have seen the article by his daughter Jackie Cushman recently giving the true story. Actually, the wife had instigated the divorce. Newt had visited her in the hospital, but it was to take their two daughters there for a visit. One other thing, she was not on her death bed, really not too sick, she was out and about in a few days. Other than those misrepresentations, it was true that Newt visited her in the hospital.
Another lie propounded is that Newt was”forced out of the Speakership in disgrace”. I believe Romney used that three times in the first debate in Florida.
Actually, Newt was the victim of extreme harrassment, just as Sarah Palin was when she returned to Alaska governors office after the 2008 election. The ethic charges were all bogus except one in a letter by an attorney was questionable. New paid $300,000 to get them off his back and did not choose to continue as speaker, as the well had been poisioned.
If you know the democrats, you know how they will fight to the death to take out an individual that they are truly afraid of. They like the Republicans they can manipulate, such as many of the RINOs in congress. These are spineless and will throw a sincere worker such as Newt under the bus rather than incur the hatred of the Dems. And, the Dems don’t let up. They think of politics in the long range, and if they can hang a negative on a Republican, especially one they fear, they never let up, they will continue every chance they get to denigrate him or her. You can pick them out. They hit Sarah Palin with everything they had and have really never let up. They hit fiercely against Herman Cain and kept it up with a new, and worse one, every few days till he dropped out. They chased Newt out and have never let up with their denigration. With Paliin, they feared losing women’s votes, with Cain, it would spell their death to lose even half the black vote. With Newt, they could not afford to have a real producer, one who could make free enterprise work and start the dismantling of the socialist system they were building.
All these got their undivided attention.
When you see the Dems “working” just remenber. Their patron saint is Saul Alinske (’60′s “Rules for Radicals”), and their main tenet, in his words, is “the issuee isn’t the issue, the revolution is the issue”
24 Jan 2012 06:01 pm
William Chavis
John, I don't know you but I wish I did.
You have a very good knowledge of how dirty politics can and will get. You also know the enormous value of having Newt Gingrich at the helm and POTUS.
Here's a SALUTE to you, Sir.
25 Jan 2012 10:01 am
Eve Marie
Newt and Santorum are not even on several states ballots. There are over 500 delegates they are not even eligible for.
They are doing nothing more than wasting peoples time and money, knowing they can not win.
24 Jan 2012 08:01 pm
Becky
I’m not pleased with any of the GOP candidates. So, it may be 2008 all over again! Hold your nose and vote (like I did for McCain)! This is NOT what we need, when our country has soooo much at stake!!!
I keep hoping that someone will come out of nowhere and unite us. There’s talk of Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan or Bobby Jendal jumping into the race. But at this point, it’s just talk.
24 Jan 2012 06:01 pm
Virginia
We also need to put our sights on the 23 Demorat seats that are up for election this year. We have a real chance for change if we can gain in the House and take the majority in the Senate. Then, even if we lose the Presidential vote, we can put the lame duck on the ineligible Obama....in other words, we can make his life for the next four years a living hell. He can veto and we can override his vetoes like in the Clinton days. Now, that could be very satisfying.
24 Jan 2012 08:01 pm
E
I believe the thing we should fear the most is what is going on right now in our own Government. I do not believe that we should continue allowing the Government to take our power AND our money under the guise of offering us protection. Everyday the Government proves that it is incapable of managing what it already has in it’s power. The welfare system is constantly abused, the medicare system is abused, the post office is a disgrace. We talked about the bailouts and everyone seemed to be against pouring money into broken companies that ONLY had themselves to blame for their predicament but what about continuing to pour money into the Federal Government when obviously the current system is broken, not to mention corrupt? Every time I put money away for my taxes I’m reminded that I need to send this to Washington so that they can decide who is worth helping and who isn’t. I know people who struggle, I know people who need help. Why shouldn’t I be able to use my money to help them, why should the Government decide that for me? If we are so worried about spreading democracy to the world (the claims behind our War) then why are we only in countries where we have an obvious vested interest? Why aren’t we slaughtering the oppressing forces in Africa, Heaven knows that those people could use a hand. Why aren’t we protecting people in Venezuela from Chavez? My fiance’s family is there and I cannot even begin to describe the hoops they have to jump through in order to visit here. War is not and has never been the answer. It is not our job to go in to other countries and tear down the walls and tell them to live how we want. If they want to revolt let them do it, Americans had to. I am not unsympathetic to the plights of people around the world. I feel for them, have said my prayers for them, and have cried for them, but the fact of the matter is it’s not our business. We are losing Moms, Dads, Brothers, Sisters, Wives, Husbands, and Children to these Wars and I think its time we brought them home. We can protect our own shores and our own borders. 9/11 was horrible but I’m no longer drinking the koolaid that the Government is offering that tells me these Wars are the only way to keep us safe. It certainly isn’t safe for the people we sent and I think they deserve a chance to come home and enjoy some of the Freedom we fought so hard to obtain here. We need to fix what is broken here first. I do not believe that things will get better until we can elect someone who is willing to actually cut the powerful tentacles of the Federal Government and right now I believe the only person who is trying is Ron Paul. People call him crazy and the TV stations ignore him but I think that is just because they are afraid he is right.
24 Jan 2012 06:01 pm
William D. Chavis
[9/11 was horrible but I’m no longer drinking the koolaid that the Government is offering that tells me these Wars are the only way to keep us safe. It certainly isn’t safe for the people we sent and I think they deserve a chance to come home and enjoy some of the Freedom we fought so hard to obtain here.]
Whoa...hold on for a moment to consider our nation has not seen another 9/11 aside the isolated Little Rock, AR and Fort Hood acts. Yep, that is right, not another 9/11 since 2001 when our nation was rocked on its heels.
Do you think OBL and the like suddenly and lastingly decided they had made their jihadist point of defeating the infidels in America?
Thus, they withdrew interest in further harm to our shores?
Do you think Shaik Muhammed would have 'spilled the beans' of Al Queda future ploys and the names of people near OBL without waterboarding enhanced interrogation proceedings?
Do you think GITMO is a disgrace and a recruiting manner for jihadist minded Muslims?
Well this writer does NOT begrudge GWB / Cheney one minute for keeping America safe. OH, I know the hard feelings associated with the Patriot Act from MANY Americans. HOWEVER, I am not one of those and personally Thank God for the Patriot Act. It negates senseless and long delays waiting approval of some Judge to wire tap a felon or suspected felon for one example of many other good attributes.
Finally, Freedom is NOT free. Our nation's heros buried in Normandy and other European sites would roll over in their grave to hear such rhetoric I've made reply.
America should have learned a lesson in the past 11 years that is so very true. The adage "it is best to fight them over there, than over here" rings truer than I hope you or I shall ever see again.
If you think the jihadists intentions to destroy the Jews and Christians will evaporate or diminish, it may be time for you to invest in some Arizona 'water front' property.
Less sarcastic and exact TRUTH; the war has just begun for the islamic jihadist with much patience to 'deal' with America whom they wish to destroy.
25 Jan 2012 09:01 pm
t.j. hopson
i agree e. the media is trying to marginalize him, and make people afraid to vote for him, because they know he will reform the gvt. it's a constant battle to get the right messages out there, but we are making progress.
24 Jan 2012 08:01 pm
William Chavis
What is a historian anyway? Newt claims that distinction. Well, it appears he may be keenly aware a truthful comment of another, “those who fail to heed history are doomed to repeat it”. (something like from Winston Churchill)
Let’s just take a quick snapshot of the one who has been in the Houee since 1976. (Ron Paul) copy / paste and other comments of this author.
..Of the 620 bills sponsored by Ron Paul during his long career in the House of Representatives, only four have ever made it to a vote on the House floor and only one of those became an actual law. An analysis by The Washington Post shows that Paul’s success rate of 0.2 percent falls far below that of most legislators, as Paul has chosen to stand up for his personal crusades, rather that build coalitions for more popular, but less ambitious, proposals.
Paul, who has served 11 terms in three different stages dating back to 1976, didn’t get a single law passed until 2009, when he authored a bill that allowed for the sale of a customs house in Galveston, Texas.
Okay let’s stop right here after the copy/paste above. If this clown of a GOP Rep has a long history in the House why in heaven’s name is he so ineffective? Is that a fair question? Hello What is the role of our House of Representatives anyway? Are they not ones to adopt laws and budgets? Paul has been completely invisible even lobbist avoid him.
BTW…ANYBODY can be a lobbist as most are getting a bad name for their various sponsorships. Nonetheless, Paul’s approach to lawmaking is particularly suited to not getting things done.
For a limited-government advocate like Paul, of course, his record of failure is actually a badge of honor. He has no interest in creating new programs or expanding regulations and is at great pains to spend the government’s money — normally a popular pastime in Washington. Okay, my time to say Ron Paul and his Democrat constituents have much in common to indentify and vote for any and all spendings. I do, HOWEVER, RESPECT HIS NICE VERBAL RHETORICS OF NOT creating new programs or expanding regulations. Nonetheless, it is not an equal trade in his House value with those two separate manners mentioned.
In fact, most of the bills that he does sponsor usually involve some attempt to eliminate or hamstring government activity, such as proposals to abolish OSHA, eliminate the Department of Education, and and repeal the income tax. In a world resistant to big change, bills like that have little chance of becoming law and many never get out of committee. But for Paul, the purpose is not to pad a record of small accomplishments, but to take a stand for his more radical ideas on the Constitution and the role of government. NOW, allow me to ask. Who in the right minds think Ron Paul would be any different as President? I for one do not think he has radical ideas of our constitution BUT I know he cannot and will not challenge Roe vs Wade no more than he has intentions to challengine Plessy vs Ferguson Supreme court rulings. Oh it is nice to know one does not support abortion as I feel the same. However, that belief with a President only points to his character and a snapshot of his character values regarding the unforecasted liberal bill to cross his desk. Nothing more than that. I hate to break it to you but the same applies to the 10th amendment. I well know the strong opposition to Plessy vs Ferguson and all that opposed the same. Still, it was nothing more than noise and turmoil for the Supreme court has set a precedence negating State Rights in almost every major judicial decision since. Ron Paul only demonstrates his character which I support regarding the constitution.
Does anyone out there believe we live in a time where the constitution is truly the law of the land? Well, ask those who spent time in Japanese Internment Camps near McGehee, AR about that. The Patriot Act was so initiated at a time we did not know who our enemy was. Right here in Florida they took their training to reap catastropic rewards for their suicide coward acts. Yep, the enemy was not well identified and in fact right here among us. GWB and crew did what they knew as a proactive measure the same as FDR with the Japanese Americans.
As shoot…let’s go a little further with this long notation. Does anyone out there think Obama or his legal representation will appear in Dalton County, GA Federal court to challenge his citizenship as ordered by the Federal Judge? I can assure you he will not. That is a violation and the media as well as every single GOP candidate will not challenge in fear of being labeled a ‘birther’. I betcha Ron Paul won’t say a ‘constitutional word’ and it is this week he has been commanded to appear in that court.
Paul also shows little interest in the schmoozy deal-making that is the stock and trade of most Congresspeople. Nobody succeeds at anything without building a coalition of willing partners, but as any reality show contestant might say, he isn’t there to make friends. His campaign operatives insist that won’t be a problem should he become the President and it’s clear that his approach is actually the key to his popularity among supporters. However, those who abhor D.C. gridlock can probably expect a Paul administration to attempt very little and accomplish even less.
That last sentence says it all for the loser. (Ron Paul). He is a good man but he is still a bona fide loser simply because he alone cannot generate enough noise to make changes or adopt winners. Do not vote for Ron Paul as a 3rd party candidate. However, I must vote for him if the GOP goes blind and selects him as the one to oppose BHO.
25 Jan 2012 09:01 am
william Chavis
CORRECTION: It is not Dalton County Ga but FULTON county. Sorry but the message is the same. Read below:
The White House appears prepared to ignore a recent ruling by Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi that would require President Obama to attend a birther hearing in Fulton County, Ga., on Thursday.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney outlined Barack Obama's weekly agenda on Monday, noting that the president is scheduled to hit Las Vegas, Denver and Detroit on Thursday in a whirlwind tour to talk middle class job creation.
That's not likely to sit well with Malihi, who last week rejected an effort by Obama's legal team to quash a subpoena that would require president appear in court that day. The complaint, like many others of its kind, claims Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and therefore can't be president.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports on Malihi's decision to deny the administration's efforts to counter the subpoena:
25 Jan 2012 11:01 am
admin
From the very first Congress until 1936 the Federal Government never even had a Federal Register to record the laws they passed. When the first was printed, encompassing 150 years of legislation from the signing of the Constitution to the (then) present day, the Register comprised a whopping 16 pages (see http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/the-federal-register/history.pdf). Since then, half as much time has passed again and the Federal Register as of 2010 included over 81,000 pages (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Register#Contents) It seems to me the closer you get to the Constitution the less laws you see passed at the Federal Level. Your logic says that we should embrace someone who ignores the highest law in the land in order to compromise and ‘get things done.’ I’m pretty sure that’s how we got so far from our founding principles in the first place.
25 Jan 2012 10:01 am
william Chavis
[Your logic says that we should embrace someone who ignores the highest law in the land in order to compromise and ‘get things done.’]
I don't intend to make a long debate with yet another entry on your forum. Seems like I have made far too many already. However, I must remind you of the logic of a wise ol country boy from Arkansas, "when you are knee deep in alligators is not the time to remind yourself to drain the swamp".
When three towers fell in NYC coupled with Pentagon attack plus the crash in PA brought more urgent response than the lengthy debate of Congress with the likes of Ron Paul to argue for hours upon hours and stall any sort of remedial actions. Sorry, Jessica but that is how the halls of Congress operate these days.
That is my point to remind you time is not favorable on many occassions. Enemy / terriorist agression are seldom present favorable defensive results when taking time to better analyze.
Pure and simple, we must be proactive with a strong military located in strategic parts of our world where global economy is now the rule. We have chosen a long time ago to trade and compete on a global basis where Americans reside all over this world. To withdraw our troops in those critical locations only presents those other Americans as targets like 'sitting ducks' on a pond.
I don't wish to write more detrimental things of Ron Paul but I know he is a dangerous do nothing GOP Rep that I have no idea why you believe he would be a better President. Like my daddy told me long ago from a quote he had heard, "politics makes strange bedfellows". I agree with my wise father.
25 Jan 2012 12:01 pm
Wm. Chavis
Has anyone got a clue? Our USA 2-party system is faulted even thru its flawed primary system. It appears the purpose of 2 partys is to play a blame game while convincing voters they have a choice- in short, you HAVE NO CHOICE
1-party dictator system or 2-party democratic sytem, in either case the system of organization gets 100% of the vote-
What kind of choice is that? In both systems any other party gets SHUT OUT, ala' Ross Perot in 1992. (I learned the hard way with my vote WJC surely appreciated)
In other words, the game is RIGGED to ensure powerful 10% remain in power. When Americans finally do realize "America, land of the free, just-us for all" has been false all along, there will be social upheaval.
Its already happening with OWS conflicts- when commercial property bubble bursts this year, its 2008 again.
There will be NO RECOVERY- We are in a period of global socio-economic upheaval that happens every 3 generations like ClockWork- 1860s, 1930s & 40s and 2010s
!st post war baby boomers born 1946 began to retire at 62 in Fall 2008- anything happen then?DUH
Its like this- When 4th generation arrives who is working? Newborn? Aged? Retirees? NONE of them
Leaves only 1 generation to support other 3 who are consuming, withdrawing funds from economy.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that won't work, no matter where you live on God's green earth
Sorry to tell you, a vote for Ron Paul as a 3rd party candidate is a big time losing effort. The only person to figure out that which I've eluded is a "historian" and even he will have a difficult road to change course. Sorry...
29 Jan 2012 06:01 am
Wm. D. Chavis
[Jesus never petitioned the government to enforce morality;]
I sure think you are right about that. In fact, few did petition the government as far as I can ascertain. Had they done so (with Caesar paying attention), the Roman Empire may not have collapsed within.
Actually the only reference I recall Jesus as supporting the government is found to say something like, “render unto Caesar that which he is due”. (probably not verbatim but referring to taxes)
His mother and step father Joseph were actually eroute to pay their taxes when Jesus was born. We both don’t know much of Jesus existence aside his 12 year old status and the last 3 years of his life. So, that we do know he was about doing his father’s business to spread the good news. (gospel). Jesus was concerned for the lost soul of mankind NOT the dismal condition of the Roman government doomed to fall.
Jesus was less concerned with the law of Roman’s as he was with the law of Moses and how Christians could not live by that law for salvation but by HIM as the one sacrifice for our Sin. So, yes you are correct in your opening statement but what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?
Why should our govenment have and demand high morals I is your question..huh? Well, I suppose we should go back to the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock and all those afterwards. History in my grade school taught us the settlers came to America is search of God less Catholic oppression and forced religious beliefs in Europe. So, YES America is great as our forefather’s gave the Almighty God rightful credit in the fall at THANKSGIVING. On the contrast, South America was settled by those seeking Gold not God and look at their rewards since.
Thus, our original Bill of Rights addressed the freedom of religion. I believe it was inserted for the very reason those who left the religious oppression I mentioned earlier. The Ten Commandments are noticed in our Supreme Court, scripture is written atop the Washington Monument, Legislature assemblies are opened with prayer, and many other Christian manners our forefather saw fit.
They also adopted Christian based laws that have been stricken one by one into the dirt. I can remember in my youth, it was forbidden to operate a business on the Lord’s day. (Sunday). ACLU (founded by communist Baldwin) and others have hacked away at Christian values within our government with exactly the same logic as you’ve presented.
It is sad to that which I have seen change in my years. You’re too young to appreciate those no so good moral changes we’ve made. As a result our youth have no reason or reward to walk in the Lord’s path. For example: Sunday is a weekly holiday for most all nowadays. They treat it like the last day of the week worthy of unwinding to a selfish entertainment of fishing, hunting, football, water sports, horse back riding, visitations, etc. etc. So, your comment of being the parents duty to raise their children in the way they should go is true. But extremely difficult when our government and government leaders exemplify everything immoral and against the grain of recognizing Sunday as the FIRST day of the week and due respect to HIM from whom ALL blessings flow.
I am not saying it is the duty of Obama or his succesor to demand Sunday as a day of worship and rest. NO, absolutely NOT. I am merely saying the likes of the ACLU and other worthless law interpreters have destroyed the morality of America by knocking down good Christian priniciples our government once supported.
BTW…who is in our govenment these days attempting to follow a constitution written by an entirely different culture of folks than we have now in the halls of our Legislatures. Just take a look at the 435 right now and find 2 Muslims within the count. Same with the diverse count regarding race and gender.
What we have now is a growing group of multi culture individuals trying to regulate laws in a Christian nation. Impossible….is my thoughts. Obama was right as rain when he said “America is no longer a Christian nation”. The former 93% eroded to 73% and I am confident it is even much lower than that now at perhaps 60%.
Do you attend church? If so, just look at your enrollment of members and tell me how much growth you’ve had in the past 5 years? I venture to say it will a negative and if positive in the fractions. Obama is right about that and you know it as I do.
Actually, I think America is doomed to decay within the next 8 years or less. Why, well our morals have eroded to the level of Sodom / Gomorrah. If God does not punish San Francisco soon and very soon, HE should apologize to Sodom and Gomorah in my estimations. Why, well the same is going on there as many other places in America with drugs, prostitution, perverts, and general immoralities.
So, when people ask why God has allowed such to occur in Haiti, Japan, New Orleans and soon San Francisco you can reply, God is not there for you have asked him to disappear long ago. America does not see that which I see and God is leaving this utopia because of Satan and his following. Those are Muslims (ALL of them), Atheists, and the fool who cannot distinguish right from wrong.
I ramble a lot and get off the subject a lot to when writing. So, I understand if I lose you somewhere along the way. If you come to Trinity as you’ve been invited please let me know for my wife and I would love to meet you again. Of course, I will heckle you as all others when you speak. (LOL…I would never do that)
26 Jan 2012 03:01 pm
Wm. D. Chavis
[Finally you said that Freedom isn’t Free. I would ask you what you think freedom is.]
My writing skills are lacking in many explanations. This is one of them. I guess it is my Southern speech and background. That comment is mean to say "our freedom has been purchased and it came with a very high price". We should cherish our freedom in remembrance to those who fought with their lives for us to perserve the same. Therin, is why I mentioned the graveyards in Europe.
YES, we live in a nation of many freedoms and they are free, I merely worded it in a manner one would have to read between the lines. Sorry.
26 Jan 2012 04:01 pm
admin
LOL! I would love to come to Trinity but we are living in CO now for a job. Not sure if I can make it though I am thinking about it just as a way to come visit.
I think that you are absolutely correct about early settlers living by religious laws, but you should also know that they were small, homogenous communities. So the Massachusetts Bay Colony for example,was full of very like-minded people of a particular religious bent. They punished fornication and adultery with execution for awhile, though a more merciful punishment was sometimes granted. Failure to attend the daily church service was worthy of being placed in stocks. But these people CHOSE to be there. When Quakers from the Pennsylvania Colony came into Mass Bay they (women) who proselytized were tied up and drug through the snow and dumped outside of town. A leading Quaker was drug by carriage through a freezing river and left for dead. The thing about Mass Bay is I could never live with the kind of community they established. I think there are few virtuous MINISTERS today who could. However, I respect them for this: they were only interested in maintaining the behavior within their community of families who had willingly come together to form such a strict system. They did not seek to impose that system on New York, Connecticut, or anyone else. The Quakers were free in their colony to believe differently.
Probably the most hated peoples of the colonial era were the Catholics who established much of Maryland. When our Constitution was written there was NO power given to Congress to regulate morality. Indeed even treating MURDER as a federal crime is unconstitutional. All internal police actions were left to the States or the People. The Federal government is empowered to handle disputes between states and our overseas and international issues and they are allowed to collect taxes for that purpose. A leading reason for this was the religious diversity of the Colonies. We have a tendency to look back and see our predecessors as "Christian" and want our Federal Government to make us "Christian" again. But we rarely look deeply enough to see the violence that erupted between colonies over differences in what kind of "Christian" was the right kind. If we did we would understand the wisdom of Madison and Co. in leaving religion to the STATES and the PEOPLE.
Please stop denigrating your intelligence or saying you don't speak well. You are a wonderful debater and I haven't had such fun in a long time. No College graduate here ya know! I just read... ALOT, lol. If you are interested in a deeper more detailed picture of the establishment of this great nation, Murray Rothbard has a series called "Conceived in Liberty" and it can be downloaded either text or audio for free at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. I will happily send you the links if you like.
Now what you say about the ACLU is absolutely right as well. But we have to see the root of the problem: it was the introduction of the precedent that the FED GOV could surpass the powers described in the Constitution. Giving them new powers to do the kind of things Santorum is talking about (i.e.: outlawing birth control) does not help our cause. We need to destroy their ability to control us at the state and local level. Want prayer in school? Get the government out of the school curricula. Want prayer at the state legislature? Get the Feds out of our states. Want marriage to be a respected religious covenant again? Get gov't out of 'permitting' us to wed and make people go back to their church (a system that worked wonderfully for 500 years on this continent.)
The problem with liberty is it doesn't work in half measures. And some will always use their liberty to make lousy, stupid choices like take drugs or go to prostitutes. But liberty also allows the good to flourish without constraint. It leaves us in the condition our Creator intended, with free will to be saved by His grace. It leaves us genuinely responsible for our actions rather than living as automatons to the State. But take away Liberty and you are rebelling against the natural state of humankind as God created us. Evils flow from this not the least of which is the tendency for evil men to self-select into positions of power. Think of a neighbor you know pretty well. Imagine giving him your bank account numbers, a phone extension he could listen in on, your passwords to your email and credit card accounts, and then sign a contract with him that says he will provide you with certain 'services' and will then take from you what he determines the price of those services should be. The contract says you have NO RIGHT to enforce his promise of services, but if you are unsatisfied and refuse to pay the police will come and arrest you and imprison you for breach of this contract. Would you be willing to live in this arrangement even with a neighbor or maybe a cousin you knew pretty well? I wouldn't, yet this is the relationship you now have to the absolute STRANGERS in office. I am with Ron Paul because he is the only one promising to toss out the bogus contract, return the phone extension and let me change my passwords. He is ready to return to us those freedoms men and women have died for.
Frederic Bastiat warned us that in a democracy (which is what we've devolved to) one group always plunders another group with the aid of authority. Eventually the plundered rebel and the question then is "Will those who were victims of plunder become now PERPETRATORS or will they do the right thing and ABOLISH PLUNDER. Inevitably throughout history we see those who were plundered get into power and proceed to victimize a different group. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has ever had the honesty and courage to run on a platform of ENDING THE PLUNDER. PERIOD. Democrats generally like to tax and spend while Republicans (Newt and Mitt included) have shown you lower taxes in one hand while the other reaches behind their back and cranks up the printing press. Printing money is a direct transfer of wealth from you and I to bankers who get the new money first, lend it to big businesses, make a killing, then as it gets spread down into the market prices on everything rise. You and I, the wage-earners see prices for everything we buy go up long before our wages go up so essentially the value of everything we earn is debased to the benefit of the politicians (who now have money to run more programs and thereby purchase the votes of their constituents) and their cronies in the banking and big industries. I am voting to end the plunder, end the tyranny, and restore us to a decentralized Federalist system with a powerful national defense and not an overseas military welfare state for Europe and the other 130 countries whose national defense we subsidize. I know welfare doesn't work here and logic tells me it won't work there either. The United States Defense Budget is fully 42% of the entire world's defense budgets! I am not afraid that we will be endangered by cutting the fat and plenty of military experts agree. I would encourage you to look at the relationships between Republican Leaders and the defense industry with the same skepticism you would apply to Democrats and the green industry. Because they are all fallen, sinful men as are we. There is not extra-inherently evil about democrats and we should apply the same logic to both sides of the ballot. Maybe I'll do a column on that if I can ever drag myself away from chatting with you here, lol! It'll give us a new page to debate on at least ;-)
29 Jan 2012 12:01 pm
Logan Kneeland
Time and time again I like to think about this difficulties. Actually it wasn’t even yesterday that I thought about this very situation. Frankly, what is the answer though?
30 Jan 2012 01:01 am
Wm. D. Chavis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0JCABiJxM8&feature=fvsr
The above link should help you out, son.
30 Jan 2012 12:01 pm
Leave a Comment