Op-Ed: The Second Great Depression?

“The issue boils down to this: Do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are being looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? ...When the chips are down, will we stand?

read more | digg story

The Meltdown Has Arrived

Dear Friends:

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

In liberty,



Ron Paul

Ron on The Bailout

A Solution for Ron Paul Supporters

I recently wrote an article titled Voting Fourth Party. In it I made a suggestion for people that were not content to pick just any ole third-party candidate. I stated that if they did not like any of the candidates or what they stood for, they could instead write in the name of the person they DID want to be President.

read more | digg story

Barack Obama’s Acceptance Speech

Ron Paul followers gathering for own convention

WASHINGTON (AP) -- There's no room at the Xcel Energy Center for maverick Ron Paul, so his acolytes have packed their cars, hitched rides on "Ronvoys" and will pitch tents at Ronstock '08 in Minneapolis in defiance of next week's GOP convention in St. Paul, Minn.

More than 9,700 tickets had been sold for the Rally for the Republic, which seeks to bring together activists who are anti-war, anti-government regulation, anti-immigration, anti-taxes, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-outsourcing, pro-individual liberty, pro-civil liberties and pro-Paul.

The Ronvoys - fleets of buses and vans carrying Paul's loyalists - were to begin arriving Saturday. A few rally-goers planned to walk from Green Bay, Wis., and join up with Paul for the final miles of their Walk4Freedom. Other attendees are driving, carpooling or flying in for the convention alternative.

Paul, a Texas congressman who failed in a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, considers the rally a celebration of traditional Republican values of limited government - and a poke in the eye of the GOP. They don't plan to crash the Republican party, but to show they and their Campaign for Liberty are not going away.

"No matter how much our message is ignored or ridiculed, as was done in the campaign, no matter how much they did to us, it only energized our grass roots," Paul said.

The rally builds on Paul's presidential bid, in which he set a record for single-day fundraising on the Web and touched a nerve with some disaffected voters, largely in the Republican Party.

In a few Western states, Paul was a serious contender for votes, placing second ahead of Republican John McCain in Nevada and Montana. He drew 14 percent from McCain in New Mexico, a battleground state.

But Paul has no speaking role at the GOP convention. He said his staff made overtures to the party, but nothing came of its efforts.

Republican Party spokeswoman Joanna Burgos said she had to research whether Paul was invited to speak when asked about a convention role for Paul.

"Our focus is really on this side of the river," Burgos said. "We think there's enough excitement and energy on this side." McCain's campaign spokesman did not return a phone message.

Paul's faithful still hope to permeate the ranks of the establishment by winning local and state races and pulling in disenchanted party members. There are a couple dozen Paul delegates attending the GOP convention, though some loyalists say there are more delegates who support Paul.

Meanwhile, their focus is on their own political convergence in Minneapolis.

"We only want to cause noise in the sense of letting people know there are other movements out there that other people believe in," said Kathleen Buchholz, 28, of Denver. Unable to take time off from school for the rally, Buchholz is attending Tuesday's events, when Paul will speak. She's bypassing sleep to save on hotel costs and flying out early Wednesday.

Rally organizers reported last week they sold all 500 tickets priced at $85 each for their Real Politics Training School scheduled for Sunday. Attendees will learn political-organizing skills and "how to compete and win at the political game," organizers said on the rally Web site.

Speakers at the Paul rally include former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, tax activist Grover Norquist, former California Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr., political commentator Tucker Carlson, former two-term New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and the baby-delivering doctor supporters call Dr. Paul.

A few entertainers also are joining in, such as country star Sara Evans; pop singer Aimee Allen, known for the song "Cooties" from Hairspray but whose favorite song among rally-goers is "Ron Paul Anthem"; and Texas blues guitarist Jimmie Vaughan.

Paul backers who aren't staying at the Minneapolis hotel or a budget motel planned to bunk in group cabins at Camp Ihduhapi on Lake Independence, park RVs or pitch tents at campgrounds or head to a Goodhue, Minn., dairy farm for Ronstock '08, an imitation of the 1960s Woodstock counterculture festival. Organizers there say a neighbor of the farm's owner is donating a cow to feed the flock.

Sonny Thomas of Springboro, Ohio, plans to drive 12 hours to attend the rally, leaving Sunday. He was offering in a Web posting to fit one or two others in his car.

"I feel as one person who stands up, I have a voice and letting it be heard sends fear to the establishment," said Thomas, a gas station manager who was laid off a previous job.

---

On the Net:

Rally for The Republic: http://www.rallyfortherepublic.com

Republican National Convention: http://www.gopconvention2008.com/

It's Not a Campaign, It's a Mission

clipped from www.nytimes.com Mr. Paul was supposed to be a memory by now. But in the Oregon primary last week, he won 15 percent of the vote, and the campaign appears to be growing into something beyond a conventional protest campaign. Some supporters have helped turn the outspoken congressman’s campaign into a colorful, loud sideshow with their guerrilla marketing tactics — self-penned Ron Paul anthems on YouTube, a Ron Paul blimp, T-shirts that portray Mr. Paul as a world-historical icon like Che Guevara. “Man, I’ve straight hated politics, I’ve just never liked the authority,” explained Tommy Rayome, 19, a “musician-slash-cook-slash-whatever” from Lexington, Ky., who was one of more than 600 people who showed up at last week’s Ron Paul signing at a Borders bookstore in Louisville. 2

A Lttle Inspiration

clipped from ireland4ronpaul.blogspot.com A Letter from Ben Novak, Founder of Americans in Europe for Ron Paul, to Paulites Everywhere For some time I have been pondering two questions: First, why is Ron Paul working so hard to collect delegates to the Republican convention when John McCain already has it all sewed up? Second, if Paul doesn t have a chance at the nomination, why does he look so happy and confident? Then it occurred to me: perhaps he has a strategy to win it after all. So, I thought about it a long time, and realized that he could indeed win it. So I decided to buck up your spirits by telling you how he is going to do it. How Ron Paul Is Going to Win

Ron in Austin

Only a Revolution Will Do

This is the first installment in a symposium on the Ron Paul movement to be published in Taki’s magazine over the next two weeks.

clipped from www.takimag.com In his message to supporters on Friday, Dr. Paul declared his intention to continue campaigning, but with less intensity since, in the first place, “the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero,” and in the second, he wants to put more effort into his own congressional campaign. He also promised, “I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run.” John McCain must have gone down on his knees to give thanks on hearing that. A Ron Paul third party candidacy would have given a home to the many, many conservative Republicans who cannot imagine voting for McCain. A Jan. 29 Rasmussen poll found that, for example, a third-party Ron Paul would get 11 percent of the vote in a McCain-Obama general election. Practically all of that 11 percent would come out of John McCain’s hide. As hard as the media and the Republican establishment have tried to ignore Paul, he remains a potent force.

Ron Paul: Cuban Embargo Should End With Castro Resignation

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In light of the resignation of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro yesterday, Dr. Ron Paul, presidential candidate and member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, issued the following statement:

read more | digg story

Michael Scheuer suggests Paul, Kucinich would be best on terror

clipped from factbeat.com The former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit Michael Scheuer appeared on yesterday's Hannity & Colmes to give his opinion about what candidate would be best at fighting the war on terrorism. "I think both of them (McCain and Obama) are equally unable to cope with the threat represented by Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the Islamists," Sheuer responded. "They really don't have a clue about what this war is about." "They continue to tell Americans, 'These people are Islamo-fascists, and they hate us because of our freedoms,' and 'they hate us for our liberties.' "What they hate us for is the unusually virulent strain of obsessive compulsive disorder that's present in the American governing class, and that's called interventionism. That's what the cause of this war is. And neither Mr. McCain, nor Mr. Obama, nor Mrs. Clinton, nor any of the rest of them who are in the campaign—except Mr. Paul, Mr. Kucinich perhaps—had that idea."

Ron Paul reactivates GOP candidacy, vows to fight this year and beyond

clipped from latimesblogs.latimes.com But his new re-affirmation of an active candidacy will be exciting news for hundreds of thousands of his diverse supporters scattered about the country in some 1,400 meet-up groups that demonstrate for him and raise money in numerous imaginative ways, including hotties 4 Ron Paul pin-up calendars. Their devotion and noticeable online enthusiasm had waned in recent weeks after Paul forced Mitt Romney from the race and then spent more time in his own district. Starting last summer the seemingly spontaneous assembling of hundreds of thousands of Paul supporters, many new to politics, has been one of the more remarkable aspects of the current political season. In December, the Paul campaign broke the online one-day fundraising record by taking in $6 million and made Paul the most successful GOP fundraiser in the fourth quarter with nearly $20 million in donations. And he was the only Republican candidate to increase his take during each quarter of 2007.

The Ron Paul Negativity Will End Now!

There is absolutely no reason at all to believe for a second that Dr. Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign is coming to an end.

read more | digg story

Ron Paul Freedom Writer Educates an Obama Fan

Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Ron Paul Freedom Writer Educates an Obama Fan
If you really don't know why this revolution is going to take a while, read this. We've got a lot of teaching to do.by John Armstrong
(Libertarian)

NOTE: When reading this article, you can substitute the words "Ron Paul" with the name of any of the thousands of people his message has inspired who will be seeking office over the next three decades.

In a previous article I issued a challenge: if you support Barack Obama or any other candidate besides Ron Paul, read this article to find out what the President is actually supposed to do and why it is important, and then convince me that your candidate would be better at doing it than Ron Paul.

If anyone could pull it off, I vowed to publicly change my allegiance and post a picture of my voting for their candidate on this website in November. You'll have to click the link above to see the full chain of discussion that led to this, but this particular comment is so ridiculous and simultaneously emblematic of what we are fighting the Revolution against, and why fighting it ever became necessary in the first place, I had to repost it here followed by my response. Enjoy.

_____________________________________________________

The Comment:

YOU don't understand the Constitution. YOU don't understand the fact that it was written 220 years ago in very, VERY different times. Our Constitution is one of the shortest in the world. It is this way intentionally. It is not meant to be a limiting factor in the growth of our nation - the very opposite, in fact. Ron Paul and his supporters operate under this idea that anything not explicitly mentioned by the Constitution should just not be allowed. Do you have any idea what that actually entails? There are hundreds of programs that do a great deal for this country that Ron Paul would just destroy without a second thought. Ron Paul, for example, wants to get rid of the Department of Education. Do you have any idea what that means to me? The Department of Education pays my way through college. If it weren't for the DoE, I would not be in college right now. And you think you can improve on that process? How?

Listen, I stated from the beginning that I have no desire to explain why I support Obama. I don't need to justify you why. That's why it's MY decision and not yours. But as this conversation continues, I find a more pertinant question to be: why do YOU support Ron Paul? All I ever hear from you people is "let's bring back liberty!" and (direct quote-ish) "high school economics would show you why Ron Paul is the best candidate." I've never heard a single concrete statement why he is the best.

So go ahead. Give it a shot. I don't think you can.

____________________________________________________

The Response:

If you really believe the first part of what you just wrote, I can understand how you wouldn't believe that I could respond. You probably don't believe A-Rod can hit a hanging curveball out of the park either. Regardless of what you think, YES I CAN! educate you, young man. Read on.

First, if you'd actually read the previous article, you'd already understand this, then again, maybe you wouldn't. And although you have repeatedly dodged the question of why Obama, your candidate, is a better candidate to do the job than Ron Paul (notice, I said "do the job" not "win the election") I will be courteous enough to answer the question you asked me before addressing your other silly little points.

Why do I support Ron Paul?

The Job the President Swears to do on inauguration day is this:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I support Ron Paul because he has a 20 year voting record that shows that he will, without fail, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Thus I'd say "the best of (his) ability" is pretty damned good.

This whole Constitution thingy may not mean much to someone who has decided to support a candidate who voted for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, but just because you are ignorant (not stupid, but ignorant) doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to vote for whom you choose; it is YOUR decision, as you stated. You also said that you had no desire to explain why you support Obama. If I supported Obama and were asked to consider a simple question like "what is a President actually supposed to do?", discovered that I had no clue, and after actually learning the answer realized that my candidate was completely unfit for the job, I probably wouldn't have any desire to explain why I supported him either.

While you didn't point out that Obama was a constitutional law professor, another reader did so I'll address that here in order to save space in the comments below. As a constitutional law professor, Barack Obama would be expected to possess profound knowledge of the Constitution. As a priest, men like James Porter would be expected to possess profound knowledge of why they shouldn't molest little boys. I'm sure that priest could give a wonderful knowledge based pretty speech about how atrocious molesting children is minutes before playing "want a lollipop" with little Billy. Barack Obama actually gave a knowledge based Pretty Speech about how atrociously the reauthorization of the Patriot Act violates civil liberties (you know, the ones the 4th Amendment that outdated Constitution thing-a-ma-bob protects) immediately prior to his announcing that he would be voting FOR it. Pretty speeches don't keep little boys from getting molested, nor do pretty words keep our Constitution from getting raped either.

I care about what someone says far less than I care about what they actually do. Integrity is not standing for what you "believe in" it is created by doing what you say you will do. Ron Paul said he'd defend the Constitution, so he voted NO on that bill instead of giving a pretty little speech before voting YEA. If I had a gun to your head and gave a nice speech about how horrible murder is right before I pulled the trigger, it wouldn't make me any less guilty when I was tried for violating your right to life which is protected by the Constitution and exectued through laws.

But since what someone says seems to matter more to you than what they do here's what Dr. Paul had to say about his vote. This is what he said about the bill while the Senators were off coming up with some compromises that somehow allowed Obama to feel okay about voting in favor of since the amended bill didn't violate the Constitution quite as much and it. You can understand this difference by imagining my killing you quickly with a gun instead of bludgeoning you with a hammer. Not quite as bad, I suppose. The article will also address your absurd assertion that somehow the Constitution is irrelevant because it is 220 years old. I'll continue that explanation for your sadly confused mind below.

Let me simplify this for you: The Constitution of the United States is nothing more than a Contract between we the people and our Government. It is a contract created by "We the People" in which we spelled out plainly the role of government. You should read the "P.S." section of the article linked at the top of the page if you actually care to find out how and why Politicians have convinced you that the Constitution is no longer relevant. It's written in terms even you can understand, and addresses an issue even many Ron Paul supporters seem to have confused: Voting based on your beliefs or on "issues" is the dumbest thing you could possibly do. Now to your specific claims that I don't understand the Constitution.

As you noted, the Constitution is 220 years old and was written in very, very, Very different times. Again, the Constitution is a contract. So is marriage. If your Grandparents were married 50 years ago, and Gramps decided to pop a little blue pill and hire a hooker only to have grandma walk in and catch him violating the "forsaking all others" clause of their contract, she probably would care, right? Why would she? When that Contract was made way back in 1958 that was a very, very, Very different time. Just as violating a marriage contract intitially weakens and ultimately destroys a marriage, violating The Contract does the same thing to our Country. I could take this metaphor much further if you'd like, but I won't do it here in order to conserve space.

I have deleted this paragraph four times. Your comment about the length of the Contract is so absurd I don't know where to start. It's absurd because your assertion that the Contract was never meant to inhibit the growth of the Country is dead on. Where my brain keeps hearing twilight zone music is when I read the rest of what you wrote. It seems that you are saying "we (as in the government) obviously should be able to do more than what that short little thing allows" and then go on to equate the "growth of our country" which was caused by the freedom of our people with the growth of government and all of its agencies. Despite your political views, an absolute economic fact is that lower taxes promote growth. Think about it, if the government received 100% of your income, why would you work? By limiting the government (and thus taxes) the country does grow. So to simplify this, just understand that The Contract is short for two reasons.

1. So any citizen can read and understand it since it is so important.

2. Because it doesn't take a long, complicated contract to list all of the powers the people chose to allow the Federal Government to have.

Your assertion that the government should obviously be doing more since the Contract is short is absolutely ludicrous. Congress can make all laws needed to enforce the powers granted in the contract, but none that aren't. Yet they do it anyway, and every time they do you lose a little more freedom (either in terms of economic freedom or civil liberties). I'm not okay with that. All the Contract violating laws and regulations enacted by the politicians have expanded is the government and its powers--exactly what its length was intended to inhibit.

In fact, our country growing larger is more of a reason for decentralization of power. Think about it like this: If you ran a business with 10 workers, you could do a good job of establishing all the policies because you'd have time to spend with all of the workers and find out what they need to get the job done. If you ran a business of 300 employees, it would be much harder and you'd need other people managing segments. Running a business of 300 million would be absolutely impossible if you tried to control everything. The only decisions you could possibly make with an organization that was very large would be ones that limit people's creativity in an attempt to force compliance, thus robbing them of their freedom, desire and creativity. On the contrary, if you had people you trusted underneath you to make decisions based on core principles that everyone ascribed to (unalienable rights, if you will), and allowed these trusted unit leaders to come up with specific policies for behavior and compliance that worked for their team based on what their team told them instead of trying to do everything yourself, your business would be far more successful.

If the Founders limited the role of the federal government at a time when it probably could have done a pretty decent job of calling all the shots for the country by listening to the people, why would you possibly believe that it makes sense for it to be so large at a time when there is no way they could possibly know what policies are truly in the best interest of the people due to the country's size? The functions of the Federal Government that were truly necessary would grow in direct proportion to economic growth as total tax revenue (not tax levels) increased along with production.

In response to this comment:

"Ron Paul and his supporters operate under this idea that anything not explicitly mentioned by the Constitution should just not be allowed."

Dude, this isn't an "assumption" under which we operate; it is a Contract. And the Contract can be changed. If the people see a need great enough to amend (change) it, thus sacrificing some liberty in order to allow the government to solve some problem for them they can. But unless the people directly authorize the Contract's being changed, the Politicians simply aren't allowed to change because they decide they best know how to best solve the problem unless the people change the Contract and allow them to do it. They simply don't have the Contractual right to do so. Read The last line from Article 2 Section 8. Which laws may Congress pass according to that? Exactly--the ones based on executing the powers government was given in the Constitution. Just to make sure this was perfectly clear since that line says that Congress can make these laws but doesn't expressly forbid it from making other ones, the 10th Amendement was passed.

I can just imagine the Founders writing the Bill of Rights. When they were considering Amendment 10, many of them were probably saying, "Isn't it obvious that this has already been settled back in Article 2?" And the other ones probably said, "Yeah, but damn it, you know how government is. If there is a loophole that will allow them to gain power, they'll use it. Don't you remember that war we just fought? We're not writing this for us, we're writing it for the people who will have given nothing for the freedom that we just pledged our live, liberty, and sacred honor to win. If we want to make sure they understand how important this is, we have to be very, very specific about the importance of limiting the role of the federal government." And the other guys going, "Oh, all right, this seems pretty damned redundant to me, but we might as well throw it in--but after this I'm done."

They should have added 25 more amendments that repeated exactly the same thing over and over so that it would have been enough of an oddity that even the people who slept through history and government class and possessed minimal knowledge of the Contract between them and their Government would have at least remembered that strange part that was repeated over and over again. Although the Founders were smart enough to forsee changes being necessary and providing a way for the contract to be amended by the people when those changes happened, they weren't smart enough to envision a time when Americans would take their freedom for granted to the extent that they wouldn't even bother reading the simple single page Contract.

Tonight at dinner I asked a college student who was eating with me what she thought of when she thought of the Constitution. Her reply was "A list of rules", and I asked "rules for who to follow", and she said, "the people." No wonder Obama is so hell bent on making sure everyone gets a college education where professors who depend on a large federal government for their jobs can "explain" how complicated "politics" is and how "complex" the issues we are facing as a nation are.

Which brings us to your point about the Department of Education. I do understand what it would entail to abolish all of these Contract violating programs, and so does Ron Paul. He doesn't want to go back to the dark ages. He doesn't want to abolish these agencies without a second thought as you suggest. It is because he has given second thought to something that no other politician has--whether or not these programs should even exist based on their cost vs. their benefit and whether or not they are allowed to even exist under the Contract--that has led him to his views.

Even he knows that entitlement programs couldn't be cut immediately. In his economic stimulus plan, these programs and the military were the only two areas of government where funding wasn't frozen or reduced. If a person is incredibly obese, you can't have him run 25 miles a day and consume 500 calories--he would die. But you can get him to stop eating copious amounts of junk food and walk a little bit. As he gets healthier, he can do more. Eventually he can do what his personal constitution allows him when he is fully healthy without needing support.

America's government has become incredibly obese. This is the War on Obesity we should be fighting. And you can bet your sweet ass that if government starts paying for national healthcare, the War on Obesity won't be far behind ironically making government even more obese and unhealthy.

All of these programs help some people, but they also hurt others. I had DoE loans as well. But I worked 80 hours a week during my college summers to pay them off. How can you be okay with a family's money whose children decided not to go to college paying for your education? Have you thought about how that hurts them? Probably for the same reason I was--I didn't understand the Contract so I was okay with its being violated as long is its violation benefitted me.

If these programs didn't exist, you'd be able to afford your own college education and the private sector would be healthy enough that if college really were a good education, loans would be available to you through them. If society felt that ensuring people had a college education was important and had half of their income back two things could happen: they could provide help for their fellow citizens through giving or they could decide the Federal Government would be the best way to address the issue, change the Contract to allow them to do it and give up part of their economic freedom to allow them to enforce that mandate given to them by the people. As of now, the word "education" is mentioned exactly zero times in the Contract. And by the way, the DoE doesn't "pay" for your college education. I do. You're welcome. And the part that isn't paid for by people like me who are taxed at a very high rate is paid for by the middle class through an inflation tax when the government uses an non-Contractually approved way to get funds it doesn't have--printing money. As long as you pay your loans back, it isn't that big of a deal but grants and other things like that (which I also had) hurt everyone who doesn't receive them. Thanks to those of you older readers who helped me pay for school, sorry you didn't get to do it by choice. And thanks for the rich guys who gave me a scholarship for my first year and told me that I was smart enough to find a way to stay there if I wanted to--you were right. I'm sorry that you can't do more for people like me.

If you support Obama, I'm guessing you aren't okay with the War in Iraq. Unfortunately, you probably don't support the war because you "feel" that it is "wrong" instead of not supporting it because it violated your Contract since it wasn't issued by Congress as outlined in Article 2, Section 8. If you understood this, you'd understand that simply voting for someone because you're "sick of the status quo" (which I just heard an Obama supporter at this coffee house say was the only thing to consider when you decided to vote) may end the war but it wouldn't solve any problems.

Just voting for someone who believes something doesn't give them the right to do what they believe in if they are elected. It would if this were a one-branch straight democratic form of government, but it isn't. It is a republic. And until the Contract is scrapped completely (and there is a clause in Article Five that would essentially allow the PEOPLE to do this) and we start all over again, it is still the Contract in effect for this country.

Obama is right when he says "we" need to do something about the problems facing America. But "we" are the people. If he is elected, he will be the government. By "uniting" people under the banner of "Yes WE Can!" he is further confounding the situation by basically saying that if he is elected "we" give him the right to do what he wants to "change" America. If "We the People" were fully free, I'm quite certain that 300,000,000 people would do a better job of solving a problem than 536. If "We the People" decided to allow the government to solve the problem, "we" could change the Contract and allow them to do it. Doing it any other way is always going to divide the country because half of it is going to disagree with any "change" made. The only thing that truly "unites" us is our unalienable rights protected from other individuals and our government by the Contract.

Voting for anyone who doesn't understand this is no different than saying, "I don't really give a damn if someone else's rights are violated as long as the rights being violated aren't mine, and I believe in the cause for which those other people's rights are being violated." If you can't read that last sentence and see it everywhere from Iraq, Gitmo, our overcrowded prisons, and the Patriot Act, you are dumber than you seem.

There was a country full of people who believed what you seem to believe by not understanding the importance of the Contract. The people of that country allowed another great speaker who eloquently explained the problems his country faced and offered "change" to solve those problems to rise to power in the late 1930's. Of course, not everyone in the country agreed with him--but they also didn't say anything about it, or stand up for the people whose rights were being violated. By the time these few good people may have decided to actually do something, it was too late.

Have fun voting for your charismatic candidate, I think I'll stick to the one who I know will protect my rights by fulfilling his Oath no matter what. And it might not matter this year, but I still believe enough in America that when it does happen it won't be too late. The Revolution is nigh.

Your Fellow American,

John Armstrong

strongarmedjohn@yahoo.com

As always, unlike the NFL, any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings on other blogs or social network sites is expressly granted to anyone for the cause of Restoring our Republic.

Montana Delegates Could Help Paul

clipped from www.cbsnews.com If Romney does release Montana's delegates, all 25 should vote to nominate Ron Paul, said Ellen Finnegan, an organizer for the Missoula Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group. In the caucus, Paul won Missoula County and placed second in state with 25 percent of the vote to Romney's 38. John McCain won 22 percent and Mike Huckabee won 15 percent. In 2007, Ron Paul also raised almost $89,000 in Montana, more than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, according to the Federal Election Commission. Romney received less than half that, $41,500 in contributions from Montanans. "If the people of Montana have any say, Ron Paul should get the delegates," Finnegan said. Missoula's Ron Paul Meetup Group includes about 100 members, and they still support their candidate even though a nomination is far out of reach, said member Tim Danyo. Paul only has 16 delegates of the required 1,191 for nomination. Even so, Danyo says he believes Paul will stay in the race until the end.

To All Ron Paul Supporters And Our Friends In The Grassroots

This is the beginning, ladies and gentlemen. The beginning of the end for the stranglehold of the mainstream media. The beginning of the end for the masters in high places. The beginning of the end for the media blackout of the values and philosophies expressed by Ron Paul and other political candidates that share his views. The beginning of the time when we take our country back.

It starts right here, at BreakTheMatrix.com. We are forming a grassroots organization and movement that will carry the words and values of freedom off the Internet and out to those millions of Americans who only receive their news and entertainment from mainstream radio and television. As Dr. Paul himself said so well on February 9, 2008: “The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.” Indeed. The tired, empty mantras of “right and left,” of “conservative and liberal,” of “Democrat and Republican,” will no longer stand unchallenged in our mainstream media outlets. Freedom, prosperity, peace, hope—the great ideas are coming to America.

Here’s How

We’re starting our own grassroots media company. Basic Media, Inc. (in formation) will create, build and connect Internet based radio and television outlets for freedom voices and faces around the United States and worldwide. The newly forming company will develop a wide ranging array of interesting and entertaining content on the web, and transmit our shows to mainstream “off the Internet” people through a variety of communications technologies and strategies. We’re talking right now to syndicators, producers, advertising specialists, and our many grassroots friends about how this goal can best be achieved. These are friends with ideas; with skills; and with vision. Friends who understand how to develop and utilize top of the line content and the technologies needed for creation and transmittal of entertaining and informative radio and television shows to a “non Internet” mainstream audience. Very simply, we’re creating a new media network. And we’re inviting you to be part of it.

The Internet prototypes are already in existence. We in the grassroots have watched them take root over the course of the Ron Paul presidential campaign—and what tremendous work the early media pioneers have been doing! Two online radio stations have been up and running for months at ronpaulradio.com and rprradio.com. These volunteer radio outlets have provided a platform for dozens of outstanding radio hosts who spread the news of our Ron Paul movement 24/7 across the worldwide web. And the growth of online video capability has been even more impressive. The spontaneous creation of Youtube content about Ron Paul and his message is a grand story in its own right. Myspace.com has provided some powerful tools. And Justintv.com has broken new ground every day with video streams broadcasting in real time from events in the Ron Paul campaign. The core technologies are already in place for high quality content creation and delivery on the web, and Basic Media, Inc. will take this process to the next higher level with syndication and delivery platform strategies that carry our message to the radios and television sets of every household in America. Break the monopoly of the establishment media! Break the wall of silence that stifles voices of truth in our nation! Break the matrix. With Basic Media, Inc.

While “off Internet” content delivery is our first and most readily achievable goal, there is a second core aspect to what we’ll be doing in the new company. This whole process is all about organization, and communication, and the implementation of social networking tools that will bring people together as a positive force for change in America. There are many of us now. We are all across the country. So we need to find each other; to do business together; to share stories and strategies; and to build this grand freedom movement on a going forward basis that will flourish and thrive long after the 2008 presidential campaign is over. The inspiring work of grassroots organizers at ronpaulforums.com; at dailypaul.com; at meetup groups; and at other locations all across the Internet has shown us the great power of networking tools that are already in existence. The early organizers have started a process, and there is much to build upon. But the movement for change is barely beginning, and there’s so much more that we can do to bring people together. Building a nationwide/worldwide community—the second key goal of Basic Media, Inc.

Rick Williams and Trevor Lyman are the initial organizers and executive officers of the new entity in formation. For over 34 years, Mr. Williams has been a practicing lawyer in Los Angeles, California. He is a graduate of UCLA School of Law (JD 1973), where he served on the Board of Editors of the UCLA Law Review. Mr. Williams was a business administration major at Washington State University (BA 1969), and he worked in the finance and accounting group at Shell Oil Company before entering law school. Mr. Williams is an avid student of the Austrian school of economics, and he hosted radio shows throughout the Ron Paul presidential campaign talking about the Federal Reserve system and the practices of our bankers. Trevor Lyman became widely known as a grassroots fundraiser for the November 5 moneybomb, the Teaparty moneybomb, and RonPaul Blimp.com. Mr. Lyman has been the subject of numerous media profiles and interviews as a result of his efforts, and he is perhaps the most recognizable name and face in the grassroots movement. You’ve seen what Trevor Lyman has done, and you know the results that he achieved for the Ron Paul campaign. Rick Williams and Trevor Lyman have been two of the activists, but we’re not here to speak of the past. The future is what matters. So this is what we’re planning to do.

Here Are the Specifics

Basic Media, Inc., the new corporation in formation, will be structured to create and transmit top quality radio and television shows using Internet technology platforms. We hope to draw from the enormous pool of talent that already exists in the freedom movement, and capture the very best content for packaging and distribution to mainstream radio and television outlets off the web and across the United States. Our “off Internet” distribution opportunities are wide ranging and diverse—everything from nationwide/worldwide satellite delivery to locally owned radio and television stations. We’ll pick and choose. We’ll select and utilize the most valuable and efficient delivery strategies that are available for our content.

How about cash flow? Like any other media outlet, our revenues will derive primarily from the sale of advertising time. Basic Media, Inc. will be operating as a “for profit” business, and isn’t that what it’s all about? Our goal and objective is to create and deliver high quality content, spread the values and philosophies that we believe in, and make a profit in the process. There are no guarantees of profitability, of course, and we all must recognize that media advertising is a highly competitive market. The effort to achieve profitability will be challenging, and we should not fool ourselves into thinking that high paying advertisers will magically appear on our doorstep. But advertisers are constantly looking for emerging markets and new ways to get their messages out to the community. And for the most part, existing media entities don’t own their advertisers. If we capture a mainstream audience, we believe the advertisers will follow. This is how the matrix can be broken.

Basic Media, Inc. is not a political entity, and we will not affiliate with existing or future campaigns of Ron Paul or any other candidate for elective office. We will fully and cheerfully comply with all “equal time” requirements of the Federal Election Commission and other election authorities. Indeed, we welcome the opportunity to compare (and contrast) our values and philosophies of freedom, prosperity, peace and hope with those of candidates seeking election under the banner of any political party. We can sponsor debates; host candidate forums; and provide analysis of candidate positions. Our content delivery platform can be used to shed the light of truth on any serious candidate for office, and we will work to replace the existing closed media system with a free marketplace of political ideas. Picture, for example, a debate session organized by Basic Media, Inc. where Ron Paul, John McCain and Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama all receive “equal time.” An intriguing thought, isn’t it? Nothing more need be said on the subject of political activism.

This document is an initial “solicitation of interest” issued pursuant to section 254 of Part 230–General Rules and Regulations, Securities Act of 1933. We are preparing a Regulation A initial public offering of stock over the Internet through the medium of electronic delivery of securities information. Basic Media, Inc. (the newly forming company) will offer a total of 500,000 shares of common stock to the public at a price of $10 per share, with a minimum purchase requirement of 10 shares per individual purchaser. If the offering is fully subscribed and sold, the public shareholders of Basic Media, Inc. will own a total of 41.67% of the outstanding common stock of the company as of the closing date. You may indicate your interest in participation in the stock offering by visiting the website, entering your email address and pressing pledge at the top of the page. Thereafter, you might wish to visit this website at BreakTheMatrix.com for information as to when the Offering Circular will be ready for review, and when binding stock subscription documents will be available for delivery. To the extent needed, we will also provide email updates regarding our progress.

Basic Media, Inc. is organizing as a grassroots response to the deficiencies that are so glaringly obvious in our existing mainstream media structure. The company founders are confident and hopeful about our prospects for success, but none of us should underestimate the scope of the challenge that lies ahead. It’s a big task, and our success depends on your help, your talents, your energy, and your commitment to the goal of bringing real change to America. So tell us your ideas for the new venture. Write to either of us at the email addresses on this page. Share with us your talents, and let us know your views about how the new entity might best fulfill its mission. This document is the first step in a lengthy securities offering process, and please take careful note of the following rules and requirements issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission:


(1) No money or other consideration is being solicited at this time, and if sent in response, will not be accepted;

(2) No sale of the securities will be made or commitment to purchase accepted until delivery of an offering circular that includes complete information about the issuer and the offering;

(3) Any indication of interest made by a prospective investor involves no obligation or commitment of any kind.

We’re looking forward to hearing from you, and we close this letter with a few simple words that Ron Paul has spoken often on the presidential campaign trail. Dr. Paul says: “Let’s have fun!”

Very truly yours,

Basic Media, Inc. (in formation)

Rick Williams
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
rdw2008@gmail.com

Trevor Lyman
Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer
lyman.trevor@gmail.com



We are not associated or affiliated with Ron Paul or his campaigns for President and Congress.

Ron Paul Has Won!

clipped from www.nolanchart.com He replied, "Oh, but I do expect him to win!" What I miss most about youth — what I miss even more than the vigor and the energy and the excitement of getting up each day (and feeling good when you do!) — is that sunny optimism in the face of impossible odds. Life has a way of beating that out of you as it delivers one disappointment after another. The older you get, the less you expect from life. As The Gambler in the old Kenny Rogers song put it, "the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep". But growing older is not without its compensations. With age comes wisdom, and with wisdom comes something that is even better than optimism: the ability to see the good that can come out of even the worst that life throws at you. As The Gambler said in the line just before the one quoted above, "every hand's a winner, and every hand's a loser".

Lest We Forget....Paul BEAT McCain in Nevada

Ron Paul and How the Media Pick the Candidates-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Cliff KincaidFeb 2, 2008 Whatever you think of Ron Paul, you have to admit that the media are notoriously biased against him. The Fox News Channel unfairly excluded him from its January 6 debate, while...

read more | digg story

Ron Paul Bests Everyone in Military Donations, Again.

By Greg Albert
February 02, 2008
Ron Paul not only out-raised every other Republican candidate in the 4th fundraising quarter of 2007, but defended his 3rd quarter title as the United States military´s favorite candidate. This time, the victory was decisive. Paul received approximately three times as many Army donations as Senator John McCain, twice as many from the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, and more military donations overall than all the other Republican candidates combined. In fact, the United States Army alone was Paul´s biggest contributor, outstripping students and every other branch of the military.