Quote of the Day 04-08-2009

"The left and right differ only on what part of the federal government gets to decide when we are stripped of our constitutional protections. "

Stewart Rhodes, Government Supremacists, Neocons: The National Security New Dealers

Democratic and Republican Politicians: Whitewashed Tombs

I heard that Missouri's own Senator Kit Bond was hopping mad at the insurance giant, AIG, as well as at the new Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner. Why? Because AIG, right after being handed billions of our grandchildren's money, doled out $1 million bonuses to their executives.

I'm not sure, but it appears that all 100 US Senators are fighting mad at AIG, and all of the Republicans and even some Democrats are calling for the head of the Treasury Secretary. Now, don't get me wrong - I weep not a tear for any AIG executives, and certainly not for our Secretary of the Treasury, but I find the outrage of Senator Bond, and all of the blustering Congressmen and Senators, to be infuriatingly disingenuous and hypocritical.

Most of these Senators, including Senator Bond, voted to fork over our hard-earned money to AIG and many other incompetent but well-connected companies, and went into wordy diatribes defending their odious actions at the time. Now, they pretend to not know that AIG is a corrupt and incompetent institution, and they are now busily working to craft more unconstitutional legislation to make things even worse, economically.

Why did Congress and the new Regime think there was no moral hazard in handing over billions of dollars to a company like AIG? How has this company proven itself deserving of survival? They don't call it an economic correction for nothing, after all.

AIG, who several years ago refused to drop the newly married daughter of a friend of mine from his insurance policy because he "could not prove she was insured elsewhere" had already made contractual agreements with these executives to give them these bonuses. What business does Congress and the new Regime have in deciding how this company (not to mention all the others that will be impacted by their newest hysterical legislation) should spend it's new-found money? Why don't they drop the charade, and just completely take over the businesses of this country? What would these politicians rather AIG had done with the money? These executives were some of the many people to whom the company owed billions of dollars - that's why they were going under in the first place!

I liken our outraged "representatives" toward AIG executives to a bunch of thugs that have invaded our homes, beaten us severely, and taken all of our money, then given it to a hoodlum down the street to whom they owe the money. Then, when the hoodlum spends the money on a luxury car, the thugs howl in outrage and expect us to direct our anger at the hoodlum for how he spent our money, and not on the thugs for violating us. I hope the victims (the American people) will not fall for such outrageous manipulation, and misdirect their anger.

The slouch towards socialism, heartlessness, and cultural decline will only worsen until Americans, one by one, get out of their sports-mentality in politics, stop considering themselves Republicans or Democrats, and reject the socialism, anti-capitalism, and unconstitutionality of both parties. As it is, half the country supports it when Bush does it, then start throwing a fit when Obama does it, while the other half rave and wring their hands at the policies of the Bush Regime, then defend tooth-and-nail the same policies when advocated by Obama. Meanwhile, we all forget what our Senators and Congressmen said yesterday, and don't recognize them for the hypocrites they are today!

We had better wake up - the sooner the better!

Thanks for reading...

Happy Birthday, Abe Lincoln!

This Thursday is the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, probably the most famous President of the United States. It is unlikely that any person has more dramatically impacted the history of our nation. He, above all other American historical figures, served to centralize the state, and destroy, by force of arms, a crucial aspect of the balance of powers worked out by the Founders of the nation, and put us on a seemingly unstoppable path to ever-increasing and ever-strengthening central government.

When I was a boy in school, it seemed in every classroom the portraits of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln sternly looked down upon us children, as if they were gravely critiquing our performance and behavior. I have come to realize that the two men in the two portraits were politically (and in many ways personally) polar opposites. One of the effects of the invariable display in the classrooms of the State's schools of the two men together, was to give the children the impression, year after year, that these men were two players on the same team; that they would have agreed with one another and worked together. In truth, I think George Washington would have been appalled by Abraham Lincoln, as were many of Washington's direct descendants.

I doubt there is another figure in our nation's history, or perhaps the history of the world, which has been more methodically, less accurately, and more thoroughly mythologized. For instance, even many of the most famous quotes attributed to Lincoln, including many that are routinely taught to American schoolchildren, either have no basis in fact, or have been proven to be complete fabrications.

Lincoln is still considered the Great Emancipator, even though a study of the record, the testimony of those who knew him best, and his own words, demonstrate that he did not believe in the equality of white and black people, and he was not really interested in freeing the slaves, except late in the war, as a political maneuver and war strategy, officially emancipating them specifically only in the areas not controlled by the Union army.

Lincoln did not even oppose secession on principle, but only when it did not serve his purposes. This fact is demonstrated by his orchestration of the secession of western Virginia, and setting up of a puppet government there. Even Lincoln's own attorney general believed the act was unconstitutional, since a state can only be created by its people, not by the President or US Congress.

It is also a myth that Lincoln wanted to avert a war, but was forced into one by the hot-headed South. In a letter to U.S. naval commander Gustavus Fox, Lincoln exposes that he had anticipated the results of attempting to provision Ft. Sumter (in other words, that the fort would be fired upon, whipping up the flames of war), and that the "cause of the country (was) advanced" by this goading of the South into firing on the fort.

So, what were Lincoln's motivations? In his own words, his politics were "short and sweet...a national bank...the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." Another term for "internal improvements" is corporate welfare. In short, Lincoln was a champion of mercantilism, and was the classic modern politician, advancing the agenda of his greedy supporters, even to the point of destroying through force the obstacles in their way (Southern Agrarians and Federalism).

Economist Murray Rothbard defines Mercantilism as "a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the State."

So, here's to Honest (?) Abe, the triumph of his Mercantilist agenda, the centralization of governmental power, the national bank, the destruction of Federalism, and the seemingly unstoppable path toward total power of the central government on which he so violently put our nation. His ideals are really coming home to roost in 2009.

Thanks for reading...

The Group of 20

The Group of 20 Nations (or Group of 20 Self-Important Rulers) are meeting this weekend in New York. Their sycophantic media call them "leaders," but the term "rulers" is a much more accurate description of their position and actions. For some of us, their leading us to slaughter is not consensual, but forced, and they get away with it only because they are rulers.

The bloviating, hypocrisy, and irony already coming out of the mouths of the participants of this meeting is almost more than I can bear.

In a speech on Thursday, George W Bush bravely defended capitalism, and warned against government meddling. After 8 years of supervising the largest growth of the US central government in history, after overseeing nearly a decade of encouragement by the government of inflation and financial irresponsibility, after two terms of conniving to pressure mortgage associations into unrealistic loans based on political correctness, and after being a stalwart defender and spokesman for massive redistribution of wealth (what else do you call the recent and ongoing bailouts?), George W. Bush, of all people, tells the other 19 socialist rulers at the G-20 summit:

"History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, but too much...''

This utterance by Bush is not only true, it is a great understatement, and the policies of his own Administration is part of the history that bears out this truth, by proving once again that government meddling and heavy-handedness, and the inevitable cronyism which always must accompany such systems, undoes a nation's economy.

So, while Bush is telling the world not to abandon capitalism (as if any free-markets exist in the world today), rulers such as Sarkozy of France and Rudd of Australia, and Merkel of Germany are blaming everyone except politicians, and everything except excessive governmental intervention for the current global financial crisis, and are in particular slamming our own government for not being meddling and overbearing enough! The irony!

These rulers don't see any role in the crisis played by mercantilism, lack of real competition, political correctness, fiat money systems, economic fascism, and all manner of government-forced redistribution of wealth, all of which are key causes of the current, looming economic storm. To these statists, never is there an over-reach of government; only a lack of government intervention. To them, government can never consolidate enough power.

And the hypocritical rhetoric by the statist George W. Bush, and his phony defense of capitalism with words only, does nothing but more harm, by giving capitalism an undeserved bad name. Shame on him. Shame on all of these rulers. Shame on the lazy, lying, incurious, uninformative, state-serving media of the world. Shame on the apathetic, ignorant followers of these rulers who give them their consent to be led to chaos, slavery and poverty.

Thanks for reading...

Just say no to McBama and Ocain

Various of my friends and members of my extended family are urging me to vote for Sen. John McCain for President in the rapidly approaching general election. Few of them have much or anything positive to say about McCain himself, but they tell me that the dangers presented by the election of Barack Obama leaves us no alternative but to vote for McCain, thus blocking an Obama presidency. As always, we are told on all fronts that this is the "most important election in history."

For several reasons, I disagree with these friends and family members that our only alternative is to vote for John McCain.


Claim: McCain is the lesser of two evils.

There is not a real difference between the two presidential candidates of the major political parties in philosophy, worldview, or integrity. One is Black, and one is White. One is old, and one is young. I claim that, in spite of the rhetoric, this is where the differences end. In recent sound bites, on the topic of personal liberty and the Constitution, Obama sounds slightly more conservative than McCain. On abortion, McCain sounds a little more conservative than Obama. On foreign policy, McCain sounds slightly more hyper-interventionist than Obama, and neither sound conservative. But when you consider all of the rhetoric, their records, and the practical implications of their stated goals, all the supposed differences melt away, and we are left with another Bush Administration, or another Clinton Administration, with a slightly different flavor, but the same old direction for our nation: rapidly toward more foreign interventionism, more economic interventionism, more suppression of liberty, more complete reliance on government, more tax funding for all manner of evil, including abortion, unjust war, welfare for politically connected multinational corporations, more official corruption, and, eventually, bankruptcy, chaos and/or brutal totalitarianism.

To know how a President McCain would govern in the realm of economics, one only has to remember his actions of a few weeks ago, when he pushed for unprecedented powers for the Secretary of Treasury, and, along with Bush's urging and Obama's help, lead the way for the Senate to pass the infamous bailout bill, which was the exact bill which angry voters had just persuaded the House to reject, only now with over 450 pages of earmarks (pork), tax "extenders," and new powers for the IRS added to it. McCain publicly chided House Republicans for listening to their constituents and stopping the first monstrous bill in the House! Bush and McCain and Obama told us we were all going to suffer financial ruin if we did not pipe down and hand over our children's wallets to the banksters. Now that they have had their way, we have seen dramatic drops in all of the world's stock markets. What better example do we need to see that McCain and Obama are on the same page when it comes to economics?

What about the right to be armed? Surely McCain is better than Obama on that issue? For the answer to that question, I would direct the reader to this web address: http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm. It is a compendium put together by Gun Owner's of America, of John McCain's gun-control record.

What about immigration? More than even most Democrats, McCain has been a consistent advocate of uncontrolled immigration. In 2007, he was the co-sponsor of the McCain-Kennedy Act, which sought, among other things, to legalize the millions of illegal immigrants currently in the country. This was being pushed during the jostling for position in the primary elections, and was a very unpopular bill among the Republican rank-and-file in an election in which opposition to unchecked immigration was expected to play a huge role. Yet, somehow, John McCain managed to win the primary popular vote. Incidentally, none other than Barack Obama was an ardent supporter of this act, and also a co-sponsor.

The environment? See McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act.

Free speech? See the McCain-Feingold Act, a famously unconstitutional piece of legislation.

Foreign policy? Both candidates have advocated aggressive interventionism and nation-building. Both support our illogical and immoral policies in the Balkans, and hypocritically support the independence of a Muslim Kosovo, but oppose the independence of South Ossetia from Georgia. Both want to increase and expand our current quagmire in the Middle East.

Abortion, I am told, is where the important difference lies between John McCain and Barack Obama. Barack Obama is famously tolerant of all abortions, any time, any where. McCain, on the other hand, currently claims to be pro-life, and promises to select judges that are "strict constructionists," implying that he would nominate justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe vs. Wade, if given the chance. But John McCain has flip-flopped on this issue, like so many others in his political career, several times. He has made statements in recent years that he does not want to see Roe vs Wade overturned. Also, McCain's role in promoting justice David Souter, the currently important role of Warren Rudman in McCain's campaign, and his voting record for past nominations in the Senate, is an indication of what kind of Supreme Court justices we really would get under a McCain presidency; they are not likely to be justices that would vote to overturn Roe vs Wade.

John McCain has repeatedly stated his support for Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and has even implied that it should be increased.

McCain shows no tendencies to stop the over $1 billion of Federal funds that go to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America every year, and under a McCain presidency, funding for this and other abortion "services" would likely increase, as it has under the Bush Administration. Until those of us who are pro-life get away from the distraction of the fight for the Supreme Court, and trying to Federalize laws against a certain kind of murder, and instead focus on the right of a state to protect the lives of its citizens without Federal interference, and, more importantly, insist that those politicians who call themselves pro-life do all they can within their sphere to stop the taxpayer funding of abortions and pro-abortion propaganda, we will never make any political ground against the Culture of Death. It's easy to call oneself pro-life, but it's another thing to stand for life consistently.

Although conservatives today have chosen to support nearly all wars waged by the Federal government, and believe any and all justifications for these wars, unjust and needless wars are also the taking of innocent lives. In other words, it is state-sponsored mass murder. Why do we rightly speak out against the evil slaughter of millions of babies through abortion, but tolerate and even support the needless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of babies in other countries in wars that are based on government falsehoods and flimsy justifications?


Claim: McCain has better character.

Others will admit that there is no essential difference between the politics of McCain and Obama, but that Obama is a man of bad character, and associates with bad eggs, while McCain is a war hero.

While I, too, am very disturbed by Obama's personal and political associations, and do think his character is a relevant and important topic, I am equally disturbed by the associations of John McCain. Disturbingly, there is even some overlap in the nefarious associations of the two men. In the interest of space, I will leave it to the reader to investigate for themselves the following partial list of associations with John McCain: The regime in Libya, the regime in Georgia (the country, not the state), mob boss Joe "Bananas" Bonano, Charles Keating (how can we forget that?), George Soros, and Juan Hernandez (McCain's Director of Hispanic Outreach).

As for the designation of John McCain as a war hero, it is indisputable that he was shot down on a bombing raid, and that he spent over 5 years as a Prisoner of War (POW) in North Vietnam. However, what happened to him as a POW is disputed. Many Vietnam veterans, including some of his fellow POWs, claim that McCain cooperated with his communist captors without undergoing the torture he claims was administered. They claim that he was given special treatment by the North Vietnamese, because of his special status as the son of an Admiral, and because of his willingness to cooperate in producing propaganda with them.

These men who make these claims are also veterans, and were also held captive by the enemy as POWs, so there is no reason to automatically discount their claims, or to say they are less credible than McCain because of McCain's status as a war hero. Two things give credence to their claims, in my view. One is the frequency with which John McCain lies today (he has been caught in too many blatant and public lies to itemize here), proving that the truth is not something he finds to be important. Secondly, John McCain, as a US Senator, has doggedly stonewalled attempted investigations into the fate of the many POWs and MIAs left in Southeast Asia. The surviving loved ones of the many missing US Servicemen have been publicly belittled by McCain, and have been the recipients of displays of his famous violent temper, for simply wanting to know the truth about the fate of their missing family members. Further, McCain stated that no POWs in Vietnam were interrogated by Soviet agents. We now know through evidence and testimony that has since come to public light that this statement is not true, and also that McCain had to have known it was not true, based on his seat in the Senate. The demeanor of McCain toward these surviving family members of POWs and MIAs and their advocates, and his tireless efforts (teaming up with Senator John Kerry) to block their searches for answers, seems incongruous with his claims regarding his years as a POW.

John McCain's military career before being shot down in Vietnam was spotty, at best. He was known as a party animal, and lost five aircraft, including the one shot down over North Vietnam. Only two of these crashes could be considered combat-related, including a fiery explosion on an aircraft carrier that killed 134 sailors.

While I'm writing about character, I will mention the fact that McCain left his first wife after she was in a car wreck that left her confined to a wheelchair, for a younger, much richer woman who has better political connections. He may repudiate the foolishness of his youth, and one need not be perfect to advocate virtue, but the abandonment of his first wife does understandably cast doubt on his character, and does not put him on strong moral ground to advocate family values.


Claim: McCain's no good, but his VP pick is:

Some argue that I should vote for John McCain because of his running mate, Sarah Palin. They agree that there is no difference in the character or policy views of McCain and Obama, but that McCain is old, and may die in office, and the true conservative Palin will take his place. But leaving aside doubts of the stories about her fighting corruption within the GOP in Alaska, and whether her professed feminism is good or bad for her family and our society, Sarah Palin shows her true colors by even being willing to be the running mate of John McCain, and being willing to promote him and his politics. She has embraced McCain's politics, and has already been willing to compromise her past views. If she is half the woman her supporters think she is, she will be somehow removed by the current corrupt GOP leaders, or she will remove herself.

In conclusion, I believe that a John McCain presidency would be at least as bad for our nation and our families as an Obama presidency, and perhaps even worse, since he would be falsely viewed as the conservative choice of the voters, though he would run the country in no appreciably different way than would Barack Hussein Obama. (I use the phrase "run the country" because thanks to the Congresses and the Administrations of the last 20 years, the President of the United States is for all practical purposes a dictator.) As we have seen with George W Bush, a Republican President gets support from much of the conservative portion of the population when he does things that would incite near riot by the same people if he were a Democrat. Therefore, perhaps it is better for a Democrat to hold that obscenely powerful position for now, with the hope for some popular resistance to his actions, and some unity in the opposition among conservatives.

Each election, conservatives reluctantly vote for someone for President who is more progressive, more socialistic, and less Constitutional than the candidate in the previous election. When will it end? When will we say "no more?"

I have decided to vote for Chuck Baldwin, of the Constitution Party. I urge all Americans who are tired of the lawlessness, corruption, and increasing totalitarianism of our current government to vote with me for Chuck Baldwin, or to vote for another Third Party, or to write in someone else, or to not vote for President at all. Don't throw away your vote! Why choose between drowning and hanging? Why choose between Benito Mussolini and Vladimir Lenin? This election, let's not give these nihilistic demagogues our consent to govern us. Just say no to Ocain and Mcbama!

Thanks for reading...

Dan Jacobson

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending the Missouri Republican Party state convention, held in Branson. It was a star-studded event, with fine speeches made by Governor Blunt, Blunt's father Roy, governor hopefuls Hulshof and Sarah Steelman, Kit Bond, and others.

This convention was fairer than most of the District conventions around the state had been, no Iraqi war veterans were booed by the majority (as was captured on video at the Colorado Convention), and most of the 300 or so delegates whose credentials were spuriously challenged (simply for supporting Ron Paul during the primaries) were finally seated, but roughly 2/3 of the delegates present rejected the candidates for national delegates from the Ron Paul camp, along with their message of limited government and representative democracy.

Before the convention convened, I was in a stall in the men's restroom, and overheard an interesting conversation. I heard a loud voice saying that you can go up against the Establishment, but even if you take them by surprise and beat them once, they will re-group and crush you. Then he added, "and I have a billy club, and I'll help beat you down because if you're not interested in getting Republicans elected, I don't have any use for you."

I came out of the stall at about this point, to see that the speaker was a chubby, short man with curly blond hair; not very physically impressive. The gentleman to which he spoke was a youngish man in a blue suit and tie, and he was just smiling and occasionally voicing agreement with what the short man was saying. As he tucked his shirt in, the short man said, "I'm a national delegate for someone I didn't vote for, and that's the way it is."

And that's the way it has been. Almost everyone I have ever met, heard or read who supports presidential candidate John McCain supports him defensively, almost apologetically, the way the man in the bathroom was, and talks of supporting him because they "have no choice." It makes me wonder who in the world legitimately voted for the man in the primaries.

This man's words also made me think of the words of John Adams's friend, Jonathan Sewall, when he took Adams aside and pleaded with him not to attend the Continental Congress, because the power of Britain was "irresistible." Why should such things as seemingly irresistible power matter? There is only one truly irresistible power in the universe, and that is the power of God Himself. Why should the physical, military, or political strength of one side or another be an argument for its rightness?

In the election of 2008, there will be more than two choices for president. The mainstream media and the propagandists for both major parties will, as they do every election, tell us over and over and over that there are only two choices, but it simply is not true. Many conservatives and many Christians will conclude that they must vote for John McCain, because he is the Republican candidate, and he has given some lip-service in his career to conservative ideals. They will also say that because he was shot down, held captive, and tortured in Vietnam, he is qualified to be President. I will be told that I am "throwing away" my vote by not voting for "the lesser of two evils" (which is still a vote for evil).

In reply I ask, why am I the one throwing away my vote? Why aren't all the conservatives that continually allow the mainstream media to choose their candidates for them, and continually buy the lies of their candidates, election after election, the ones who are throwing away their votes? What would happen if we all stood our ground, and voted for what and who we wanted?

I think many Republicans know in their hearts that John McCain is another throw-away candidate, and does not stand a chance in November, anyway. I recently ran across a petition online (http://www.lettertogop.com), in which the signors pledged not to vote for John McCain if he is nominated as the Republican candidate for president. This is just one obscure petition out there. To date, nearly 8,800 people have pledged to not vote for John McCain for president, instead choosing the options of not voting (still a right for Americans, thank goodness), writing in Ron Paul, voting for Bob Barr / Libertarian, voting for Obama (not sure why), or voting for someone else (presumably Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, or Ralph Nader).

I hope to write to this column again soon, outlining the reasons I believe a vote for John McCain is a wasted vote.

Meanwhile, I want to point out that while the outlook for getting a non-corrupt, Constitutional advocate of limited government in the White House next year is bleak, there is a very strong conservative revolution afoot across the nation, with many promising prospects for Congress, including a Democrat who has won the primary for US Senate in South Carolina, and will be trying to oust the treasonous Lindsey Graham, a Neoconservative Republican. This particular Democrat is a true conservative, believing in limited government, controlled immigration, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. He is also truly pro-life and an advocate of the family. His name, if anyone is interested, is Bob Conley. I wish him, and all the other truly conservative candidates in the fight this year, godspeed.

Thanks for reading...

Dan

Ron Paul According to a Two Year Old

A Letter of Apology to Paul Supporters

This is a letter to the paper from local resident, Jeff, after my response to his first letter to the paper. I was very gratified by this letter. Jeff surprised me with his humility and his open-mindedness. Honestly, I had him figured from his first letter as closed-minded and arrogant, and was really responding to his first letter for the possible benefit of others, never dreaming that the ostensible recipient of my letter would re-think his position and even apologize for his hasty assumptions. Here it is:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to Mr. J, his wife Candace, and any other Ron Paul supporters who took offense at my insinuation that they are not promoting Ron Paul's position on the Iraq war because it is difficult to face being labeled "anti-patriotic" or "against the soldiers." I was both unfair and wrong. Mr. and Mrs. J, as well as many other Ron Paul supporters, are taking a very courageous public stand in opposing this war, and I would like to applaud them for that.

Mr. J was right - I did not see his wife's first letter to the Star. I also appreciated Mr. J.'s very clearly articulated letter about where Ron Paul stands on the Iraq war, as well as detailing the policy failures of both major political parties on this issue. I certainly do not need to lecture Ron Paul or his supporters about American foreign policy.

In my letter, I argued for a position that we as citizens must compromise and support our government (and its policies and programs), because we "can't always get what we want." That isn't compromise - it's surrender. It is also immoral and unethical. We need to stand up and fight for what we believe, even in the face of an overwhelming majority; especially in the face of an overwhelming majority.

Being in the majority may give people a sense of security or belonging, but it doesn't necessarily give them the advantage of being right. Ron Paul's website ronpaulforpresident2008.com contains a quote from Sam Adams that states,
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
This website contains what Ron Paul believes about many issues facing our nation today. Ron Paul's courageous stand on the Iraq war and on many other issues in the face of an overwhelming majority, and his supporter's eloquent presentations of his beliefs on the issues, has succeeded in lighting a fire in my mind. I'll also certainly be watching "Meet the PRess" this Sunday to find out more about Ron Paul.

I am certain that I do not agree with Ron Paul and his supporters on every issue, maybe not even most. I'm not convinced that Ron Paul will get my vote, or that he can win the election. But thanks to Mr. J's letter, and Ron Paul's integrity on many issues, I am at least willing to listen with an open mind now. I hope many others are willing to do the same.

I was wrong to vow never to vote for a Republican from texas, based on this nation's experience over the last seven years. Ron Paul cannot be lumped in with our current president, or any other GOP candidate for that matter. I know that Ron Paul will say what he truly believes and fight for it, and not simply advance some slick political message for the purpose of garnering the most votes. In this day and age, that is something worth taking note of.

Jeff S
Smallville

My response to a letter in the local paper about RP

This is my response to Jeff, a local resident who wrote a letter to the newspaper as a reaction to one of my wife's letters about Ron Paul:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From his letter to the Editor in the December 12th issue of this newspaper, it appears that Mr. Jeff S**** jumped into a discussion without reading the original letters which spawned the discussion, while presuming, for some reason, that he was coming in on the beginning of the discussion. He seems to think that the letter written by my articulate (if I may say so) wife, Candace J, and another letter written by another articulate supporter of Ron Paul in Smallville, regarding Paul's positions on Social Security, were the only letters written in support of Dr. Paul.

In fact, my wife had previously written a letter in support of Ron Paul, in which she mentioned his position on almost every matter, including foreign policy, which is one of the foundations of his run for the presidency. Being limited by space and time, Mrs. J could not mention every subject under the sun, and did not touch on Paul's stance on Social Security. In a letter to the Star, a resident of Bourbon pointed out this omission by Mrs. J. The letters to which Mr. S**** refers were written in response to this letter from the resident of B******, and are therefore on the one subject of Social Security.

Most supporters of Ron Paul see Social Security for the Ponze scheme that it is, but that doesn't mean we "conclude that the most pressing issue is how to fund Social Security," as Mr. S**** writes. That was his conclusion, based on coming in late in the discussion without noticing that other letters had led to the discussion of Social Security.

Mr. S****'s insinuation that my wife or any other supporter of Ron Paul does not promote some of Paul's stances because they are afraid of being labeled as "anti-patriotic" shows not only that he never read the first letter to this paper written by my wife, but that he is not paying any attention to even mainstream news stories about Ron Paul's campaign, and what his supporters are saying. Opposition to the war is one of the constant themes of the Ron Paul campaign, and I know of no supporter of Paul that is the least bit afraid of being labeled "anti-patriotic" by promoting this position, although I do know some Paul supporters that don't share his opposition to the war.

I also find it ironic that Mr. S**** lectures Paul supporters on the war in Iraq. Ron Paul is the only candidate with substantial support in either of the major parties that advocates an immediate end to the war in Iraq.

Democrats supported the war in Iraq until it became unpopular. Ron Paul opposed it from the beginning, on sound reasoning, stating over and over again that we should be going after those that took credit for the events of 9/11, who were not in Iraq and were sworn enemies of the regime in Iraq, and not get distracted with nation-building.

The foreign policies of the two major political parties are virtually identical today. When Bill Clinton was president, Democrats and Neo-Conservatives such as Bob Dole and George W. Bush supported mass slander against the Serbian people, and bombing of civilians in Yugoslavia, all in support of a radically Islamic organization funded by Osama Ben Laden and tied to Albanian organized crime in the Balkans. We have troops in Kosovo to this day, protecting the Islamic terrorists there.

Bill Clinton tried to incite war with the regime in Iraq on more than one occasion, and was cheered for doing so by all major Democratic politicians at the time. In 1996, Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary-Of-State, stated, when asked about the estimated half-a-million Iraqi children that died due to U.S. sanctions on Iraq, "...we think the price is worth it." She and the Democrats and Neoconservatives in the GOP have never told us why the price is worth it.

The only people that have always opposed this meaningless and immoral foreign interventionism have been Traditional Conservatives like Ron Paul. If you want to continue the War in Iraq, and possibly expand the debacle to a much larger country (Iran), vote for ANY candidate in either of the two major parties except for Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul. However, Kucinich and Gravel will seek to turn over even more American sovereignty to the United Nations, whereas Paul alone will seek to withdraw us from the U.N., and protect our national sovereignty.

If you want more Socialism ("any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" - Merriam-Webster) vote for any of the candidates of either party other than Ron Paul, and they will deliver it to you. If you believe in the role of government advocated by Patrick Henry, George Washington, and James Madison, vote for Ron Paul.

Local Resident Responds to "House of Cards"

This is a response from a resident to my wife's letter "House of Cards," which ran in our local paper...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having had the opportunity to read last week's editorials, it is evident that many local citizens have found their presidential candidate. Ron Paul is a man of integrity. However, he advocates simple solutions for very complex problems. These simply won't work.

Why is it that Ron Paul's supporters look at the problems confronting America and immediately conclude that the most pressing issue is how to fund Social Security. Why do his supporters not promote the very laudable stances Dr. Paul has made in refusing to vote for the Patriot Act, or refusing to support the invasion of Iraq. Clearly they find it much more difficult to face being labeled "anti-patriotic"or "against our soldiers." And so it is... However, Dr. Paul cannot be fairly labeled either of these things. Neither can his supporters.

But, let's not mince words. The Social Security program is not -repeat - not in danger of immediate insolvency. The fact that every GOP presidential candidate says that it is, no matter the number of times they collectively say it, in whatever volume or shrillness of voice, does not make it true. The argument is patently false. Yes, the Social Security program faces problems, just as every other Federal program faces problems for funding in the future if we do not get control of runaway government spending that has produced a debt of $9 trillion. We do face tough choices about how to spend our money, because we've been led by the current Administration to believe that we can have massive tax cuts and spend massive amount sof money at the same time - that we need to engage in military operations against threats that don't exist, to give money to U.S. Defense contractors that certainly do.

When looking at ways to get government spending under control, why should our choice be to dismantle Social Security - a program that benefits millions of American citizens. Why not end the war in Iraq, that will eventually cost the American people over $3 trillion?

Why not reduce U.S. military spending which is higher than the next 60 nations combined?!! Apparently, it makes far more sense to takeaway money from common American citizens and tell them they don't deserve any help from their own government (while labeling them Socialists and Communists) and instead bankrupt our Federal treasury in order to have enough money to fund our corporate welfare and military spending programs. And when our leaders do reduce military spending, it comes at the expense of our programs to care for our disabled veterans - the very citizens who answered the call to serve this country.

If you listen to ROn Paul and his supporters, I believe you will conclude, as I have, that simple solutions will not solve the extremely complex problems facing America today. These problems require enlightened thinking, intense debate, tough decision making, broad citizen involvement, compromise, and, in the end, money. Don't be swayed by arguments to dismantle our government or its programs that are necessary for the benefit of millions of Americans.

Let's not turn our backs on our government simply because we don't get everything we want from it all of the time. That, my friends, is a true definition of selfishness; and contrary to Ayn Rand, there is no virtue in that type of thinking - at least not in democracy.

We've rewarded selfishness enough over the past seven years. It is way past time for a new type of leadership in America, and Ron Paul, along with the rest of the GOP candidates, doesn't really offer us what we need at this time in our nation's history.

Jeff S.
Smallville

Merry Christmas From The IRS!

Last week, just in time for Christmas, a friend of mine who is a struggling small businessman received this notice from the IRS, along with a letter telling him he owed them hundreds of dollars, payable "NOW." There is no explanation given as to the reason they claim he owes them - just that he owes them.

I think it is clear, upon examination of this notice, that it is a very thinly veiled threat to ruin the reputation of the person receiving the notice.

It never ceases to amaze me what we Americans put up with from our out-of-control, anti-constitutional government! When one receives threats like this from private organizations, such as the Mafia, there is at least the recourse of reporting it to law enforcement, but when the threats come from the IRS, there is no recourse.

Merry Christmas, and a Ron Paul New Year!

House of Cards

My wife's reply, submitted to the local newspaper on Nov. 30, 2007, to a local response to her first letter, "Who is Ron Paul?" :

House of Cards

In response to a letter by Betty and Paul Harmon...

While I appreciate your compassion, I must respectfully disagree. I empathize with making ends meet. And it's not just those who receive a monthly check from the government who are forced to be thrifty, it's also those of us who are putting into the system, while supporting a growing family. This is not an issue of poor verses wealthy. The great thing about the way America is set up, is that it's a place where anyone can do great things. Let's not begrudge someone who has worked hard and succeeded. Isn't that everyone's goal? The idea that wealth should be re-distributed is the root of Socialism and Communism, and it sounds just a bit selfish, too.

However, that said, I think you may be misunderstanding both Ron Paul and Social Security.

Do you know where your Social Security check comes from? Please don't answer "the government." I am sure that you paid in your social security for years, but do you believe that the government has safely stored away your contributions in a trust? Even a bank (a much more financially savvy organization than our own government, by the way) uses the money which we put in it's hands. No, the money which you are being paid monthly comes from my pocket and the pockets of our children and grandchildren.

Most Americans understand that Social Security is in trouble. In the last GOP debates, I believe that every presidential candidate expressed concern over the rapidly failing system that is Social Security.

Mr Paul has repeatedly expressed that he believes that we as a nation should keep our promises to the elderly, who have been forced to pay in to the system all these years, and have come to depend on the government for their very livelihoods.

On his website, Ron Paul states, "Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security. 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."

"... the Social Security “trust fund” is not a trust fund at all. The dollars taken out of your paycheck are not deposited into an account to be paid to you later. On the contrary, they are spent immediately to pay current benefits, and to fund completely unrelated federal programs. Your Social Security administration “account” is nothing more than an IOU, a hopeful promise that enough younger taxpayers will be around to pay your benefits later... The size and longevity of the Baby Boom generation, however, will finally collapse the house of cards." (Quote from Ron Paul)

As I observe the my own generation (20-40) I am amazed at the sloth and laziness which seems to predominate. You will probably agree with me that most of my generation is, sadly, not a very reliable crowd. I am almost surprised when I see a twenty-something who is not a drain on the system, but who is willing to work hard and support a family. So, we have a generation who will not work supporting those who have worked and are now retired. This might possibly hold up, except for one thing. As Ron Paul states, when the baby boomers hit the system, it simply will not be possible to support them. Even if the younger generation did work and pay taxes, the numbers still don't match up. There's not enough of us, to pay for you. The house of cards is awfully shaky.

Are you just hopeful that the system lasts for the rest of your life? What about our lives? What about my two babies? When do you suppose the system will dry up? When will the house of cards finally shudder and fall?

Let's assume you were in the work force for 45 years, making the median income for the US, and paying into SS at the current rate of 15.3%. You have paid a total of $289,170 into the system. Could you have found better ways to invest that money over the past 45 years? Doesn't it seem crazy to give your hard earned money to a group of people who have proven themselves utterly incapable of handling any amount of money?

This is what Ron Paul is addressing when he makes statements about the flawed system of Social Security. And please remember, that the system of social security is taking away from the young, and even unborn children, before they even know that it's happening. That, my friend, is morally impure.

Response from local resident to "Who is Ron Paul?"

This is the response in our local paper to my wife's letter, "Who is Ron Paul?":


Our thoughts on Ron Paul
Written by Betty and Paul
Thursday, 29 November 2007


I read with much interest Ms. Jacobson's glowing article about Ron Paul. I too was impressed with all of his qualities. I thought here is a man that stands for many of the things I stand for. That is, until I heard him speak on TV. He said he was against many of the same things I feel strongly about.

Then, he came to the part of his speech where he said he was against Social Security and Medicare. Whoa! Here's where I really paid attention. He says he would just do away with those programs. (I notice Ms. Jacobson left out that part.) He didn't say what would happen to the many elderly people in this country that depend on their monthly Social Security check to survive. Many of them have to decide when that check comes if they will have to cut back some on their food this month so they can heat their home, or maybe just not buy the medications they need for the month. Yet, Ron Paul says "just do away with those programs."

I'm sorry Ms. Jacobson, but I just can't call that "morally pure" to even be willing to take that away from the elderly.

To me, morally pure is someone who cares about people. Oh by the way, my husband and I are two of the people who live on our Social Security check. It isn't always easy to stretch that check to cover all the necessities either but we have to manage. (I doubt very much if Ron Paul has that problem, considering the fact he is a multi millionaire.) Ron Paul would take that away from us. This is not moral and no, this senior citizen will definitely not stand with you to vote for Ron Paul. I care about all the people and will vote for someone who cares about the poor and elderly of this nation and not just the wealthy.

Who is Ron Paul?

This letter written by my wife was sent to our local newspaper on November 15, 2007:

Who is Ron Paul?

Ronald Ernest Paul, Sr. is a tenth term Republican U.S Congressmen from Texas, a physician, and in my opinion, the best choice for President of the United States in 2008. Does the name sound familiar? He placed third in the presidential election of 1988 as the Libertarian party nominee, even though he was at that time (and still is), a registered republican. He graduated from Duke University School of Medicine in 1961, and was drafted and served as a flight surgeon internationally during the Vietnam War. He presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Paul has been called a conservative, a Constitutionalist, and a libertarian. Paul supports free trade, sharply lower taxes, smaller government, and a foreign policy of nonintervention, advocating a withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.

He has been called Dr. No, as his voting record stands in sharp contrast to most of his fellow congressmen. He has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. He has never voted to raise congressional pay. He has never taken a government-paid junket. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against regulating the Internet. He voted against the Iraq war. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year. He opposes illegal immigration, gun control, and the federal War on Drugs. Paul is and has been pro-life (he is after all, an ob/gyn and has delivered more than four thousand babies). He is a very strong advocate of states' rights.

Ron Paul has been consistently tough on immigration. He has outlined a six point plan for immigration reform. The highlights of his plan are to (1) physically secure the borders, (2) enforce visa rules, (3) no amnesty or (4) welfare for illegal aliens, (5) end birthright citizenship, and (6) to pass true immigration reform.

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Paul has generated a surprisingly strong support group. He remains among the top Republican Internet search terms as measured by three different organizations. He leads the all other presidential (Democrat and Republican) candidates at YouTube, with over 30,000 subscribers.


The overwhelming support he has received has surprised many onlookers. He had more money in the bank in the second quarter than John McCain. Paul has received more donations from military personnel, active and retired, than any other Republican candidate. He raised more than $5 million in the third quarter in a true grass-roots movement. This was 114 percent increase from the second quarter, which is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Romney's fund raising was down 29 percent, Giuliani's down 40 percent and McCain's down 55 percent.

On November fifth, Paul raised $4.2 Million dollars through a grass-roots effort which was not officially connected with the campaign. This amazing and record-breaking feat is causing many to see him in a new light. In a poll conducted by AOL news, 57% of the American people believe that Ron Paul can indeed be elected. With his top-tier money raising, his candidacy can no longer be ignored.

In Ron Paul's own words to Jay Leno on The Tonight Show, "I have shortcomings, but the message has no shortcomings. It's all about liberty...there's probably a risk I could win".

In November 2008, will you stand with me and say that you voted according to principle and upheld men who are morally pure and defend and abide by the Constitution? Or will you vote out of fear and desperation? John Quincy Adams once said:

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

So, I challenge you. Don't vote as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. Don't vote out of necessity or out of fear, but out of hope for our future. Vote for the man who supports the Constitution, has the voting record to prove it. Vote for the man who believes in and will defend the cause our Founding Fathers fought and died to preserve and protect. Vote for Ron Paul in 2008.