This is the Way the World Ends - Part III

Say what you will about the Ron Paul supporters the fact is those loyal souls that got into the trenches and went to the Republican Convention as delegates to cast their votes appear to have received the ultimate rebuff.

...20 Ron Paul buttons and a handful of other things, he was stopped by security which called on upon an apparent supervisor, who directed all the materials to be confiscated. She told him, "You can't bring that in here, this is McCain territory. (Federal Jack)

This is but one small account of the hundreds reported during the primaries. The point here is that the two-party system is not receptive to any sort of real challenge or change. I would be curious to see the results of a future historians analysis of the "Ron Paul Revolution". At a casual glance it seems odd to me that the man was able to raise so much money from ordinary people and yet garner less than, at best, 10% of the primary vote count.

Many claim there was widespread hanky-panky afoot, I am not inclined to accept conspiracy theories but with the proven pattern of corruption prevalent in all areas of politics I would not be at all surprised if something nefarious occurred. The web is full of alleged evil-doing committed against the Paul campaign. Of course the Nader folks claim the same thing. My point in highlighting Ron Paul above is to demonstrate a perception (perhaps reality) that the major parties will simply not tolerate a real maverick.

Outside of the "for us or against us", intellectually dishonest two-party system Americans have become accustomed to all sorts of other frauds and perceived fraud within our electoral process. We simply cannot have an election without the taint of scandal.

Here again, it does not particularly matter if these perceptions are based wholly or partly on reality. Ours is essentially a system built upon trust. We the People delegated certain enumerated powers to the government in exchange for an expectation of, if not good government, at least tolerable government. Within the scope of tolerable I believe most reasonable men would include trustworthy. Without trust all the government has to retain legitimacy is propaganda, special interest payouts and coercion. Without the trust of the people government ceases to be tolerable or legitimate.

Americans know that elections and elected officials are frauds, yet 54% of us still pick a team and cast a ballot as if it were American Idol or some such trivial nonsense. A percentage of that group still hopes that a few good men of character and principle might change things yet even that voter block realizes that most of our representatives are influenced primarily by monied interest and their own desire to keep getting elected. We know DC corrupts all but the incorruptible.

I would be guessing but I would put the percentage of voters that believe that real change might be brought about by Mr. Smith going to Washington at below 25%, my observation of the rest is that they are mere party people (i.e. team supporters) that see politics as a duality.

What of the 46% that do not vote? These people have given up, either by ignorance or painfully informed knowledge. They do not trust that a difference can be had, by extrapolation they do not trust the system and have opted out.

In one way or another this 46% has come to realize something that the rest of us have yet to learn. That is the system is broken so completely that no element of the system itself can be used to fix it. It is akin to having a virus on your computer that has corrupted you anti-virus software - you will not fix the system without something new and external to the present system.

The sad commentary on all of this is that the 46 percenters have opted out without a plan of action. They have accepted taxation without representation and government not of their consent. To a government that has lost trust these are the perfect sorts of serfs - perfectly willing to work the plantation without getting uppity.

Considering that another 25% or so (might be a low number) are perfectly willing to play the game and cheer one of the establishment teams along the small minority of us that really see a need for change and want to do something about it are inconsequential.

If on the off chance that one of ours might get more than 1-2% of the votes in say a primary it is too easy to marginalize these "radical views" and perhaps (as suggested in some of the links listed above) outright lie, cheat and steal to keep the system under control.

Voting will not save us from out eventual end -- a few candidates of principle rising up occasionally serve to keep the truth out there and prove the futility of voting but that is about it.

We will happily vote ourselves into our ultimate destruction...as have so many other people that lived under tyranny since the practical application of democracy.

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul, tyranny

Stumble It!

Sigh

Labels: El Cid, Ron Paul, tyranny

Stumble It!

Imagine if you will a congruence of circumstance, however bizarre required, that had instead of Obama as our current president elect but Ron Paul.

Ok hold that thought.

When the Senate was debating the auto bailout "Buckshot" Cheney chided the republican senators something to the effect that their inaction was "Herbert Hoover all over again". The implication being that inaction, i.e. letting the free market run its course would spell political doom for the party.

Admittedly real conservatism in the US as a viable alternative died in the 1930's as a result of - well the debate continues. Cheney it seems would say it died because it failed to become statist, socialist and liberal. It took one major event for old right conservatism to be repudiated by the masses, replaced in name only just to keep two teams on the field.

There were of course a few notable conservative voices here and there but never again has the nation had a viable conservative alternative. Of course the death of conservatism in the 1930's was not a single party event, both moved left of center and just redefined in their own minds at least where center was.

Fast forward 60 years and we see that then and only then did even a minority of the population begin to fundamentally see the major flaws in the left of center shift and the true cost of "liberalism" and "conservatism". Move forward 18 more years and for the first time do we see any real, passionate talk with vocal support of true conservatism.

Essentially it has taken 78 years or so for even a minority of the population to understand the flaws of our Liberal/more liberal party system and the destruction caused by an ever larger government and foolish monetary and foreign policies.

Imagine then if you will if Ron Paul were younger, more handsome and capable of talking in 10 second sound bites. Imagine that by the same media/Hollywood tricks all politicians use he were able to win the 2008 presidential election. (in this imaginary world he is still the same small-government, literal Constitution guy, just much more camera/sound bite friendly).

What on Earth would such a "victory" have done to the infant conservative movement, particularly now? Real conservatism is best adapted to keeping a nation out of the very messes we are currently in. Sweeping government programs and fixes are just not in a real conservative's bag of tricks. Real conservatism maintains a system that nourishes stability in the long run, not fluff for election cycles.

Ron Paul did us all a service - akin to John in the desert.

Just as old right conservatism died in a crisis it may come back after the next crisis (i.e. the one we are in) as more and more people come to see the 78 year social experiment for what it was and is, an abomination. Liberalism may just have less than a decade more to rule over us, a right center shift may come - if we are wise and see our recent past for what it really was.

Labels: conservative, El Cid, paleoconservative, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Campaign for Children and Families, a leading West Coast pro-family organization that researches and advocates for the natural family, is pleased to announce the Report Card on the Natural Family to inform voters where the leading Republican presidential candidates stand on protecting the basic family unit.

“While all of the leading Republican candidates claim to embrace family values, let the record show that they’re marching to different drummers on marriage rights, adoption, schoolchildren, and the destructive ‘LGBT’ agenda,” said CCF President Randy Thomasson. “Many pro-family voters will be surprised with the results of this carefully-researched report card. But as always, what a candidate does means much more than what they say. Facts are stubborn things.” see the report

Paul and Huckabee scored 7, McCain 4, Thompson 3, Giulliani 1 and Romny 0. Family is the most important aspect of conservative philosophy. Who says that Ron Paul's brand of political philosophy is not truly conservative? He is the only real conservative in the race.

Labels: 2008 election, El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

As I sat and listened to Barack Obama's speech after winning the Iowa caucus I thought to myself (half-seriously actually) "this guy sounds exactly how I think the antichrist will sound when he shows up." Ok out of curiosity I googled 'Barack Obama antichrist' and good grief was I shocked. Apparently a lot of people have had this thought before; some have extensive websites with proof of their suspicions.

Well who knows, I seldom speculate on points of Biblical prophecy and I am very wary of those that do - particularly that make such a thing their trade. However, I suppose if I were going to write down a list of attributes Obama has the "silver tongue" required skill-set down pat.

I fear that despite the ideological holes in almost everything he stands for; granted it is hard to pin the man down on positions from his speeches but one can certainly get a picture of his ideological basis from his dancing words; the American polity will eat up what he is serving.

Nothing any of the GOP front-runners are saying will sell at all with anyone other than the lock-step GOP faithful in a general election. People are sick and tired - rightfully so - of the same old GOP story line related to a failed foreign policy. Continuing the course is not an option for the ordinary American - the Democrats are preaching "change" and the American public is ready to say 'amen".

The GOP had a chance to stop the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 (or at least run a candidate that really stood for what the American people really wanted and really needed). Patrick Buchanan (like him or not) stood firm for the change that America needed. The GOP faithful failed to see that and instead decided to try something old again. Bush the Elder represented everything that has always been wrong with the GOP - he was out of touch with conservatism, he represented not the people but special interest. His world view was akin to some profane merger of Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln. His economic policy was abysmal. George was the GOP's man - Pat's warnings were ignored.

We ended up with eight years of the Clinton dark years - forget the sexual exploits, - Clinton was a horrible president. You simply must recall Janet Reno and her gestapo troops in Waco, Ruby Ridge, down in Florida with the Gonzalez family. You must remember the North American Free Trade Agreement (not really free trade at all), Operation Desert Fox (the precedent for regime change in Iraq), the ridiculous war against Serbia, the Brady Bill, the Iraq Liberation Bill, and the silly 'Don't Ask Don't Tell".

We know now, if we are honest we should know, that America was indeed in the midst of a cultural war in 1992. Sixteen year later we see the results of unchecked illegal immigration, in the coming years we will see more and more the follow-on effects of the erosion of culture that this will have on our society. Ask yourself this, is America a more or less moral place today than it was in 1992. The answer to that, if honest, clearly shows that we have been involved in a war we are losing. In Pat's words:

But the cultural war is broader than two battlegrounds.
We see it in the altered calendar of holidays we are invited - nay, instructed - to celebrate. Washington's Birthday disappears into Presidents Day. States, like Arizona, that balk at declaring Martin Luther King's birthday a holiday face political censure and convention boycotts. Easter is displaced by Earth Day, Christmas becomes Winter break, Columbus day is now a day to reflect on the cultural imperialism and genocidal racism of the "dead white males" who raped this continent while exterminating its noblest inhabitants.

Secularism's Holy Days of Obligation were not demanded by us; they were imposed on us. And while Gov. Cuomo may plausibly plead ignorance of the culture war, the Hard Left has always understood its criticality. Give me the child for six years, Lenin reportedly said, quoting the Jesuits, and he will be a Marxist forever. J.V. Stalin, who was partial to Chicago gangster films, thought that if only he had control of Hollywood, he could control the world.

Too many conservatives, writes art critic James Cooper, "never read Mao Tse-tung on waging cultural war against the West. [Mao's] essays were prescribed reading for the Herbert Marcuse-generation of the 1960's, who now run our cultural institutions... Conservatives were oblivious to the fact that ... modern art - long ago
separated from the idealism of Monet, Degas, Cezanne, and Rodin - had become the purveyor of a destructive, degenerate, ugly, pornographic, Marxist, anti-American ideology." While we were off aiding the Contras, a Fifth Column inside our own country was capturing the culture.

The battle is lost and the few Republicans that still believe it can or should be fought at the national level are simply confused. Mike Huckabee is a glimmer of hope for these confused people - they believe supporting a man that claims evangelical Christian beliefs can right all that has occurred. Wrong - perhaps in 1992 there was a slim chance, no chance what-s0-ever exists for this possibility now at the national level.

The American people are ready for a change but what they are really interested in is change that benefits them personally. The only option at all to correct what is wrong is to attack the very core of the belief system that says it is ok to use the Federal government for "good". As we have seen power in the hands of the Federal government is never used for real good.

The only real counter-argument to the noxious touchy feel-good ideas spread by Obama, Edwards and Clinton is the dish Ron Paul is serving up. Everything every other GOP candidate is preaching is defeatism, the same oldism status quo that has failed so miserably thus far.

The only hope for America is to restore the republic, return all of these critical "hot-button" issues that Federal Government has no Constitutional power to act on back to the states. Let us salve the complicated social issues at the local level and keep the Federal Government out of the business of "doing good".

Labels: 2008 election, El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

I respect the fact that the man stands up for what he claims as his religious beliefs. I myself am a Christian of the Baptist persuasion (Southern Baptist to be exact). However - there is something significantly dangerous about some of the ideology that many evangelical politicians and "leaders" hold dear.

I know enough about how ordinary Christian folks think and vote to understand why good folks in Iowa placed their voted for Huckabee. I also know enough about the ideology that Huckabee represents and how dangerous it really is.

I will tell you this much, without the probably required data to support my position - Mike Huckabee is a dangerous man, dangerous in the way George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Romney, McCain and Guilliani are dangerous. It is simple enough to rip apart Huckabee from his ideological core - I think between my colleagues here we have done that more or less over time. (see CHRISTIANS NEED TO BEWARE OF MIKE HUCKABEE, The Huckster and Education , Totalitarians Among Us, Sound and Fury, Debate Round-Up to read some of the things we have said about the man).

I am not sure that Iowa means a lot - other than it is refreshing and encouraging that Paul seems to be set to place ahead of Gulliani, Thompson seems to be out of funds and momentum, McCain will self-destruct and Romney and Huckabee will invariably keep beating each other about.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that can run a successful campaign against the Democrats - mark it down and put my name beside it!

Labels: 2008 election, El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

With Ron Paul that Lincoln was wrong to start and prosecute a war against the southern states when they seceded from the union. An act not prohibited to them by the Constitution - the act of going to war against states exercising their reserved rights is not a power delegated to the executive branch or the federal government in general. I challenge anyone to provide evidence to the contrary. Apparently the majority of folks in the less metropolitan states understand this concept.

Take a gander at the map of the poll results - everywhere that people still live with some degree of that quality that has been considered historically "American" the majority agree that Lincoln was wrong.

Samuel Chase (a signer of the Declaration of Independence) and Justice of the Suprime Court stated in Ware v. Hylton (3 Dallas 199 at 224 U.S. 1798)

In June, 1776, the convention on Virginia formaly declared that Virginia was a free, soveriegn and independent state and on the 4th of July 1776, following, the United States in Congress assembled declared the thirteen colonies free and independent States; and that as such they had full power to levy war, conclude peace etc. I consider this as a declaration, not that the United States jointly in a collective capacity were independent States etc. but that each of them was a soverign and independent State, that is each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority and its own law, without any control from any other power on earth. [emphasis mine]

The Treaty of Paris 1783, concluding the American War of Independence, supports this conclusion:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Notice that Great Britian acknowledhes the independence of thirteen individual states as free and independent nations - not simply one joint government. The United States as a government was born from a contract between free and independent States and it was given only limited power to do specific things. As the 10th Amendment clearly states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The president did not and still does not have the power the use force against a state or states exercising their reserved rights - i.e. all rights of free and independent nations not specifically delegated to the Federal Government under the terms of the Constitution. Free and independent states are by definition free to enter into contracts and agreements and when they believe those agreements are no longer in their best interests they are free to leave those agreements. That is the meaning of being free and independent - any other definiton would inply that the states were captive and not free at all.

Alexis de Tocqueville the foremost observer of the creation of the American Republic, in Democracy in America, said:

The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right.

President James Buchanan stated succinctly in a speech before Congress, December 1860 that the Constitution does not delegate to the Federal government the power to use force against a state:

The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not " necessary and proper for carrying into execution " any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution.

Lincoln himself spoke highly of secession at one point in his career (when it was pragmatic and met his own ideological objectives)

Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one which suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right-a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own so much of the territory as they inhabit.

This excerpt is taken from Lincoln's "If You Can Secede You May" (Mexico) speech, cited in Rupert Emerson, From Empire to Nation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967), p. 450.

Clearly Mr. Lincoln was wrong to wage war against the South - he did not do it to free slaves for he never freed a single slave under his actual sphere of influence. Furthermore, slaver ended in every other Western nation without war, it was an intsitution destined to end in America as well without warfare. He invaded the South outside of his constitutional mandate and beyond his delegagted power to act. His actions caused the death of 400,000 Americans and in the minds of the uneducated and more nefariously those that wish to use the Federal Government for purposes that is was never created for changed our Republic into an empire.

Ron Paul was brave to answer Tim Russert correctly but it is more encouraging to see that many of my fellow Americans still understand history and the Constitution.

Labels: El Cid, Lincoln, Ron Paul, secession, states' rights

Stumble It!

Anthony Gregory has penned a fabulous piece on the backlash from Russert's attempt to trip Ron Paul up with a question about Lincoln's War.

George W. Bush and the Republican establishment are, if nothing else, Lincolnian,
regardless of what anyone might say. The party of corporatism, imperialism,
centralism, economic fascism, dictatorship, aggressive war, militaristic duplicity, conscription, direct taxation, cronyism and police statism has never strayed much from its 1860s roots. And it has always advanced despotism in the name of liberty and national honor, from Lincoln to Teddy, from Nixon to Reagan, from the Bushes to Benito.

The fact that "conservatives" have flocked to and supported the GOP over the last half century is really more a result of the Democrat parties abandonment of its roots than any real redeeming conservative principles in the GOP itself. I have voted Republican in with the only excpetions a couple of votes for Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates when I had an option. The legacy of Lincoln is written all over the GOP and if it does not shake that legacy, renouncing it outright it deserves to fall and crumble.

But Ron Paul has done something that no presidential candidate of any prominence has done in many, many years — he has challenged the cult of Lincoln, the ideological godhead of the modern American regime. The Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Wilsonian empire and now the Lincolnian central state have all
become national issues of discourse again. Thanks, Ron Paul. Once again, you
have told the American people what they need to hear. If we want America to become a free country, we must go further than overturning the legacy of George
W. Bush. We must overturn much more, and replace it with liberty itself. We are
closer to that goal than ever, as the ideological basis for the modern American
system is crumbling at every moment of exposure to Dr. Paul's truth serum.

Indeed he has, but who really wants to listen? To listen to such truth requires a fundemental change in the way one sees the world. It is too comfortable to accept the status quo, not to ask the hard questions and not to hear real truth. No real conservative, no real lover of liberty could look at Lincoln as anything more than a murderous tyrant - a man that simply ignored the law off the land to force his idea of a perfect union upon the people via force.

Labels: El Cid, Lincoln, Ron Paul, tyranny

Stumble It!

Tim Russert asked Ron Paul last Sunday on Meet the Press about Mr. Lincoln's War to which Paul said: "No, [Lincoln] shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic."

Anyone that is honest in their study of history knows that Lincoln did not declare war on the Confederate States to end slavery and that he himself never freed a single slave while president. These are facts. What he did do is redefine (by force) the original republic and to do so inaugurated slavery of another sort (the draft). He started the war and invaded the South for the same reasons nations have always invaded other nations - power, control and economics.

What an asinine thing of Russert to attempt, what a brave and noble answer from Paul.

AOL wants you to speak on the issue, go here to express your opinion (vote) on the issue. They ask a simple question "Ron Paul says Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War. Do you agree?"

I am amazed at the results - the failure of our civics education is obvious. I am more disturbed at the numbers coming in from the South. Obviously a lot of morons have voted in this poll thus far.

Labels: El Cid, history, Lincoln, Ron Paul, South

Stumble It!

In case you missed it, Friday’s Wall Street Journal ran an article on "Dr. No’ on it’s front page. No, it was not about Ron Paul. The article was written by Sarah Lueck.

It was about Senator Tom Coburn, from Oklahoma, and how he has caused gridlock in the Senate this year. I expected at the very least a mention of Ron Paul the Presidential candidate who is better known as "Dr No" from the House of Representatives. No mention at all.

If you Google "Ron Paul" and "Dr. No", there are over 23,000 pages found. Google "Tom Coburn" and "Dr. No", and you will find 620 pages.

[...]

In the middle of a primary season, the WSJ runs an article on a politician who is not running for reelection, who upon a casual glance, appears like another candidate who is running for president? Is this a coincidence? No. No to the highest degree. It's difficult to comprehend how the editorial board of the WSJ justified front page space for a politician not even seeking the attention, while the most important race in our nation starts January 3, 2008. (from Speak Up Now)

This is really not a surprise but all the same it is disappointing. A significant portion of the American polity has already spoken with their money, time and dedication in regard to Dr. Ron Paul. How can the MSM still ignore him, or in this case make an obvious case to do him a disservice? Perhaps there is not organized conspiracy to corrupt our political system but there certainly is a lot of collusion.

It becomes more apparent all the time that the only solution to repairing our system and restoring the republic is something beyond an election.

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

I had the chance to attend a pre-screening of "I am Legend" tonight. This movie is loosely based upon Richard Matheson's 1954 novel. I was always fond of the Charleton Heston adaptation "Omega Man", but that version departed from the novel fairly radically.

The movie begins in New York City in the year 2009. Someone has developed a "cure" for cancer using a modified version of the measles. Fast forward three years and we find Will Smith - Dr. LTC Neville - as the last man on Earth (along with his trusty companion Samantha - a German Shepard).

Neville spends his days doing what one might expect in such a circumstance - growing food, scavenging for supplies and diving an assortment of new automobiles (free of an insurance payment or bank note).

Minor Spoiler Alert



Neville is not the last man on Earth. The modified measles virus did in fact cure cancer but in the process it killed 90% of those injected with it. Furthermore, nine percent developed some pretty nasty symptoms - aversion to UV light, a thirst for blood and hostility. Essentially these nine percenters became vampires in the classical sense, moving at night, holding up by day in dark recesses of buildings.

If you have seen "Omega Man" you will expect certain events based upon minor allusions to occurances in that movie. I thought it was a nice touch to keep us all guessing based entirely upon preconceived notions.

I will not ruin any more of the movie, you should see it if you enjoy the "end of the world/survival genre". I will say that the folks up in the SVR ought to raise a little cain at their exclusion at the end; it would have been a nice touch to see the flag at the Vermont location being that of the SVR but all the same we can imagine.

I thought this t be a pretty good film - no gratuitous sex, drugs or language - the science was no so far off to be unbelievable and the story was engaging. It is tough to pull of a movie with one actor for half the film.


Of course I cannot help but comment that the infection might never have spread past New York City at all if the regular people there were ARMED - also the film showed what we know to be true in real life during events like Katrina. That is the government is worthless at actually doing what it was created to do - protecting the people. All those years and all that money spent on doing things the government is not supposed to do meant that when push came to shove the people were left out flapping......Vote Ron Paul.

Labels: El Cid, movies, Ron Paul, survivalist

Stumble It!

Here we have one of the more insane things said in the debate the other night; spoken by the unhinged John McCain.

I have already addressed the fact that it was Wilsonian intervention that led to WWII, not post war isolationism - the die was alread cast Mr. McCain.

I would add also, as an active duty military officer - I gave Dr. Paul another donation today. You do not speak for us John McCain.

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

His anti-war stance has not only helped him bank more campaign cash than Iraq-backer John McCain, it has garnered him more contributions from military families than any candidate in the race.

read more | digg story

Labels: El Cid, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

A Ron Paul presidency will:

let Americans keep more of their own money.

end the IRS.

stop the central bankers’ “inflation tax.”

stop unconstitutional spending leading us to bankruptcy.

stop the financial dependency on China, Saudi Arabia, and other foreign governments.

oppose trade deals and groups that threaten American Independence (incl. the UN, GATT, NAFTA, NAU, WTO, CAFTA, ICC).

protect our privacy and stop the national ID card.

protect our constitutional rights and end the “Patriot” Act.

secure our borders and end illegal immigration.

end “birthright” citizenship for illegal aliens.

bring our troops home from no-win “police actions.”


Ron Paul has:

never voted to raise taxes.

never voted for an unbalanced budget.

never voted to raise congressional pay.

never taken a government-paid junket.

never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

voted against regulating the Internet.

not participated in the lucrative congressional pension program.

repeatedly been named the “Taxpayers’ Best Friend” in Congress.


Congressman Ron Paul is serving his 10th term in the U.S. House. Dr. Ron Paul has delivered over 4000 babies. He served his country as a Flight Surgeon in the Air Force and the Air National Guard. Ron has been married to his wife, Carol, for 50 years. They have five children and 18 grandchildren.

A True Conservative.

Since my return to SC to attend to my father's affairs I have reevaluated my previous disgust with the small showing of support for Dr. No. Perhaps my neighbors were shamed into putting out their Ron Paul signs by my pleadings a couple weeks ago. I can say honestly and unequivocally that in my part of SC the Ron Paul signage is currently running 20:1 over anything else. In fact I can only think of one example of a sign for another candidate (Romney) and that is in front of the only Mormon household in the area. My mother received a nice mailing today from the Paul campaign - those contribution dollars seems to be well spent. Now that most of my other business has been attended to I plan to visit the campaign headquarters in the nearest city tomorrow to meet a few of the ground troops and make a donation in person.

I told a fellow today - half jokingly - that Ron Paul is the only man to throw his hat in the ring actually qualified to be president since Thomas Jefferson. I thought about that a bit after our conversation and I think I was actually correct - no half joke required. (Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan excepted perhaps)

Labels: El Cid, Ron Paul, South Carolina

Stumble It!

Dear Author,

I'm curious as to why you make the parenthesized inclusion 'send me your hate mail' after the comment 'the system will not allow such'. (refering to a Ron Paul victory)

The old media does not provide me with current information, historical information or articles that would inspire me to vote for my candidate of choice which is Ron Paul.

I get that from articles such as yours that I read on the internet. Why would I send you hate mail?

I would say that everything from the old media to vote tampering to even worse things can happen to prevent the election of Ron Paul as President. That would be a realists point of view. But then that would just be acknowledging the hurdles that need to be overcome to achieve the reality of victory.

If evil triumphs when good men do nothing, then we better do something. That's the correct reality. It also requires the correct estimation of effort. But of course we want to agree there's such a thing as failure so that we can have a reason to fail, so we don't have to be cause.

There is no excuse for any failure that ever occurred any place in history, except this: There was just not quite enough carry-through or push-through. That is all that is necessary for this which is a just cause. That is my reality.

Labels: El Cid, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

I read a post the other day and I cannot now recall where or by who but the point that the author made was that the Ron Paul Revolution will be short lived. Those disaffected souls that now support Dr. No will not throw their support behind any of the other GOP candidates and there is not another Ron Paul on the horizon to galvanize the troops and keep the revolution alive (assuming that Dr. Paul does not win the election).

Without discussing those assumptions much further I will simply say that I agree for the most part - what the author proposed is probably a realistic outcome. The fact is real conservatives do not have a home in either party. There is nothing conservative about the Republican or Democratic approach. One wishes to curry favor with the masses by transferring wealth through government programs, the other wishes to curry favor with big business by providing subsidies and protection. The end result of both approaches is bigger government, each approach is progressive, neither approach conserves anything that was or should be in our society.

In the 1980's many believed that conservatism had been vindicated after the failed attempts of Barry Goldwater in 1964 to win the presidency and not only thwart the Great Society but push back the nefarious New Deal.

My father was a Goldwater Republican (I was even named after Mr. Goldwater), I was a Reagan Republican. However something significant occurred between 1964 and 1980. Two significant things in fact. First, the real roots of the Republican party were always there. The GOP owes its very existence to the Federalist/Whig brand of ideology that is responsible for so much of what is wrong with he republic today. It was the Federalist that abandoned their charter to alter the Articles of Confederation. The Federalist gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts, the first legislated tyranny since the revolution. It was the Republican Party that single-handily redefined the Constitutional limits of federal power and killed States' Rights and Federalism. Republicans annexed Hawaii against the will of their monarch and people. The Republican Party played a large role in the idiocy of prohibition - something any conservative knows the Federal Government has no authority or role in. It is the Republican Party that has again passed tyrannical legislation in the form of the Patriot Act and redefined jus ad bellum to include the noxious notion of preemptive war. It is the Republican Party that champions the rights of non-human, soulless corporate entities.

For all of the evils and nonsensical ramblings of the socialist democrats and their flaky ideas regarding nationalized medicine and other inane ideological blunders - the Republican Party is not one inch more Conservative. The two major parties are just different sides to the same coin.

Many of my kin, blood and cultural, rejoiced in the 1980's with the rise of the Religious Right -"Finally, we will put things right". For all of the good intentioned notions of the rank and file followers of the Moral Majority and other similar groups the result and impact on American politics was even more disastrous than the nonsense surrounding prohibition. If the Religious Right was a truly conservative movement - in terms of conserving what America was and should be - their efforts at social conservatism would have been focused almost exclusively at the state and local level. Their national efforts would have focused on true conservatives that understood the Constitution, the 10th Amendment and the nature of federalism and states' rights. Instead of acting as conservatives these groups acted as progressives, seeking to use the political system to effect change, change that required an increase in the role and power of the federal government. That was certainly not a conservative approach.

One day they will see that what you give to the federal government it is hard to take back. Perhaps there was a moral majority in the 1980's but what happens when there is an "immoral majority" that seeks to use that very same federal government power that they foolishly established? You wanted to define marriage, tell states about abortion, define prayer - would you want a majority of heathens doing the same? It will happen because of foolish progressivism in the name of "doing good" and we will be powerless to stop it if the precarious majority fails.

Religious conservatives dismiss Ron Paul because he will not come out and say things like -"If I were president I would work for (insert whatever moral legislation you wish)". This is precisely because Paul understands the Constitution and the dangers of progressivism. It seems we Christians are much happier supporting a reformed Rudy (hey Robertson says he is ok), or one of the other fellows because they take a stand on a moral issues (they talk a good game). We are missing the point, it is not the place of the federal government to regulate these issues, we ought to seek a man that would put these issues back where they belong - with us at out state houses.

Perhaps the Ron Paul revolution will be short lived - then again perhaps the pundits are wrong. Perhaps, just maybe true conservatism will again thrive, perhaps the supporters of Paul will not just fade away (win or lose). Third parties in the 20th Century have not fared well therefore maybe it is high time that the Republican Party became relegated to third party status. If folks that call themselves conservative fully understood what being a conservative meant there would not be a Republican Party - it would have been thrown on the ash heap of history in 1864 or soon thereafter and certainly it would not enjoy the support from otherwise good intentioned folk it counts on today.

If there is the be a Ron Paul revolution (i.e. conservative revival) I welcome it, I sincerely hope it shakes the very foundation of the current political system of a bad choice and an awful choice. It is unlikely that the Republican machine can or will be reformed from within as so many have hoped for - the basic ideology is just all wrong, their heritage of wrong is written all over the party. The only hope is to throw the system away and start anew.

I pray that Ron Paul wins the election but I am prepared for the possibility that the system will simply not allow such (send me your hate mail). This makes me no less of a supporter, it makes me a realist, it means I am committed for the long haul. I am fully prepared to adjure the realm, weather many moons of socialist democratic rule to stand true to conservative principles. A philosophy such as conservatism cannot die so long as people remember. It is time to stop compromising with a system that respects neither the law upon which our nation is built or the principles that gave that law birth.

I challenge you, if you are a true conservative, if you are truly an heir to the legacy of Jefferson and those men that envisioned a republic, not a socialist mobacracy then you must examine your entire concept of politics in America. If you continue to be blinded by the dog and pony show presented by the faux conservative GOP you are either a fool or an enabler.

It is time for a revolution (although it is not a revolution at all it is merely a revival of our conservative heritage and right thinking about the role and nature of our central government). Turn off the talking heads, read the Constitution and support Ron Paul and come what may refuse to ever go back to the role of loyal subject to a party that is neither conservative nor right.

Labels: conservative, constitution, El Cid, paleoconservative, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

My visit to my native South Carolina has been disheartening to me, to phrase it mildly. The advance of suburbia that I mentioned in an earlier post is more profound than I first surmised in my initial survey. It seems that everywhere I go I see massive changes in the landscape. Everyone seems to be in the business of selling the family farm to make way for some new profane subdivision.

When I look at a field or patch of woods that I hunted as a child/young man and see now houses for 100 or more families I am bewildered. Something like that occurring here or there is significant but when it occurs over and over it is bound to fundamentally change the very nature of the culture. Country roads that were once quiet and peaceful are now torrents of traffic as silly commuters make their way to silly jobs each day. This is simply an unsustainable way of life - folks will realize this someday when they no longer have the option of paying $70 to fill up their glorified mini-vans (I guess they call them SUV's but I just see boxes on wheels with very little sport or utility involved).

I have been most disturbed with conversations I have had with otherwise good people about Pat Robertson. Around here most folks are evangelicals and they are the sort that generally believe a man if he simply says he is a good Christian. It is because if this that I know of several good people that over the years sent money to the likes of Oral Roberts, Jim Baker and now Pat Robertson. A lot of these same folks believe that Bob Jones is square in his biblical teachings. I have found it impossible to point out that Robertson is obviously a fake, a man deluded by the power he has come to wield. How on Earth could any moral man, much less a Christian support a man that endorses someone like Giuliani? I just don't know.

More disturbing is that most of the people that should be squarely behind Ron Paul have never heard of him. I have to blame this on the generational differences in how folks acquire information.

I visited a Wal-Mart today - because I found that the two hardware stores I patronized in the past are now out of business. It is not an exaggeration to state that 30% of the customer base in the store when I was there was Mexican. This is in a small (historically rural) town in South Carolina. I cannot get over the change two years has wrought.

I am seriously considering cutting my vacation short and leaving within the next two days for my next duty assignment. I know at least that weird things are to be expected where I am going. I do not have the heart to see the changes in my own home firsthand.

Labels: culture, El Cid, Ron Paul, South Carolina

Stumble It!

Oh Lord, I would live my life in freedom, peace and happiness, enjoying the simple pleasures of hearth and home. I would die an old, old man in my own bed,
preferably of sexual overexertion.

But if that is not to be, Lord, if monsters such as this should find their way to my little corner of the world on my watch, then help me to sweep those bastards from the ramparts, because doing that is good, and right, and just.

And if in this I should fall, let me be found atop a pile of brass,
behind the wall I made of their corpses. (ht Freeholder)

Ok either you get it or you are running away in the belief that I am a murderous, bloodthirsty sociopath. I get it. I see both the truth and the humor of this. - On other unrelated notes-

Today I returned to my native land after an absence of over two years. Much has changed. Apparently I need to brush up on my Spanish - the small Mexican enclave in the small town near my home has grown tremendously while I was away. Amazing that!

I was encouraged to hear Ron Paul advertisements on the radio - on my way to the gun shop. As I said I have not been able to purchase a new "toy" in two years. I treated myself to a Bulldog Pug .44 revolver and Winchester lever action 30-30. The wife was not please but after paying for her to bask in Hawaii for 6 days her protestations were semi-muted. It is all good!

An absence of two years is just enough time to measure and gauge the spread of "sprawl". I did not count but I noticed numerous instances of long time businesses that are now gone - replaced by cookie cutter shops, restaurants etc. A place loses its character when this happens.

When I was in a little town on the North Shore of Oahu last week I noticed little signs and bumper stickers stating "Keep the Country Country". Perhaps Mr. Wendell Berry's influence is greater than I imagined or maybe people everywhere realize the importance of maintaining their little piece of the world.

I plan to spend the next several days before heading out on the second phase of our move ( a cross country drive), hunting, sleeping (vacations are tiring) and trying to talk my fellow South Carolinians into supporting Ron Paul.

Labels: culture, El Cid, gun rights, humor, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Just yesterday, Wolf Blitzer, I think, asked RP what he meant when he referred to "Washington". Well, any dummy knows except Blitzer the reindeer, that Washington is the central core of our ills. I don't recall Ron Paul's response, but I'm sure it must have been an abstraction to the power that the anointed have over the rest of us.

But, it got me to thinking about a discussion I had with a DC bureaucrat while visiting friends in Maryland this past July enroute to the deep North.

I found him to be a pragmatist and realist beyond any I'd met before. He didn't seem to have any ideology nailed down for himself, but was extremely well-informed on most of the issues. I'd say he was in his mid-fifties. He promised to watch the Russo DVD I gave him anyway, and I'm sure he did.

But, here's the thing about "Washington" that I gleaned from this politically savvy man. The primary concern of a federal worker, and thus the culture in Maryland and DC, is their JOB. In each election their deep concern is will they keep their job. I don't know the % of voters in the federal workforce, but I bet it's significantly higher than the average. They, if to believe my friend's neighbor, will cast their votes for the candidate who offers a better, or job retention program. These bureaucratic dependents are ideological voided. They have no philosophical anchors, but yet they know the size of the fedgov has greatly exceeded its lawful limit. You want them to vote the commie line? Not a problem. Vote for a Republican? Why not? I think the urban New England centers have pretty much adopted this same "believe-in-nothing but yourself" culture. My chatting friend says they have an ongoing fear what the rest of the country might do. Which is another way expressing a fear that "the people" may determine that "Washington" has been voting themselves a living for way too long. And worse, take action to change it.

But, when you give this perverted view of our system further thought you realize that this distortion is not really different from the corporate socialism that plagues the country at a higher decision making level. Politicians now have assumed the authority to reward financial contributors with contracts, appointments, etc. Even money. Whomever offers the greater expansion of "Washington" gets the funding.

So, don't be discouraged when you don't see much help coming from the national or state-level GOP. These ideological voided hacks want to continue the fire sale of America's institutions, jobs, sovereignty, and general welfare of American citizens.

We just have to work harder. It's Honor, Principle, Virtue, and an appreciation for the individual that's made America great. Not treason to those qualities. We should all remember that as Ron Paul supporters we reflect his views, and how and in what informed manner we do, will determine whether we as a people become "Washington's" nightmare come true.

Think about it. With more of the fedgov's assumed powers returned to the states and their people - - maybe having a state or local job's the place to be!!

I'm seeing the Hope become Reality. What about you?

Labels: Charleston Voice, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Found this on the Lew Rockwell blog today. I wonder how well it will turn out. We have:

1. The National Day of Fred-Giving



2. The "Mittbomb"



3. The Huckabee Childrens Fund (It seems that Huckabee supporters are attempting to pull out the 'ole "it's for the children" card)

Labels: IKANTSPEL, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

While you're boning up on the Constitution, be reminded that a source for consideration in drafting our Constitution was the Magna Carta of 1215. Our founding fathers would identify his arguments in favor of the 5th and 8th Amendments originating more than 500 years before. Do you know what those amendments are? Know then, if we only had chief justices like Owen installed in our Supreme Court instead of the black-robed Mafia, our survival as a free people may stand a chance.

You will find many other elements of our Constitution embodied in the Magna Carta. It's not
that long a document. Be sure that Dr. Paul's read it. So should you. How can anyone be passionate to defend something (Constitution) if they are ignorant of its origins?

Your Founders knew the history of freedom and individual liberty inside and out. So does Ron Paul.

Labels: Charleston Voice, constitution, history, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Remember remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot...

Remember remember the 5th of November
1 day ago from Do you ever have one of those years where 'one of ...every day?
Remember remember
4 hours ago from Missmalice Knits
Fizz Bang Whizz Pop Fit Fit Fit!
15 hours ago from Behind The Child
Guy Fawkes Day, Nov. 5
5 days ago from Holiday for Everyday
This 5th of November
2 days ago from The Warriors’ Way Academy
Remember, remember the fifth of November
3 days ago from NUJ New Media
Angry Yet? Remember the Fifth of November
7 days ago from The New Liberty
Three Days
2 days ago from Key Words
Remember the Fifth of November !
Paul Girl and Remember, Remember the Fifth of November
5 days ago from Preserving Freedom

Labels: El Cid, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

I am going to attend the Ron Paul rally here in downtown Columbia, South Carolina on Friday. Lord willing, I'll have some photos of the event.

Labels: IKANTSPEL, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Here is one of the new Ron Paul television advertisements.

Labels: IKANTSPEL, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

We are told by those that say they know that Romney has the most "grassroots" support among all GOP contenders (I guess that would make Ron Paul supporters Salt of the Earth or some such thing). What does he stand for, is it really a conservative agenda and is it the best course?

Let's look at his own agenda-


Affordable Health Care For All Americans

Sounds grand and noble - wait let me check my copy of The Federal Constitution. I do not see any reference to the Federal Government having any business concerning itself with affordable healthcare. The fact that Romney places this as his first point in his agenda is therefore troubling. His plan reads well, it talks about instilling conservative priciples of free market and deregulation but still - within the fine print - we see things like "and helping the low-income uninsured afford the private coverage of their choice."

Consider this:

Governor Romney will end subsidized care for "free riders" by redirecting these existing federal and state resources to help the low-income uninsured purchase their own private health insurance.

Wrong, wrong wrong - you o not redirect my tax dollars from "free care" to subsidized insurance and call it conservatism, free market or smaller government; you get the government out of the healthcare business all together.



A Pro-Growth Tax Agenda

This is of course the catch-all issue of all conservative rhetoric but unless you are really willing to slash spending tax cuts or reductions in marginal rates across the board will just not work - and as part of his agenda he specifically wants to reduce the corporate tax rate. If you are going to start cutting taxes you have to begin with the individual first. Tax cuts without deep spending cuts are not sustainable (see above, even his healthcare plan does not slash spending, it merely moves it around).


Defeating the Jihadist

Oh good grief - Jihad means a holy struggle or striving by a Muslim for a moral or spiritual or political goal - defeating all jihadist could take a very long time and could include bombing the fellow at the 7-11 that has resolved for his own personal jihad to not miss prayer, a student that has decided to veil herself even though she lives in the West and yes followers of Wahbi ideology that wish to restore the caliphate. I am amused at the choice of words for this point, because words are important. If you are going to lead us, you must understand the words you use (we have too many recent examples of a leader muddling important words).

It is hard for Americans to accept, because most have not read deeply enough, but we would never have been attacked in 2001 if our policies were different. Those Muslims that have decided to make their personal jihad that of restoring the caliphate picked the US as a target, the far enemy, because we support their near enemies. Their real goal is to re-order the nature of the governments in their own lands - they saw and see us as a significant supporter of those governments.

You may say "damn right" we don't want them taking over their governments over there - they will then attack us. Doubtful this would really play out - look at their success in running a government in Afghanistan. They took over a backwards and primitive country and after years of work they succeeded in moving it closer to the stone age. If, on the off chance, these radicals did succeed in taking power, reestablishing the caliphate, keeping power and building their new empire into a peer-competitor then perhaps we should be concerned. There are many "if's" in that scenario. It seems pretty foolish to declare war on a bunch of folks that probably could not succeed in all of that just based upon an assumption. If you are not convinced, read about how the wahbi movement started, how their strategy changed over time and their own reasons for attacking the US.

Romney offers us more interventionism, more conflict and more needless war - all based upon a failed understanding of the world.


Competing With Asia - he gets it right

We have to keep our markets open or we go the way of Russia and the Soviet Union, which is a collapse. And I recognize there are some people who will argue for protectionism because the short-term benefits sound pretty good, but long term you kill your economy, you kill the future. What you have to do in order to compete on a global basis long term is invest in education, invest in technology, reform our immigration laws to bring in more of the brains from around the world, eliminate the waste in our government. We have to use a lot less oil. These are the kinds of features you have to invest in, you have to change in order to make ourselves competitive long term.

Stopping Runaway Spending

I don't want to add entitlements. I want to find ways to reform our entitlement programs.

Again, Romney is consulting the old playbook of rhetoric, not The Constitution. You don't reform entitlements, you eliminate them.

Getting Immigration Right

We need to make America more attractive for legal immigrants -- for citizens -- and less attractive for illegal immigrants. I want to see more immigration in our country, but more legal immigration and less illegal immigration.

"I want to see more immigration in our country" - this is not the 1800's with the entire west to settle. Our culture has absorbed too much for now, we need time to acculturate the people that have already come over and have yet to act, think, speak or believe like Americans. We certainly do not need more immigration, a controlled flow of qualified legal immigrants will do just fine thank you. He sounds to me like he is talking to all sides on this issue, he does not address those that are in our country as criminals right now and how he would act to expel them.


Achieving Energy Independence - I do not see anything objectionable here

We're using too much oil," Romney said. "We have an answer. We can use alternative sources of energy -- biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear power -- and we can drill for more oil here. We can be more energy independent and we can be far more efficient in the use of that energy.

America's Culture and Values - I like his nod to States' Rights

I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Raising the Education Bar

He talks about the importance of education - I agree - and the importance of powering down to schools and communities but he does not mention eliminating the un-Constitutional Department of Education. If you can't get it right by The Constitution your plan is not conservative.


Lastly, it cannot be overlooked that Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism is not Christianity - it is a cult, read their books. This may be alright for Bob Jones and other evangelicals - after all they routinely support men that profess Christianity but obviously do not live it. It is not ok for me. Every Mormon I have ever known has been a decent person, but they follow a false God and that is simply a fact in my mind. If you are really a Christian and a member of The People - Romney cannot be your choice any more than Hillary or Obama can be.

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

I am a man that has seen the ugliest face of mankind, I have fought, killed, and seen killing all in the name of "making the world better" - yet I have not seen my service or that of my brothers make anything any better. We have all experienced the growing tyranny of a government filled with hubris and callousness. Who will put an end to this? Who will stand on principles?

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Ok, so you may (or may not) ask - why do I support Dr. Ron Paul for President.

Weyrich claims in a recent article that Paul has "strange ideas" but never really clarifies this.

It is too bad some of the ideas he advocates are strange because many of the things he says makes sense.

Strange enough some people confuse Weyrich with an actual paleoconservative. - I think not.

What of these strange ideas?

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

This is true and something found on a campaign site- a rare occurance. You do not need to listen to Paul's speeches or read his words to really know where he stands - look at the man's voting record in Congress over the last 20 years. You will know that he really means what he says - find another politician out there that really can say that.

I know, I have said it before, one man and one election cannot restore the republic. However, enough people fully supporting a man that stands on the right principles (whether he wins or loses) is the absolute right step.

Ron Paul has stood firm on a strict interpretation of the Constitution the entire time he has worked in Congress - that is the number one reason I support him.

Surely that is not the strange idea mentioned above. What of his stance on the other hot-button issues.

American Sovereignty - 100% right, no NAU, NAFTA, UN or other foreign entanglements

"We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America."


Border Security and Immigration - 100% spot on target

"Physically secure our borders and coastlines; Enforce visa rules; No welfare for illegal aliens; End birthright citizenship; Pass true immigration reform"


Taxes and Debt - Amen

"Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.... We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States."


Health Freedom - he is the doctor

"I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements

I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations."

Home Schooling - my children are home schooled thank you very much

"My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate.

I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students. I also believe that, as long as No Child Left Behind remains law, it must include the protections for home schoolers included in sec. 9506 (enshrining home schoolers’ rights) and 9527 (guaranteeing no national curriculum).

Federal monies must never be used to undermine the rights of homeschooling parents. I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to encourage a culture of educational freedom throughout the nation."

Privacy and Personal Liberty - who but a tyrant could disagree?

"The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.

We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data — a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.

I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives."


Property Rights - again only a tyrant could disagree

"Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property."


Social Security - fixing FDR's socialist nightmare

"It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.

We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.

Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors."

The Second Amendment - praise the lord and pass the ammunition

"I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment."


War and Foreign Policy - 100% correct

"Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America... We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution....Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations."

Labels: Border Control, constitution, El Cid, gun rights, immigration, International, paleoconservative, politics, Ron Paul, taxes

Stumble It!

Hold your horses cowboy - don't close that browser just yet. If you are like me, and for the sake of your wife and loved ones I hope you are not, you grew up believing that Ronald Reagan was "The Man" and Margaret Thatcher was the "Iron Lady". I joined the military with the words of Reagan echoing in my head about the need to stand on a wall and face down the bear of communism. Thatcher and Reagan were an inseparable team it seemed in the opposition to the Soviet Union.

There is another side of Margaret Thatcher that most Americans do not know about - but more on that later.

In 1913 Great Britain was prepared to consider and probably "grant" home rule to Scotland. I say "grant" because the notion that sovereignty could be withheld from a nation that preexisted Britain, a nation that only lost its independence after centuries of invasion, coercion and deceit is absurd. Britain could no more "grant" to the Scots that which was rightfully theirs than I can create gold via sheer will. That is not the point however, in 1913 a home rule bill passed the first reading of the British Parliament and everything seemed set. World War I ended the progress of the bill and in the fever-pitch following "The Great War" to grant self-determination to peoples across the world, the Scots were forgotten.

Fast forward to the 1980's, the voting patterns of Scotland and England clearly began to show a shift in what Scots thought was important versus the rest of Britain. Very young conservatives like me in America may have loved Thatcher for her foreign policy but Scots disdained her domestic policies and her paternalistic attitude toward their desires to do things their own way.

A commenter on a Guardian story sums it up:

Despite my very close English connections, I've never been comfortable being British after growing up under Thatcher and seeing how differently England and Scotland voted during those years. It left a great impression that fundamentally England and Scotland are very different - one more "me" oriented and one more socially aware. Several years living in England later on didn't change that view.

Most observers of the movement toward devolution and nationalism in Scotland point directly at Thatcher as the catalyst to reignite centuries old embers. Speaking of a Thatcher visit to Glasgow in 1997 SNP leader Alex Salmond suggested that her visit was "the best advertisement for Scottish self-government possible". A recent History Channel documentary I viewed "Essential Scottish History" spoke to this fact and her influence in galvanizing Scottish nationalism.

For nearly 300 years the Scots had tried it the Unionist way, for nearly 300 years they had seen the downside of representative democracy in action . As a minority, a suppressed nation, they came to know exactly what union meant. It took several attempts to elect the "right" people, pass the right bills etc. before they collectively woke up to this fact in sufficient numbers to push for a return of their own parliament but they did wake up, thanks in large part to Margaret Thatcher.

Perhaps you already see why I placed Hillary Clinton in the title line with Margaret Thatcher - perhaps I do not need to write the rest of this, I think you already get my point.

Small minorities all across these united states are disenfranchised with the way things are, for their own reasons - some to the right others to the left. Most within these minorities still see the hope within one man - "if we can just get him/her elected all will be well." Of course the majority is either apathetic or still delusioned by the non-competition provided by the two non-opposing national parties (but those unwashed masses are not our concern).

On the right many of us support Tancredo or Dr. Paul (a minority if the MSM is to be believed) and within this group of supporters most actually believe. Heck, I want to believe - but I don't. I believe that despite our support Dr. Paul, for instance, simply will not win. The GOP has already established it has no intention of letting it happen - they want one of their men. What does that leave? A third party option that will ensure Hillary the win or sitting home, not voting for the scoundrel, false conservative the GOP trots out - which of course also ensures Hillary wins. Either way, Hillary wins.

I am not a defeatist, Dr. Ron Paul is the right man for the job, Tancredo (or better yet Alan Keyes) might make a decent VP but it will not happen. If it did happen and Paul stuck by his past voting record we would see a presidency with the most vetoes and the most vetoes overridden in the history of this republic. Not that this would be a bad thing, but the fact is what it is. (in it own way a Paul win would highlight just how wrong things are at the core)

Dr. Paul deserves our support, our earnest support. Above anyone else in government he has stood firm on a strict interpretation of The Constitution. Supporting him, despite the odds, is simply the right thing to do - a trigger point must come and it cannot come unless decent, feed-up people continue to dream and continue to see their dream shattered by the current system.

The election is Hillary's to win unless she herself losses it in the coming months - ours is but to stand firm on principles and support that which is right, not what is pragmatic. There is too much pragmatism in politics.

I would have thought that after 7 years of neoconic folly the body of conservatives would rise from the autopsy table and demand a man like Dr. Paul - we see this is not the case in the vast majority, why on Earth would any real conservative support Giuliani, Romney, McCain or Thompson? I don't know - I am without an explanation. After the lies, deceit and downright trampling of the Constitution under Bush I would expect a real conservative revolution but it has occurred only on the fringes.

I would like to think that after 4 years of Hillary real conservatives would wake up and say "enough", I would like to think that they would look at the GOP as an organization infested with false conservatives and bad ideology and demand a change. I would like to think that a combination of tyranny and lies under Bush and socialism and idiocy under Clinton II would wake my own people up and have them screaming in streets for freedom and independence from this republic gone astray - realizing that a vote does not equal a voice in a system this large.

I would like to see that and maybe we will, right now I am confused as to why more of my own people are not in the streets demanding that Ron Paul occupy the White House at the earliest opportunity.

The Scots woke up (partially) will we?

Labels: constitution, El Cid, Neoconservatism, political philosophy, politics, Ron Paul, secession

Stumble It!

DailyPaul
America's Brave Heart
Catholics for Ron Paul
Citizens for Ron Paul
Conservative Times
The Crossed Pond
Disinter
For Sound Money
Granny Warriors
The Knight Shift
LDS 4 Ron Paul
Libertarians For Ron Paul
MindBody Politic
New Liberty
Online Rally
Ozarks Voter
Paul for Ron Paul
Primarily Paul
Protect Ron Paul
Red State Eclectic
Republican Renaissance
Retro Republican
Ron Paul Fan
Ron Paul KC
Ron Paul 2008 NYC
Ron Paul HQ
Ron Paul Nation
Ron Paul New England
RonPaulforPresident2008
Ron Paul Press Hub
Ron Paul Registry
Ron Paul Rescue Us
RonPaul Wisconsin
RonPaul.Typepad
Students for Ron Paul
Seniors for Ron Paul
Watch Ron Paul

International Blogs:
Asia for Ron Paul
Bavaria for Ron Paul
Belgians for Ron Paul
Brits for Ron Paul
Brazilians for Ron Paul
Canadians for Ron Paul
Chile for Ron Paul
French for Ron Paul
Europe 4 Ron Paul
Holland 4 Ron Paul
Hungary for Ron Paul
Ron Paul Spanish
Indian & Pakistani Friends of Ron Paul
Poland for Ron Paul
Romania for Ron Paul
Venezuela for Ron Paul

Official Ron Paul Site

Military and Veterans For Ron Paul

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Have you seen their new anti-Ron Paul T-Shirt? Well, apparently they took it down because I cannot find it anywhere but the caption on the shirt read "Puck Ron Faul." It apparently was not up for long (in fact, the post I linked to has a comment mentioning that even though the commenter dislikes Ron Paul, their shirt makes Red State look bad).

Labels: IKANTSPEL, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

The post on Redstate, “Attention, Ron Paul Supporters (Life is *REALLY* Not Fair),” begins, “Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.” (via Politico)

I gave up on RedState a long time ago, I have never seen one fresh, innovative, logical or conservative idea posited there. I had no idea that honest discussion was such a threat to "conservatism" until Daniel pointed this out in a recent post. He sums it up pretty nicely:

Unfortunately, this latest is just a symptom of the broader conformism on the “mainstream” right, particularly on matters of foreign policy, and represents the mentality of a movement that has been losing its ability to maintain and grow its political coalition. Paul’s campaign has thrived on the message that conservatism and Republicanism can and should still mean respect for the Constitution, liberty and a sane foreign policy–the very kind of rejuvenating and reforming message that the GOP needs if it is to retain the loyalty of millions of disaffected small-government conservatives and libertarians–and where Paul is making converts the folks at RedState, to adapt a phrase, are interested in finding heretics. It is a great irony this year that it is the purists who are actually swelling Republican ranks, while the pragmatists and big-tent folks are doing their best to empty that tent. Republicans will object that new Paul supporters will not support the GOP once Paul’s campaign is finished, and they may be right. RedState has just given Paul supporters one more reason to stay home or vote third party.

Morrissey over at Captain's Quarters gets it wrong in his assessment of all of this:

Banning them simply for their support for a candidate seems more like an admission that Redstate lacks that ability.

This has nothing to do with a two-bit GOP shill site and its inability to effectively support and defend the unconstitutionality of almost every GOP policy - this has to with the indefensibility of the ideology behind GOP "conservatism". The entire field opposing Paul is comprised of clowns and crooks.

In one very important way it is crucial that freedom-loving Americans are rallying around a man that stands on principles and believes in the rule of law. Ultimately we need these sorts of things, we need to see that the system will not allow the sort of honest discussion Ron Paul wants to have, we need to see first hand the great lengths phony conservatives will go to in order to avoid honest debate. We need to see, in the final analysis, that the system is broken and it will take more resolve and more work than just an election to fix it.

Labels: bad ideology, constitution, El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

I couldn't agree more - it was a circus and the whole point was to make it look like Ron Paul had absolutely no support. I believe that this is an adequate summary of the debate.

Labels: IKANTSPEL, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Ron Paul won the cnbc post debate poll by a varying degree of 70% to as high as 80%. We obviously flooded the polls, and since the "real" polls do not reflect their's, it is decided that the polls are illegitimate, and are promptly taken down. Prop's go out the CNBC, censoring the media the neo-con way.

read more | digg story

The other night I was traveling in a part of Korea where I could receive only one English language radio station, AFN AM. That moron Rush Limbaugh was on (I do not listen to him but I was stuck with nothing else on) and his caller asked his opinion of Ron Paul. Obviously they timed this call to coincide with the break because Rush said something to the effect of "humm, Ron Paul, what can I say? Gosh time is almost up, look 7 seconds, 6 seconds, humm Ron Paul...he is running for president, time is up we gotta go to break".

It is amazing how consistent these people are in dismissing Ron. There is nothing to dig up on him, his ideas are inarguable - the only answer is to just ignore him.

Labels: El Cid, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: Charleston Voice, economics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Video

Labels: Charleston Voice, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: Charleston Voice, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: Charleston Voice, politics, religion, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

A good friend to the League and excellent blogger, Joshua, just published his first post, Ron Paul Tzu, on LewRockwell. Great to see another sound voice added to Lew's site.

Labels: blogging, El Cid, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: Charleston Voice, economics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: Charleston Voice, economics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Who the heck needs these Establishment rigged TV debates anyway? Watch this and see what happens afterwards! Just show up Ron, that's all America asks.

After the Michigan debate, Ron Paul speaks to a rally of over 200 people!

CNBC might have snubbed him during the debate, but the crowd waiting to see Ron after the debate was huge and very happy to see him. The campaign estimated between 2000 and 2500 people were waiting for Ron to deliver the message of Freedom.

Video is courtesy of justin.tv/ronpaul

Labels: Charleston Voice, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: Charleston Voice, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Here is a registry for Ron Paul Supporters to show the real support he has nationwide.
Please sign and pass it on.
http://ronpaulregistry.com/index.php

CV

Labels: Charleston Voice, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Excellent - a Must Listen-To! We'd bet given the truth, most Americans at the root are Calvinists, and not of the mainstream phony christianity. Get out of your pro-war, neo-con church, and help God, country, and your families.

---

Vol. 26 - Faith for All of Life Podcast - Interview with Attorney and Political Activist Jerri Lynn Ward

Chris Ortiz and Jerri Ward discuss the recent Value Voters Debate where Congressman Ron Paul was booed by the Conservative Christian audience. Also, great information on the universal healthcare proposals of Democratic candidates.

Chalcedon Home Page

Labels: Charleston Voice, religion, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

This from a mailing list entitled "The Charleston Voice" (I am not certain how I got on the list or who the writer is but I do enjoy the emails)

From a recent message:

"Fear the government that fears your guns...". Note the "culprit" had no prior police record. What a waste of precious law enforcement funds. Washington County taxpayers should work to cut the budget of Sheriff Tim Helder. State legislators should prohibit a federal agency, the BATF, from meddling in state affairs under the 10th Amendment. This was never a power delegated by the people of Arkansas to the federal government. Similar exigencies could await gold and silver "hoarders".

From the incident mentioned:

FAYETTEVILLE — A Fayetteville militia member was arrested Wednesday by teams of special agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and other federal and state agencies and local police in connection with illegal firearms

Problem number one, I see no justification in the Constitution for the Federal Government to maintain a police force (nor several of them as is the case).

“We assisted ATF and several other agencies in arresting Fincher. I don’t believe he has a criminal history with us. That’s all I can tell you,” Reynolds said.

Reynolds is the county sheriff - supposedly the highest ranking law man in the county if we are to trust tradition and common law but here we have yet another example of a county sheriff "dutifully" assisting the federal goons when they come knocking.

A machine gun that can fire 550 rounds a minute and assorted 9 mm Sten submachine guns are stored in the Washington County militia’s concrete and steel vault, according to information gathered from an interview conducted by The Morning News in March. Each weapon is stamped with the word “non-commercial” to prove the group holds the arms for militia purchases only and not for trade or sale.

Now before you say, "see they were breaking the law" consider again the words of Congressman Ron Paul that I discussed in a recent post:

The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.

If we concede that law-abiding citizens - like Mr.Fincher (see the sheriff's statement above about the man's criminal history) cannot own modern-day muskets we are conceding the right of the people to force change on a government that cannot be persuaded with reason.

Fincher said in [a] March interview he believes Americans should proudly uphold the right to bear arms, stand up for land rights and not always accept the federal government as the supreme law of the land.

“What we’ve got to do today is hold our ground,” Fincher said in March.

For Mr. Fincher and the 13 other members of his group raided in their homes 8 November standing their ground was an expensive proposition - a sacrifice the rest of us should remember and honor.

Labels: El Cid, gun rights, Ron Paul, tyranny

Stumble It!

The Honorable Ron Paul ( I so seldom use that honorific) writes this week about guns and gun control.

The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.

It's convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying, "That could never happen here, this is America." But history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish decades from now.

Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals.

The knee-jerk reaction to events such as school shootings is that weapons that dispense a lot of lead in a short period of time are probably too dangerous for "The People". This may be true; but if it is true then The People are worthy of neither the freedom nor liberty that guns guarantee. (A Subject for another discussion)

Risking offense to each and every one of my libertarian and paleoconservative friends that stress that change must come but it must come at the cost of no blood I offer this - history teaches such notions are naive and misplaced.

Now, slow down just a bit and hear what I am saying. I am not advocating an armed revolution nor am I saying such a thing is necessary. I wrote a few days ago that it is time that our intellectual ponderings about what is wrong and how things ought to be are all well and good but will ultimately accomplish nothing. We must become reactionaries to the cultural demise and ever increasing reliance on government to solve every problem. We must tame the beast before it devours us. This will not occur without a solid and dedicated commitment.

This commitment must be deeper than mere words and political actions. We must also realize that as Jefferson stated in his often repeated quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Do we believe we are so enlightened in this age that bloodshed is no longer required at times to effect change? How foolish, the government certainly does not ascribe to that viewpoint.

Do George Washington's words still not ring true? "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." I think his view of government is still true; as a paleoconservative I accept government as a necessary evil - an evil that must be contained and restricted to the most minimal of roles and powers.

Revolution is not required today; we still have many other nonviolent means to bring about change. However, if we fail in this generation what options will our children be left with? Do we suppose that a failure on our part will result in a government that is more or less tyrannical? I presume that if we fail our children will yearn for the liberty of their fathers.

It is thus extremely important to retain the right to keep and bear arms; arms comparable in relative capability to the musket on the mantle in 1792. That musket was a military weapon, suitable for hunting man and beast. We cannot submit to the notion that our children be left with only single-shot "plinkers". The Second Amendment means a lot more than that.

Dr. Paul leaves us with this warning:

Gun control may have faded as a political issue, but the mentality that Washington knows best-- and that certain constitutional rights are anachronisms-- is alive and well. Look for gun control advocates to bide their time and look for new ways to resurrect the issue in 2008 and beyond.

Labels: El Cid, gun rights, Ron Paul

Stumble It!