Monday, November 18, 2013
Monday, February 22, 2010
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential Campaign will not likely be forgotten soon. His supporters are amongst the most dedicated and intense in the political field. I can certainly claim so as I am a supporter of Ron Paul and were amongst those who donated money to his campaign on both record breaking days in November and December of 2007. It is without doubt that I will continue to spread the message of limited government and free markets. I had always believed in these ideas. What Ron Paul brought for many people, like myself, is a name and place of gathering for these ideas.
It is a forgone conclusion that John McCain will be the Republican candidate but, Ron Paul's campaign will continue long after we vote for the lesser of the two evils in November. His latest book, The Revolution: A Manifesto is an excellent beginners resource to the views and ideas that he has been talking about all throughout his campaign. The Revolution is a perfect book to introduce or re-introduce the traditional American ideals to our friends, families, and loved ones.
Paul eloquently puts forth his views on a non-interventionist foreign policy, our Constitution, economic freedom, civil liberties, and money. He also includes a reading list for those who want to get an even deeper understanding of the topics. There are few men or women in politics who are as well read and knowledgeable as Ron Paul; his reading list clearly shows us why that is. In The Revolution, Paul has managed to condense his knowledge of these subjects into 167 pages and made it easily accessible to the masses.
I was already convinced of Paul's message long before I read The Revolution: A Manifestoand with that in mind, I must say that there is still much to take away from this book. Where 30 or 90 second soundbites fail to capture his ideas in debates or television interviews, this book brings together a much more thought out and well prepared argument for a return to the ideals of our Founding Fathers.
The most fitting comparison that can be given is a comparison to Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Our circumstances are not identical and the problems at hand are different but the principle is the same and that is what really matters. Where Paine argued for American independence in a style that ordinary folk could understand, Paul argues for a return to a Constitutional form of government in a style that ordinary people like you and I can understand.
Ron Paul has been called the Thomas Jefferson of our time. I am sure that Jefferson along with Washington, Franklin, Adams, and the rest of our Founding Fathers would be pleased with the ideas brought forth in The Revolution: A Manifesto.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
If one can ignore the incessant propaganda that bombards us from what passes as "news" on TV, movies, and even music, one might ponder why Americans no longer have Rights over themselves, their children, and their property.
In the pre-socialist days prior to 1935, the Common Law based upon justice, reason, and common sense was the Law of the land. Since the Common Law is a prerogative of sovereigns, the servant government had no lawful authority to enact nor prosecute Common Law offenses. Many judges agreed that the Common Law was too harsh for a democracy. And they were right because Americans were promised a Republic form of government wherein the People (not citizens) were the sovereigns. Since property and sovereignty are inseparable, only those who absolutely owned property could rely upon the promises in the organic documents that instituted America's governments at the Federal, State, and Local levels. In the original instrument, the Declaration of Independence, it was clearly stated that governments were instituted among men to do two things: help secure property rights, and govern by consent.
What are property rights? The absolute right to own ourselves, our labor, the fruits of our labor, and that for which we choose to trade our labor. Private property is defined as land, houses, and chattels (property other than real estate). Real estate is not private property. If two or more persons have a claim it ceases to be private property and devolves to estate. Estate is held with qualified ownership. It's no surprise to me that State constitutions only list "real and personal property" as subject to taxation and regulation. Private property is sacred, and exempt.
Before the politicians (poly from the Greek, meaning many; and tic, an ugly bloodsucking parasite) sold out America, a sovereign who owned private property was the supreme authority and absolute monarch over his domain. An example of the absolute power to decide and act (sovereignty) was the landlord's right to defend his property from trespass with deadly force. If capital punishment without benefit of trial isn't evidence of individual sovereignty, I don't know what else will suffice.
To retain the status of private property, only one individual can own said property, therefore, coverture was essential. Coverture was the transfer of the wife's property to her husband for the duration of the marriage. This made the man the sole authority over the property insuring that servant government had to respect the family's property rights in all things. There were very few problems as long as men loved their wives and treated them as equal partners. Historical revisionists would lead one to believe that men "owned" their wives and children, not unlike slaves, and that it was a bad thing (as if collective ownership by "Big Brother" is superior).
If one will recall, though men had the rights of ownership, they also had the sole duty of support and defense of their family. As the saying goes, "women and children first" into the lifeboat. Men were obligated to lay down their lives, if necessary, in defense of their family. Was it a burden that women and children had to obey the man of the family in exchange for his lifelong obligation to them? I don't think so. Even the Law recognized that only the man could be held legally liable for failure to support his family. A wife who was forced by circumstances to "work outside the home" was tantamount to giving notice that the man was either unable, or worse, in violation of the Law, unwilling to support his family. At the very least, it was an insult to the manhood of the husband.
All this changed with the institution of national socialism in 1935. Known as the Social Security Act, or Federal Insurance Contribution Act (F.I.C.A.), this treacherous enactment was the final nail in the Grand Old Republic's coffin. The ground work had been laid in 1913, giving control of America's money to a privately held loan shark operation known as the Federal Reserve; and in 1916, the creation of the Fed's collection agency, the Internal Revenue Service. It took the Fed less than 25 years to totally bankrupt America. The wealthiest nation in the history of the world was brought to her knees by the "Great Depression", and had desperate Americans demanding that the government "do something", which led to the destruction of individual property rights. For the truth about the Federal Reserve (which is no more "Federal" than Federal Express), read FOURTH REICH OF THE RICH by Des Griffin and SECRETS OF THE TEMPLE: HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE RUNS THE COUNTRY by William Greider. Find out who owns your Representative and Senator at OpenSecrets.org.
Unknown to the gullible participants, enrollment into "Social Security" (I call it socialist insecurity), had dire effects. First, it changed their status as Free men to paupers eligible for charity from the public treasury. Second, it eliminated their private property Rights to own, and thus have a domicile, in exchange for a residence. Third, it obligated them to pay the claims made upon the bankrupted United States of America (upper and lower case spelling), replaced by a bankruptcy trustee, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (all capital letters, a clever legal deception), and made the federal debt into their "national debt". Fourth, it made it legally impossible to object to the worthless federal reserve notes. Fifth, it was prima facie evidence that a national socialist security number made them wards of the government and status criminals without the former protections accorded Free Inhabitants. Sixth, it made men (and women) subject to, and object of, administrative bureaucracy without constitutional restrictions. Seventh, it made them co-signers on all the loans the politicians borrow (present tense) from the Federal Reserve and foreign banks. China and Japan hold over 40% of America's debt. Every penny confiscated from American workers' paychecks goes to pay just the interest on the "national debt".
When Americans were reduced to bleating paupers, hands out for a share of their "entitlements", the government could rightly ignore the centuries of Law based upon securing private property rights, and shift to policy based on voluntary consent. Without Common Law rights, the Common Law evaporated from public awareness (with a little help from public schools). In its place the strict rules and regulations of "civil law" have become the standard, Instead of natural and personal liberty, those birthrights of free Americans, we now have civil and political liberty as permitted by our master government. Contrary to popular belief, "Civil Liberty" is not freedom, but license (permission). Who needs permission (license) to own a dog, marry, build a house, travel public roads, carry a gun, and so on? Not a Free Man. Who needs to pay a tax for the privilege to live, work, or hold property? Not a Free Man!
Since 1935, Americans have surrendered their Republic form of government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the constitution for the united States of America, and the promise to the Free Inhabitants of the Land from Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, in exchange for the mob rule of democracy. If you think democracy is something fine and good, you have been brainwashed, programmed, and indoctrinated with ANTI-AMERICAN propaganda. If you think it's good that American lives and property are being used to make the world safe for democracy, your ancestors are spinning in their graves in outrage. Patrick Henry would spit on you. George Washington would turn his head from you. Ben Franklin would kick you in the arse.
All Law is for the protection of life and property. All else is mere policy, and policy requires fully informed consent. And though involuntary servitude was outlawed, there is no restriction on voluntary servitude, howbeit by fraud and deceit. Why do Americans keep re-electing the same politicians year after year? None of them ever honor their oath of office to defend and protect the constitution, and restore the Republic.
In answer to the question why Americans have no rights, national socialism is to blame. However, our continued consent to national socialism is the mechanism that has locked the chains of tyranny upon us. He who consents can't complain... can't bite the hand that feeds you... beggars can't be choosers... you get the idea.
Public opinion is sharply divided over the death penalty or capital punishment. According to critics death penalty is just like a legalized murder. It does not prevent crime. It is barbaric and reflects that we are going backward to more brutal time. While the supporters believe that it eliminates worst criminals from the society and is a step forward to safer society and greater justice.
Arguments For Death Penalty:
The death penalty is morally, ethically and constitutionally right. The society has a moral right and duty to take the lives of others who kills others.
The death penalty permanently eliminates criminal from the society and thus it acts as a deterrence to further crime as dead criminals cannot commit any further crime, either within the prison or after escaping from the prison.
The money which is spend on long term imprisonment of murderers, rapists etc can be spend for the old, the young and sick people.
The main argument for death penalty is that once executed the person will never kill another victim and thus is acts as a deterrent to crime and criminals.
Arguments Against Death Penalty:
Capital punishment opponents believe that death penalty is morally wrong. They believe that by legalizing executions the society puts itself on the same low moral level as those of criminals.
In too many cases it was found death penalty is unfairly applied and wrong and innocent people were executed. The jury decision is unfairly influenced by race and money. The people who are wealthy manipulate evidences in their favor and are less likely to get death penalty than poor.
Finally death penalty does not deter crime it actually increases crime and violence .Statistical data shows that crime rate is higher than in states without it.
Friday, June 5, 2009
I don’t have to remind you that America was built on dissent.
Those wonderful dissenters who gathered in Philadelphia to forge the Declaration of Independence, were marked men, dead men, if captured by the British.
They were willing to pay the ultimate price to secure freedom, for themselves and for those who followed.
During wars, dissent is usually toned down, because unity is important. In a just cause, forbearing from discussing misgivings about the conflict can be useful, important to securing the greater good and ultimate peace, while denying encouragement to the enemy.
But once doubt reaches a certain threshold, once it becomes apparent that a government has been lying about its rationale for entering a war, or sustaining hostilities to perpetuate a ruse, then the time to dissent is upon us.
In the early 1960’s, The Gulf of Tonkin incident was used, and many say was carefully choreographed, to justify a huge deployment of troops to Vietnam. “We were attacked!” President Johnson told Congress and the American people, and “Our national security is at stake!” was asserted.
A similar ruse has been orchestrated by W’s administration.
Ask yourself this question: Why must we remain in Iraq until 2009, or beyond?
Is it because Bush said so?
Given his mendacity, who can trust him?
His purpose for waging war was wrong. His methods for conducting the war and for nation building have been wrong. And his timetable for withdrawal is wrong.
Let your voice be heard now, and loudly, as we move toward midterm elections.
Remember, dissent is patriotic!
Dr. Gary S. Goodman, President of http://www.Customersatisfaction.com">http://www.Customersatisfaction.com is a popular keynote speaker, management consultant, and seminar leader and the best-selling author of 12 books, including Reach Out & Sell Someone® and Monitoring, Measuring & Managing Customer Service, and the audio program, “The Law of Large Numbers: How To Make Success Inevitable,” published by Nightingale-Conant. He is a frequent guest on radio and television, worldwide. A Ph.D. from USC's Annenberg School, a Loyola lawyer, and an MBA from the Peter F. Drucker School at Claremont Graduate University, Gary offers programs through UCLA Extension and numerous universities, trade associations, and other organizations in the United States and abroad. He holds the rank of Shodan, 1st Degree Black Belt in Kenpo Karate. He is headquartered in Glendale, California, and he can be reached at (818) 243-7338 or at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Dr._Gary_S._Goodman
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Globalization strives to do away with cultural standards, the spiritual embodiment of a nation, and replace it with the universal principle that we are all one, one group of people in the world, who should come together and do business for the common good of humanity. The world is shrinking because we are coming together despite the physical distance that separates us. The togetherness is seen in the way we are able to connect via information technology as well as other forms of advanced technology.
But technological advancement does not abolish culture and must not abolish culture; nor does it have to purge human beings of their spiritual essences. If we come together, that is all well and good. It shows that there has developed an objective standard by which we can understand one another and respect one another even though we belong to different cultural spaces. I can voluntarily learn from your culture and take from it some of the elements that, I think, could help to advance my own culture in a way that could lead to collectivism, not only in our cultures but also in the particular case of business. By cultural collectivism, I mean that you and I do things in different ways, yet we have objective standards that could enable us to do things in common, and understand that we are different, or accept that our differentness is healthy for our togetherness, and that if we come together, it is in the interest of what we want to do whether in business or any other thing. I also know that I have to respect you without any conditions because your dignity is a matter of your unique culture just as mine is a matter of my unique culture.
But globalization does not see things this way. It tends to proceed on the lines of the big brother/sister principle. I have much more power than you have because on the world stage my wealth is far more than yours, and I can use my power to manage or crumble your position. My business power is colossal while yours is dwarfish; so we do not stand on an equal footing on the business field. I am higher than you. In deciding the future trend of the globalized business, I have to do that, not you; for you cannot plan as I do because you do not have any recognizable power. If I need to plan anything about business, I have to do it with colleagues who have power of matching magnitude.
Such aggressive feelings breed dissonance and warns that globalization cannot pretend to unify the people of the world, especially in the province of business. For much as globalization claims to bring us together, it omits the importance of cultural collectivism; it hacks it into pieces. Globalization, to put it differently, flies in the face of human decency by abrogating equality on the global front even though it claims otherwise. And if this is the case, then one has to grapple with the fallacy of globalization.
One cannot avoid the point that powerful business entities are the controllers of globalization, not the people whom globalization is intended to protect, serve. While the people belong to the wider society, the powerful business executives who control powerful businesses belong to the smaller society. To what extent the smaller society can control the wider society is an issue that counters logic. Moreover, it is even a far more dangerous nonsense - and indeed a fallacy too - to think that a good business executive will be a good political executive. Globalization attempts to do both. It presupposes that once globalization is accomplished, the global village will become a business village and all other elements will be crushed by the weight of the business culture.
Maybe, globalization is one of the greatest ironies of history. The point is that, as a powerful business entity, you want to sink the teeth of your business into the flesh of my overall culture. You call this globalization. But this will be a kind of a vampire activity, and upon succeeding in doing this, the blood that runs through my business culture will be drained, and I will find it hard to rise up from my business stupor.
IT IS TIME FOR A REGIME CHANGE!!!!!!!!!