I'm not going to lie. The Federal Reserve can be a tough issue to address. Not necessarily that it is "super complex," but that there is some background that needs to be covered. Am I capable of making a concise argument about everything that the Federal Reserve has done "wrong" or how it has harmed America? No. I have not read a single book about the Federal Reserve. I hope to change that sometime in the near future.
Luckily, there are some who have put in their time and researched the subject thoroughly and can give a brief and concise explanation of the history and the problems that we have today because of the Federal Reserve. These videos, from Ron Paul's speech at the Houston Federal Reserve, would serve you well if you are just stumped and uninformed when it comes to the Federal Reserve.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
The issue over the past has been "who can control the money?" Whoever controls the money has control over the people. The issue concerning central banking is not new, as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson both got rid of United States central banks in their terms as President.
Here is a historic Jefferson quote that is quite profound:
"I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous
than standing armies"
-Thomas Jefferson
Do you need to become a Federal Reserve historian to understand this issue? The answer is a clear and resounding NO. Ask yourself today - Why do we have a central bank? What positives has central banking done for our country?
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Friday Roundup
Here is part two of Ron Paul answers your questions on the NY Times Freakonomics Blog.
I have discovered the greatness that is Podcasts. I always knew about them, but never took the time to find some and actually listen to them. But I finally have and I'm loving it! Here are some that I have started to check out:
China is now looking into possibly buying up the big three automakers. Can you imagine staple US companies turning into Chinese companies overnight?
Donald Driver's father was one of the most recent victims of police brutality. According to Sports Illustrated, police in Houston beat Marvin Driver Jr. as they arrested him. They also forced him to swallow something (drugs perhaps?). The paramedics picked him up at the jail after he went unconscious. The police officers are still on duty pending investigation. In my opinion, these police should be put on leave immediately. Police brutality cases really get me going, because they have SO much power relative to anyone else walking the streets. It is so easy for police to abuse this power that it is unreal.
Now this is nothing like being beaten by the police, but for example. I was on my way to Treasure Island with some friends when I was pulled over for going 15 over. After informing me of how fast I was speeding, she said to me, "and you weren't buckled either." In which case I was in complete shock as I have never driven without a seatbelt and I said "What?? Yes I was!" She kept staring at me. I say again "I WAS!!!" She must have seen how in shock I was at her accusation that she decided to just let it go. She then *asked* if the others were buckled. What is sad is that she could have written us all up for not being buckled and God knows she would have won the case if we brought it to court, even though we were buckled.
Police brutality is a huge injustice. I have seen too many videos of someone on the ground, defenseless, get punched time after time by a cop. It's wrong and they should be held completely accountable, and surely should lose their job. When police abuse the power they have been given it makes me cringe.
Moving on, Peter Schiff was on Fast Money yesterday. I had not even heard of him until this morning as I was listening to The Lew Rockwell podcast. I must say, I am a fan.
This video is a couple days old, but I wanted to post it anyway. It is Ron Paul talking about the Financial Services Hearing a couple days ago:
Apparently Al Franken is gaining on Norm Coleman in the Senate recount. I honestly just want this to be over. If Franken was to get the seat, I wouldn't be able to think about the two Senators who 'represent' me without shuddering. Yet, I have found less and less in common politically with Norm Coleman the more I look into him. Lose-Lose for me. When they finally announce Coleman the winner I won't exactly be 'happy.' He will probably go in and vote for whatever bailout that comes to him. He will support continued military intervention.
Also, the big three automakers need to make their case for government aid before any will be given. Don't worry though we have great people that will evaluate the cases they make - Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. I almost laughed when I heard that.
It is expected that Hillary Clinton will be named Secretary of State soon after Thanksgiving. It's a long way off but would Hillary be up for a 2016 run?
Better question - How is the Republican Party going to change over the next two to four years?
If you are a libertarian like me, you have to hope that the answer is DRASTICALLY.
I have discovered the greatness that is Podcasts. I always knew about them, but never took the time to find some and actually listen to them. But I finally have and I'm loving it! Here are some that I have started to check out:
- The Lew Rockwell Show
- The Alex Jones Show
- CNBC's Mad Money w/Jim Cramer - Lightning Round
- NORML Podcast
- Wall Street Journal What's News
- Weekly Address from the President-Elect
China is now looking into possibly buying up the big three automakers. Can you imagine staple US companies turning into Chinese companies overnight?
Donald Driver's father was one of the most recent victims of police brutality. According to Sports Illustrated, police in Houston beat Marvin Driver Jr. as they arrested him. They also forced him to swallow something (drugs perhaps?). The paramedics picked him up at the jail after he went unconscious. The police officers are still on duty pending investigation. In my opinion, these police should be put on leave immediately. Police brutality cases really get me going, because they have SO much power relative to anyone else walking the streets. It is so easy for police to abuse this power that it is unreal.
Now this is nothing like being beaten by the police, but for example. I was on my way to Treasure Island with some friends when I was pulled over for going 15 over. After informing me of how fast I was speeding, she said to me, "and you weren't buckled either." In which case I was in complete shock as I have never driven without a seatbelt and I said "What?? Yes I was!" She kept staring at me. I say again "I WAS!!!" She must have seen how in shock I was at her accusation that she decided to just let it go. She then *asked* if the others were buckled. What is sad is that she could have written us all up for not being buckled and God knows she would have won the case if we brought it to court, even though we were buckled.
Police brutality is a huge injustice. I have seen too many videos of someone on the ground, defenseless, get punched time after time by a cop. It's wrong and they should be held completely accountable, and surely should lose their job. When police abuse the power they have been given it makes me cringe.
Moving on, Peter Schiff was on Fast Money yesterday. I had not even heard of him until this morning as I was listening to The Lew Rockwell podcast. I must say, I am a fan.
This video is a couple days old, but I wanted to post it anyway. It is Ron Paul talking about the Financial Services Hearing a couple days ago:
Apparently Al Franken is gaining on Norm Coleman in the Senate recount. I honestly just want this to be over. If Franken was to get the seat, I wouldn't be able to think about the two Senators who 'represent' me without shuddering. Yet, I have found less and less in common politically with Norm Coleman the more I look into him. Lose-Lose for me. When they finally announce Coleman the winner I won't exactly be 'happy.' He will probably go in and vote for whatever bailout that comes to him. He will support continued military intervention.
Also, the big three automakers need to make their case for government aid before any will be given. Don't worry though we have great people that will evaluate the cases they make - Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. I almost laughed when I heard that.
It is expected that Hillary Clinton will be named Secretary of State soon after Thanksgiving. It's a long way off but would Hillary be up for a 2016 run?
Better question - How is the Republican Party going to change over the next two to four years?
If you are a libertarian like me, you have to hope that the answer is DRASTICALLY.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Another (very liberal) Obama Appointment
Eric Holder is Obama's appointee for attorney general. Holder, who was the former deputy U.S. attorney general under Bill Clinton, has a number of stances that are not going to be kind to the cause of liberty.
- He is a huge advocate of stepping up the war on drugs. He believes cracking down on drug users is key to reducing crime, and pushed for mandatory 5 year sentences for drug possession.
- He wants to have tighter gun control.
- His actions towards the end of Bill Clinton's term are ethically questionable:
"In the waning days of the Clinton administration, Holder was a key participant in awarding clemency to fugitive billionaire financier Marc Rich and some 139 others in a process that short circuited the Justice department clearance process and looked, in Rich's case, very much like a quid pro quo for financial support from the convicted felon's wife for Clinton's presidential library. The highly controversial pardons took place just two hours before Clinton left the White House for the last time."
-Dan K. Thomasson
Seattlepi.com
Top 25 Reasons to Support Ron Paul
Who is this Ron Paul guy and what's the big deal? What's all this fuss about and how come everyone I know who likes him is obsessed with him? Didn't he run for president or something? WHO IS RON PAUL?
Oh, the wonderful questions that come up when Ron Paul is mentioned in everyday conversation. Well I decided to compile the top 25 reasons for supporting Ron Paul.
1. He's had the same political stance for his entire career. Ron Paul has been extremely consistent throughout his entire political career. He has changed views on one issue - He supported Capital Punishment, but now does not because of the number of people on death row who have been found innocent through DNA evidence.
2. He is the champion of the Constitution - he has never voted for a bill that violates the Constitution.
3. He wants to abolish the IRS and the income tax.
4. He will bring education back to the state and local level - He supports abolishing the unconstitutional Department of Education. Who knows what is best for your children? You, or some bureaucratic office located miles and miles away?
5. He wants to strengthen our national defense.
6. He will end the wasteful, unconstiutional, and unjustified war in Iraq and bring the troops home.
7. He wants to bring ALL the troops home - There are over 700 permanent U.S. military bases worldwide in over 100 countries. How would you feel if Germany, Japan, Britain, etc. had a permanent military base in the United States?
8. He supports Free Trade.
9. He wants to end the war on drugs, which has imprisoned over 20 million and cost the United States over $500 billion.
10. He wants to end all federal foreign aid - most of the aid never gets to those intended, but is wasted in bureaucracy and ends up in the hands of the rich.
11. He wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve and promotes a sound monetary policy.
12. He supports tying our currency to gold, which has physical value.
13. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
14. He has never voted to raise taxes.
15. He opposes governmental intervention into the free market.
16. He opposes socialized medicine.
17. He opposes any entity that infringes on U.S. sovereignty (United Nations, North American Union, etc.)
18. He supports school vouchers, giving more parents more choice when it comes to education.
19. He supports gun rights.
20. He supports personal rights to privacy.
21. He supports property rights (he was strongly opposed to the NAFTA superhighway, which would have used eminent domain to force thousands of property owners off their property whether they liked it or not).
22. He wants to allow people to opt out of the social security system.
23. He wants to legalize online gambling.
24. He wants to abolish federal Welfare and leave the issue to the states.
25. He opposes the National ID Card.
These are just 25 of the hundreds of reasons why people are crazy about Ron Paul's policies. I hope this was informational. Check out a full list of his political stances here.
Oh, the wonderful questions that come up when Ron Paul is mentioned in everyday conversation. Well I decided to compile the top 25 reasons for supporting Ron Paul.
1. He's had the same political stance for his entire career. Ron Paul has been extremely consistent throughout his entire political career. He has changed views on one issue - He supported Capital Punishment, but now does not because of the number of people on death row who have been found innocent through DNA evidence.
2. He is the champion of the Constitution - he has never voted for a bill that violates the Constitution.
3. He wants to abolish the IRS and the income tax.
4. He will bring education back to the state and local level - He supports abolishing the unconstitutional Department of Education. Who knows what is best for your children? You, or some bureaucratic office located miles and miles away?
5. He wants to strengthen our national defense.
6. He will end the wasteful, unconstiutional, and unjustified war in Iraq and bring the troops home.
7. He wants to bring ALL the troops home - There are over 700 permanent U.S. military bases worldwide in over 100 countries. How would you feel if Germany, Japan, Britain, etc. had a permanent military base in the United States?
8. He supports Free Trade.
9. He wants to end the war on drugs, which has imprisoned over 20 million and cost the United States over $500 billion.
10. He wants to end all federal foreign aid - most of the aid never gets to those intended, but is wasted in bureaucracy and ends up in the hands of the rich.
11. He wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve and promotes a sound monetary policy.
12. He supports tying our currency to gold, which has physical value.
13. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
14. He has never voted to raise taxes.
15. He opposes governmental intervention into the free market.
16. He opposes socialized medicine.
17. He opposes any entity that infringes on U.S. sovereignty (United Nations, North American Union, etc.)
18. He supports school vouchers, giving more parents more choice when it comes to education.
19. He supports gun rights.
20. He supports personal rights to privacy.
21. He supports property rights (he was strongly opposed to the NAFTA superhighway, which would have used eminent domain to force thousands of property owners off their property whether they liked it or not).
22. He wants to allow people to opt out of the social security system.
23. He wants to legalize online gambling.
24. He wants to abolish federal Welfare and leave the issue to the states.
25. He opposes the National ID Card.
These are just 25 of the hundreds of reasons why people are crazy about Ron Paul's policies. I hope this was informational. Check out a full list of his political stances here.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
5 Reasons to End the Fed
This Saturday, the 22nd of November, the End The Fed rally will be taking place all across the United States. The rally(rallies) are for more than just publicly expressing the desire some people have to end the federal reserve, but to rally FOR sound money. Basically, there will be a rally outside of all the federal reserve banks and federal reserve offices in the United States. In 39 cities, people will gather to voice their support of sound money, and an end to the failed monetary system we have been pursuing. Ron Paul will be speaking at the rally in Houston, and there will be other speakers throughout the country at the rally sites.
The issue at hand is that most people in the United States take for granted that a central bank is needed and necessary. It has been around for decades, and for almost all it has existed their entire lives. It came into being in 1913 through the Federal Reserve Act. For a long article about the history and functions of the Fed, click here. It is believed to be necessary, but in reality IS it necessary?
Here are five reasons for ending the Federal Reserve:
- The Federal Reserve Causes Inflation
Inflation is a tax - even Bernanke (Fed Chairman) will admit this.
The Cato Institute says:
Blame for our nation's erratic inflation, then, belongs squarely on the shoulders of our nation's monetary authority. The Fed's actions are responsible for the rate of growth of the total stock of dollars, and hence are responsible for the rate of dilution of the purchasing power of each existing dollar -- the rate of price inflation. Changes in the willingness of the public to hold onto various forms of dollars, or changes in banking practices, may temporarily divert the rate of inflation from its appointed path, but over the longer haul (say, six months to a year) the predominance of the Fed is virtually complete. Other explanations of persistently rising prices simply do not wash.
Check out the full analysis here. - The Federal Reserve is Unconstitutional
For this one I thought a video would be appropriate. The video (at the bottom of the page) is excerpts of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) from the documentary "FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution." - Secrecy
It is well-known that the Federal Reserve has meetings behind closed doors. The transcripts of their meetings are released only five years after they happen. What is the Federal Reserve so scared about? The Joint Economic Committee Study titled "Transparency and Federal Reserve Monetary Policy" that happened ten years ago explained the benefits of more transparency from the Federal Reserve. But, sure enough, we have yet to see that transparency come to fruition. - The Federal Reserve is to blame for the current financial crisis
The Federal Reserve, through setting interest rates that did not reflect the true market, led to the financial collapse we have seen now. If the market was allowed to set interest rates, we would necessarily have a much truer rate when banks lend to one another as well as to people/institutions. Their solution is intervention into the private market, and to prop up companies that otherwise would fail. This creates an incentive problem for companies, and does not allow the market to even itself out. - Money Issuing Power
See Inflation. Also, the Fed is an independent, private bank. We do not elect the officials who run it, yet the choices they make affect our entire monetary system. We cannot hold them accountable for their actions, because we the people have no (or extremely) limited say in who gets in (and who gets kicked out).
I hope to do much more investigation into the central banking system and see what I can find out. This Saturday should be a great day for exposing the shortcomings of our current monetary system, and I will post some videos from the different events soon after they occur.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Ron Paul on Fox Business News
Ron Paul was on Fox Business News today. Here's the clip:
Also, Ron Paul questioned Ben Bernanke today:
Also, Ron Paul questioned Ben Bernanke today:
Monday, November 17, 2008
Abortion - Black and White?
Abortion is a black and white issue to some people. There are many who have made up their mind – abortion is either always wrong and a woman should never have the option to go through with the procedure – or the woman should always have a choice whether or not she wants to have an abortion; it should be a legal right. In between these two extremes there is of course an infinite depth and variety of views on what is “right.” Some may say abortion is only acceptable a few days after conception; others will see even late-term abortions as acceptable. Some will agree that abortion is wrong, but since there is such a clash of interests that some form of abortion should remain as a legal option.
Roe v. Wade stands as the bar that has been set concerning abortion rulings. That landmark 1973 case said that laws banning abortion denied women the right of privacy granted in the 14th amendment. In the system of checks and balances, the Judicial Branch is meant to interpret law and can deny law if it is found unconstitutional. This is exactly why it is tied up in the courts. Of course, this does not deny Legislatures the right to write up a law that says life begins at conception – I can’t even imagine the debate in the courts if they had to protect the legal right to life of a fetus, yet deal with the precedent in place concerning the right to privacy! With a Democratically-dominated Congress and Executive branch, I don’t really see any legislation passing any time soon that will define life as starting at conception.
I have found abortion to be an incredibly complex issue. I have avoided commenting on abortion on this blog or in any discussions I have recently had. I think I can honestly say I am practically torn on this issue. On the one hand, I have had two people who I respect an incredible amount when it comes to political issues who have said that there should not be a ban on abortion. Then again, there are people I respect very much who are hardcore pro-lifers (including Ron Paul himself). What is this issue really all about? Life, Choices, Murder, and a whole lot more.
The problem with abortion is that there is just no easy answer. One could make the argument that it is similar to alcohol, marijuana, gambling etc. in the sense that it will not necessarily be seen as the “right” thing to do and oftentimes will even be looked down on by many people. But the thing is that people have the choice to do this or that regardless of whether people think it is ‘good’ or not. But the analogy cannot be drawn to abortion – the argument is flawed because when one aborts a fetus it is not just the person who does the aborting who is affected (even though in my opinion they will feel the effects for the rest of their life) but also the fetus, the “life” that is necessarily affected.
One could also argue that abortion is in all instances murder. But again, it is not murder in the sense we know murder as. I think that many Americans see a big difference between an abortion in the first trimester and one that is later (that actually requires the dismembering of their body). Why is that? It is surely different than murder in the traditional sense, since murder of a human being happens when they are already living and breathing on this earth, and it takes much more to murder someone than to have an abortion, or else there would not be the immense amount of abortions as there have been in recent time. I think the argument that there is clearly life, or at the very least potential of life, starting with conception is a very strong case against abortion, though. The problem is that those who disagree do not see any other strong argument in opposition of abortion.
But how far do we go when it comes to abortion legislation? Do we have an all-out ban on any abortions in any circumstance? Or do we allow all abortions? First, I strongly believe that this is a state-by-state issue. If abortion in Minnesota is the same as abortion in Wisconsin, then why is it a state issue? In my opinion the federal government already has taken way too much power from the states, and I believe that the Constitution needs to be respected when it says that all powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for the states. That is where my train of thought comes from. But even if it is a state issue, what exactly should be the ruling on abortion? I have a hard time supporting an all out ban. I believe it is more complex than that. The fact that there is such debate over who is right, I don’t believe that the government should be legislating to that extent over a woman’s body. I am opposed to abortion personally, but I also believe in personal rights so I am very much stuck in the middle.
Can I denounce abortion and not be in support of an all-out ban on the practice? I believe so. This is one place where I think the church has become way too involved in politics. Instead of being the first place someone would turn when they become pregnant, the church has become a mortal enemy of anyone who even considers an abortion. I believe the same is true with gay marriage. The ban on gay marriage in California has not caused anyone to rethink their sexual orientation. If anything, it has turned them much farther from the church. I feel as though too much weight has been put on the legislation of abortion. I think that if someone has an issue with abortion, it should be with the doctors and the individuals who are taking part in it. I am not trying to make those who take part in it seem evil, but instead of trying to push this legislation through you should see who it is you are taking issue with. Instead of thinking legislation will end the issue, one should consider investing their time volunteering for some organization that reaches out to women considering having an abortion, or even adopt a child! Maybe donate money to a nonprofit that helps out mothers financially who make the choice to not have an abortion. There are endless options to what someone can do to curb the abortion trend without legislation. I know, I know, it sounds crazy trying to find solutions outside of government! *note the sarcasm*
I will never say I think abortion is “right.” I truly believe it is an extremely complex issue that has many variables. But I hope that this blog will help other people understand why I am not “without-exception” pro-life and in support of an all-out ban. I think there are better ways to address this issue than the millions of hours (and dollars!) spent to advocate legislation that would ban all abortions, everywhere, without exception.
Roe v. Wade stands as the bar that has been set concerning abortion rulings. That landmark 1973 case said that laws banning abortion denied women the right of privacy granted in the 14th amendment. In the system of checks and balances, the Judicial Branch is meant to interpret law and can deny law if it is found unconstitutional. This is exactly why it is tied up in the courts. Of course, this does not deny Legislatures the right to write up a law that says life begins at conception – I can’t even imagine the debate in the courts if they had to protect the legal right to life of a fetus, yet deal with the precedent in place concerning the right to privacy! With a Democratically-dominated Congress and Executive branch, I don’t really see any legislation passing any time soon that will define life as starting at conception.
I have found abortion to be an incredibly complex issue. I have avoided commenting on abortion on this blog or in any discussions I have recently had. I think I can honestly say I am practically torn on this issue. On the one hand, I have had two people who I respect an incredible amount when it comes to political issues who have said that there should not be a ban on abortion. Then again, there are people I respect very much who are hardcore pro-lifers (including Ron Paul himself). What is this issue really all about? Life, Choices, Murder, and a whole lot more.
The problem with abortion is that there is just no easy answer. One could make the argument that it is similar to alcohol, marijuana, gambling etc. in the sense that it will not necessarily be seen as the “right” thing to do and oftentimes will even be looked down on by many people. But the thing is that people have the choice to do this or that regardless of whether people think it is ‘good’ or not. But the analogy cannot be drawn to abortion – the argument is flawed because when one aborts a fetus it is not just the person who does the aborting who is affected (even though in my opinion they will feel the effects for the rest of their life) but also the fetus, the “life” that is necessarily affected.
One could also argue that abortion is in all instances murder. But again, it is not murder in the sense we know murder as. I think that many Americans see a big difference between an abortion in the first trimester and one that is later (that actually requires the dismembering of their body). Why is that? It is surely different than murder in the traditional sense, since murder of a human being happens when they are already living and breathing on this earth, and it takes much more to murder someone than to have an abortion, or else there would not be the immense amount of abortions as there have been in recent time. I think the argument that there is clearly life, or at the very least potential of life, starting with conception is a very strong case against abortion, though. The problem is that those who disagree do not see any other strong argument in opposition of abortion.
But how far do we go when it comes to abortion legislation? Do we have an all-out ban on any abortions in any circumstance? Or do we allow all abortions? First, I strongly believe that this is a state-by-state issue. If abortion in Minnesota is the same as abortion in Wisconsin, then why is it a state issue? In my opinion the federal government already has taken way too much power from the states, and I believe that the Constitution needs to be respected when it says that all powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for the states. That is where my train of thought comes from. But even if it is a state issue, what exactly should be the ruling on abortion? I have a hard time supporting an all out ban. I believe it is more complex than that. The fact that there is such debate over who is right, I don’t believe that the government should be legislating to that extent over a woman’s body. I am opposed to abortion personally, but I also believe in personal rights so I am very much stuck in the middle.
Can I denounce abortion and not be in support of an all-out ban on the practice? I believe so. This is one place where I think the church has become way too involved in politics. Instead of being the first place someone would turn when they become pregnant, the church has become a mortal enemy of anyone who even considers an abortion. I believe the same is true with gay marriage. The ban on gay marriage in California has not caused anyone to rethink their sexual orientation. If anything, it has turned them much farther from the church. I feel as though too much weight has been put on the legislation of abortion. I think that if someone has an issue with abortion, it should be with the doctors and the individuals who are taking part in it. I am not trying to make those who take part in it seem evil, but instead of trying to push this legislation through you should see who it is you are taking issue with. Instead of thinking legislation will end the issue, one should consider investing their time volunteering for some organization that reaches out to women considering having an abortion, or even adopt a child! Maybe donate money to a nonprofit that helps out mothers financially who make the choice to not have an abortion. There are endless options to what someone can do to curb the abortion trend without legislation. I know, I know, it sounds crazy trying to find solutions outside of government! *note the sarcasm*
I will never say I think abortion is “right.” I truly believe it is an extremely complex issue that has many variables. But I hope that this blog will help other people understand why I am not “without-exception” pro-life and in support of an all-out ban. I think there are better ways to address this issue than the millions of hours (and dollars!) spent to advocate legislation that would ban all abortions, everywhere, without exception.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
A Few Thoughts
I would like to make some comments on just a few things Ron Paul said in the article he wrote that was posted on CNN.com. I will probably have a few more posts similar to this one
I find it quite unfortunate that the Republicans in Congress as well as in the Executive Branch did not operate on the conservative principles that the party was founded on. Clearly, the new Republican (the neo-con's) strategy of big government with lots of unnecessary spending was a huge misstep in policy.
We have seen, as Ron Paul said, in the past eight years how the party has strayed further and further from the principles that they should be governing by. George Bush ran on a non-nation building foreign policy in 2000, yet just a few years later we find ourselves in Iraq doing exactly that. Our standing in the world has fallen dramatically by our invasive and interventionist foreign policy, which has also ballooned our deficit.
It was truly something to see when Republican after Republican in the House and Senate argued in support of the bailout. I was actually in shock to see the "Conservative" party support the ultimate in government intervention and wasteful spending. This was totally in line with Paul's comment, "all policies were directed at maintaining or increasing power by trying to whittle away at Democratic strength by acting like big-spending Democrats." Even until just a couple months before the election they were doing just that: acting like big-spending Democrats.
Once the Republicans were in power, though, the promises faded, and all policies were directed at maintaining or increasing power by trying to whittle away at Democratic strength by acting like big-spending Democrats.
The Republican Congress never once stood up against the Bush/Rove machine that demanded support for unconstitutional wars, attacks on civil liberties here at home, and an economic policy based on more spending, more debt, and more inflation -- while constantly preaching the flawed doctrine that deficits don't matter as long as taxes aren't raised.
...
After eight years of perpetual (and unnecessary and unconstitutional) war, persistent and expanded attacks on our privacy, runaway deficits, and now nationalization of the financial system, Republicans are going to have a tough time regaining the confidence of the American people. But that's what must be done.
I find it quite unfortunate that the Republicans in Congress as well as in the Executive Branch did not operate on the conservative principles that the party was founded on. Clearly, the new Republican (the neo-con's) strategy of big government with lots of unnecessary spending was a huge misstep in policy.
We have seen, as Ron Paul said, in the past eight years how the party has strayed further and further from the principles that they should be governing by. George Bush ran on a non-nation building foreign policy in 2000, yet just a few years later we find ourselves in Iraq doing exactly that. Our standing in the world has fallen dramatically by our invasive and interventionist foreign policy, which has also ballooned our deficit.
It was truly something to see when Republican after Republican in the House and Senate argued in support of the bailout. I was actually in shock to see the "Conservative" party support the ultimate in government intervention and wasteful spending. This was totally in line with Paul's comment, "all policies were directed at maintaining or increasing power by trying to whittle away at Democratic strength by acting like big-spending Democrats." Even until just a couple months before the election they were doing just that: acting like big-spending Democrats.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Who's to blame for the downfall of the Republican Party?
Ron Paul recently wrote a great article for CNN. Here it is:
The questions now being asked are: Where to go from here and who's to blame for the downfall of the Republican Party?
Too bad the concern for the future of the Republican Party had not been seriously addressed in the year 2000 when the Republicans gained control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency.
Now, in light of the election, many are asking: What is the future of the Republican Party?
But that is the wrong question. The proper question should be: Where is our country heading? There's no doubt that a large majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's why the candidate demanding "change" won the election. It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train.
Once it's figured out what is fundamentally wrong with our political and economic system, solutions can be offered. If the Republican Party can grasp hold of the policy changes needed, then the party can be rebuilt.
In the rise and fall of the recent Republican reign of power these past decades, the goal of the party had grown to be only that of gaining and maintaining power -- with total sacrifice of the original Republican belief in shrinking the size of government.
Rest of the article is here
The questions now being asked are: Where to go from here and who's to blame for the downfall of the Republican Party?
Too bad the concern for the future of the Republican Party had not been seriously addressed in the year 2000 when the Republicans gained control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency.
Now, in light of the election, many are asking: What is the future of the Republican Party?
But that is the wrong question. The proper question should be: Where is our country heading? There's no doubt that a large majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's why the candidate demanding "change" won the election. It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train.
Once it's figured out what is fundamentally wrong with our political and economic system, solutions can be offered. If the Republican Party can grasp hold of the policy changes needed, then the party can be rebuilt.
In the rise and fall of the recent Republican reign of power these past decades, the goal of the party had grown to be only that of gaining and maintaining power -- with total sacrifice of the original Republican belief in shrinking the size of government.
Rest of the article is here
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
More bailouts, political violence, and Barney Frank
Hello everyone! I apologize to my regular readers for the lack of posts recently. It has been an extremely busy week with school, work, and other prior commitments.
With that said I would like to touch on a few issues. Obama and the Democrats are supporting partially bailing out the auto industry. Where does the bailing out stop?? In my opinion (and many economists) we should be letting these companies fail. As hard as it is for people to hear that, it's the truth. The markets will work themselves out, but these bailouts are just going to prolong it as well as the obvious incentive problem they create. It is redefining government's job (for the worse) to 'keep the economy afloat.' The very thing that caused this problem (the government) is trying to be the solution. It is like saying the solution for pollution is...more pollution! It really is an incredible theory they have.
Ron Paul had an extremely optimistic message on his Texas Straight Talk blog a few days back. I was surprised, because here I am (as well as many others) in the dumps about so many issues and the direction our government and country is headed, and here's a guy who has been through this for three decades yet still holds out hope for our country and the emerging generation that is really catching on to the message of liberty! I have a whole new respect for the good doctor because of it (well, I'm honestly not sure if I can respect him any more than I already do!).
A girl got beat up at Augsburg College here in the Twin Cities for wearing a McCain/Palin button on election day. She was called a racist and attacked by a group of four women when walking back to her dorm, alone. It really is quite a tragedy that something like this would happen. To think hitting someone is going to make them change their mind about what political party they support? If anything she is going to be encouraged to work even harder for the Republican Party in the future. Sadly, as I have seen myself, campuses located near the Twin Cities seem to have a problem with crime. Last year someone from St. Thomas was going for a run and got attacked in broad daylight. The culprit ran off with his ipod. That was obviously a horrible thing to have happen, but when violence is politically motivated, it's a whole 'nother ball game.
It looks like it will be mid-December before we know who will be representing Minnesotans in the Senate. Apparently there is a substantial amount of legal 'stuff' to figure out beforehand. There needs to be a number of people present for each vote to be counted. The actual counter, plus representatives from Coleman's campaign and Franken's campaign (and I'm assuming Barkley's but I never heard if that was for sure or not). Any disputed ballots will hold up the recount, so hopefully they are all pretty clear-cut. For some reason I am really turned off by immediate run-off elections such as the one in Georgia. I think it is mainly because I do not want to be limited to two choices, and also because the election is over. We should be capable of counting the ballots and deciding who has the majority. Luckily for Republicans, this should help them out in Minnesota as Barkley is believed to have pulled more 'Liberal-leaning' voters than 'Conservative-leaning voters.' To simplify it: Franken would likely win in an immediate run-off election.
I found something in the Wall Street Journal that, quite frankly, embarasses me. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), is leading the charge against enforcement of rules issued by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department that will fine banks heavily who do not abide by the rules banning them from processing payments connected to most gambling websites. Barney Frank, the man whose political views make me cringe for so many reasons, is leading the charge on an issue I totally agree with. Can you see why I would be embarrased? I wish the Republican Party would be leading the charge, but sadly, when it comes to online gambling it is the Democrat's who will tip the scales in the favor of online gamblers. I also find it ironic that Frank and others (mostly Democrats I'm guessing) who want to delay the enforcement of the rules are basing their argument on the fact that the economy is so bad right now that companies can't afford to implemant the systems needed to abide by the laws.
Though they obviously have their differences, I'm going to go ahead with the analogy. Tobacco and alcohol, two harmful drugs, are legal in the United States. Marijuana is not. There is a push to make online gambling illegal. Yet online betting on horse racing, fantasy sports, and interstate lotteries are legal. Hopefully the Republicans take a hint from Ron Paul (though they seem to fail to do that day in and day out) and other Americans concerned about their rights and change their position on this issue sometime in the future.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Ron Paul on Fox News today
Ron Paul was on Fox News w/Neil Cavuto just a little bit ago. Here is the video:
Ron Paul Documentary in the works
There are some ambitious Ron Paul supporters making a documentary about the Ron Paul Revolution that has exploded the past couple years. Here is a sneak peek:
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Chris Matthews should be disregarded by all
I was very excited to see Michelle Bachmann win re-election in my district. I think we can all honestly say that one of the main reasons the race was even close was because of her comments on Chris Matthew's show. Although that was unfortunate, I think we can now see where Mr. Matthew's stands:
So here we have a member of the media, making it clear that his intentions are not to report the truth, but to make the presidency work. That is his "job." Can you give him credibility for anything he says from this point on? He basically put it out there in the open that his belief is that it is his job to "make this presidency work." This is truly outstanding.
If you are in the position to report news to millions of people, your 'job' is not to be a propaganda machine to make a president's term "work." It is Barack obama's job to make his presidency "work." So regardless of what Barack Obama does, whether he oversteps his powers, creates social unjustice, heck even if he commits treason, don't go to Chris Matthews because his job is to make Obama's presidency "work." Amazing that someone can hold such a stance.
Thank God Bachmann did not lose because of things she said on this hack's television show. The man deserves no credibility; from Republicans and Democrats alike. If a conservative host came out and said his goal was to make a republican president's time in office work, I would have the same reaction: they deserve absolutely no credibility, and listening to him is a total waste of time.
Oh, and apparently now that Obama is President, we don't have to work to pay for gas or our mortgages? Here's a clip that you may have already seen:
Actually, it will be a lot more difficult to pay for anything with the inevitable increase in taxes. So I wouldn't expect to 'not have to work.' You don't just get things handed to you in this world. Sorry to break it to you, Peggy.
Also, my friend Trevor and myself have been pretty upset with Representative Emanuel's plan to make three month service mandatory for all 18 to 25 year olds. We decided to do something about it, and made a facebook group to raise awareness. So far it has been going great. We think this is one of the easiest ways to make 18-25 year olds aware of this unConstituinal policy. The best part about it is that this is NOT a partisan issue! This policy is wrong regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican pursues it.
What is more disturbing is what I found out after making the group. Apparently in January of 2007 a bill was introduced, H.R. 393, called the “Universal National Service Act of 2007." This bill would require everyone 18-42 to submit to two years of service for the government. The fact that such a bill would even be written is simply amazing.
So here we have a member of the media, making it clear that his intentions are not to report the truth, but to make the presidency work. That is his "job." Can you give him credibility for anything he says from this point on? He basically put it out there in the open that his belief is that it is his job to "make this presidency work." This is truly outstanding.
If you are in the position to report news to millions of people, your 'job' is not to be a propaganda machine to make a president's term "work." It is Barack obama's job to make his presidency "work." So regardless of what Barack Obama does, whether he oversteps his powers, creates social unjustice, heck even if he commits treason, don't go to Chris Matthews because his job is to make Obama's presidency "work." Amazing that someone can hold such a stance.
Thank God Bachmann did not lose because of things she said on this hack's television show. The man deserves no credibility; from Republicans and Democrats alike. If a conservative host came out and said his goal was to make a republican president's time in office work, I would have the same reaction: they deserve absolutely no credibility, and listening to him is a total waste of time.
Oh, and apparently now that Obama is President, we don't have to work to pay for gas or our mortgages? Here's a clip that you may have already seen:
Actually, it will be a lot more difficult to pay for anything with the inevitable increase in taxes. So I wouldn't expect to 'not have to work.' You don't just get things handed to you in this world. Sorry to break it to you, Peggy.
Also, my friend Trevor and myself have been pretty upset with Representative Emanuel's plan to make three month service mandatory for all 18 to 25 year olds. We decided to do something about it, and made a facebook group to raise awareness. So far it has been going great. We think this is one of the easiest ways to make 18-25 year olds aware of this unConstituinal policy. The best part about it is that this is NOT a partisan issue! This policy is wrong regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican pursues it.
What is more disturbing is what I found out after making the group. Apparently in January of 2007 a bill was introduced, H.R. 393, called the “Universal National Service Act of 2007." This bill would require everyone 18-42 to submit to two years of service for the government. The fact that such a bill would even be written is simply amazing.
Friday, November 7, 2008
18-25 Year Olds NEED to see this
I ran across this at the Daily Paul. Apparently Obama's choice for chief of staff Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois wrote a book called The Plan that talks about requiring three months of service for all 18 to 25 year olds. This book was published only two years ago.
This is from pages 61-62:
What is happening to America? Land of the Free? Hardly! "Young people will know" is the words he uses. "The nation will enlist them for three months." How is this free? Does the government feel as though they have a right to our lives? We will just know that we are going to be enlisted. This is so wrong that it's hard to know where to begin! If this is ever implamented, I hope there is extreme backlash across America at such an unjust program.
Here's an idea, Mr. Rahm, you have your little three-month education program but make it OUR CHOICE whether we want to join up in this little government program. No where in the constitution does the federal government have the power to implament such a program.
Spread the word about this travesty, for the sake of freedom.
This is from pages 61-62:
It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service. ...
Here's how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities' most pressing needs.
What is happening to America? Land of the Free? Hardly! "Young people will know" is the words he uses. "The nation will enlist them for three months." How is this free? Does the government feel as though they have a right to our lives? We will just know that we are going to be enlisted. This is so wrong that it's hard to know where to begin! If this is ever implamented, I hope there is extreme backlash across America at such an unjust program.
Here's an idea, Mr. Rahm, you have your little three-month education program but make it OUR CHOICE whether we want to join up in this little government program. No where in the constitution does the federal government have the power to implament such a program.
Spread the word about this travesty, for the sake of freedom.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Bringing the GOP back to its roots
The GOP is officially in shambles. There is no denying it.
There is talk of Palin possibly being one of the top choices for President in four years; thank God there are four years for others to prove their worthiness of the nominee.
McCain went down hard in the election. What else can you expect? McCain did not seperate himself enough from George Bush and his policies. How can you expect to win when the Republican platform is flawed in some respects? Is anyone enthusiastic about the platform that was being propped up the past half year? I'm not talking about being enthusiastic about opposing Obama, but being excited about John McCain as President of the United States.
When I look back to the Rally for the Republic, I saw people genuinely excited about change. This change was not the change offered by Barack Obama, or the continuation of George Bush policies that McCain was basically running on (i.m.h.o.). Here we had ten thousand people coming together because they believed in a change that was shunned by the GOP, the supposed "conservative" party of the United States.
What is a conservative/libertarian to do when their candidate for President (or Senate, etc.) is in support of a policy of military interventionism, continuing a failed drug war that has been going on far too long, government intervention into the free markets, etc.? There is too many differences to justify a vote. That is where I stood this year, and that is how I will stand in the coming years.
A couple days back I was listening to Glenn Beck when he said that as the argument continues concerning voting for the lesser of the two evils, as Republicans keep saying "hey, we are more conservative than the democrats, you have to vote for us!" that the party continue to move further to the left. Using this argument, it does not matter how conservative the party is, but only the simple fact that they are MORE conservative than the other guys. I say we hold them to a higher standard when it comes to being conservative.
The election is now over, but for the GOP there is an incredible amount of debate and planning to get done in the short-term. It would do the leaders and higher-ups in the party well to take a step back and ask "how did we get to this point?" What I find negligible is whether or not Sarah Palin 'cost' John McCain the election. Honestly, I think there are much, much, much bigger issues that need to be addressed than whether or not Sarah Palin was a 'drag' on the ticket. Even if she was, McCain chose her and ultimately it would go straight back to him. This blame game is irrelevent.
I think this is a unique time for all who favor liberty and believe the constitution was meant to restrain government, not a document stating what the government is supposed to do for you. If you discount Obama-mania, this small yet growing sect of people calling for a constitutional government is the fastest growing and most exciting movement in American Politics. I think that people that even have a little bit of that mindset in the Republican Party are just yearning for change within the party itself. Imagine a party that stood up for truly limited government and protection of constitutional rights and promoted a restrained government?? It would be historical.
Nevertheless, I do not hold out any extreme amount of hope that the Republican Party will move further to the right. Even if they did, it would be a long and painful process. I will never say it is impossible, and I truly believe motivated individuals can cause much more change than they believe. If there were even 500,000 people who organized (hmmm campaign for liberty?) and shared their political thoughts with friends and colleauges, I do believe change can happen within the Republican Party. As long as the Republican Party is controlled by Neo-Cons, this challenge will be more dificult than it needs to be. This election was the first step, though, in sending a message to the party organizers that there is change that is desperately needed - change in the Republican Party.
There is talk of Palin possibly being one of the top choices for President in four years; thank God there are four years for others to prove their worthiness of the nominee.
McCain went down hard in the election. What else can you expect? McCain did not seperate himself enough from George Bush and his policies. How can you expect to win when the Republican platform is flawed in some respects? Is anyone enthusiastic about the platform that was being propped up the past half year? I'm not talking about being enthusiastic about opposing Obama, but being excited about John McCain as President of the United States.
When I look back to the Rally for the Republic, I saw people genuinely excited about change. This change was not the change offered by Barack Obama, or the continuation of George Bush policies that McCain was basically running on (i.m.h.o.). Here we had ten thousand people coming together because they believed in a change that was shunned by the GOP, the supposed "conservative" party of the United States.
What is a conservative/libertarian to do when their candidate for President (or Senate, etc.) is in support of a policy of military interventionism, continuing a failed drug war that has been going on far too long, government intervention into the free markets, etc.? There is too many differences to justify a vote. That is where I stood this year, and that is how I will stand in the coming years.
A couple days back I was listening to Glenn Beck when he said that as the argument continues concerning voting for the lesser of the two evils, as Republicans keep saying "hey, we are more conservative than the democrats, you have to vote for us!" that the party continue to move further to the left. Using this argument, it does not matter how conservative the party is, but only the simple fact that they are MORE conservative than the other guys. I say we hold them to a higher standard when it comes to being conservative.
The election is now over, but for the GOP there is an incredible amount of debate and planning to get done in the short-term. It would do the leaders and higher-ups in the party well to take a step back and ask "how did we get to this point?" What I find negligible is whether or not Sarah Palin 'cost' John McCain the election. Honestly, I think there are much, much, much bigger issues that need to be addressed than whether or not Sarah Palin was a 'drag' on the ticket. Even if she was, McCain chose her and ultimately it would go straight back to him. This blame game is irrelevent.
I think this is a unique time for all who favor liberty and believe the constitution was meant to restrain government, not a document stating what the government is supposed to do for you. If you discount Obama-mania, this small yet growing sect of people calling for a constitutional government is the fastest growing and most exciting movement in American Politics. I think that people that even have a little bit of that mindset in the Republican Party are just yearning for change within the party itself. Imagine a party that stood up for truly limited government and protection of constitutional rights and promoted a restrained government?? It would be historical.
Nevertheless, I do not hold out any extreme amount of hope that the Republican Party will move further to the right. Even if they did, it would be a long and painful process. I will never say it is impossible, and I truly believe motivated individuals can cause much more change than they believe. If there were even 500,000 people who organized (hmmm campaign for liberty?) and shared their political thoughts with friends and colleauges, I do believe change can happen within the Republican Party. As long as the Republican Party is controlled by Neo-Cons, this challenge will be more dificult than it needs to be. This election was the first step, though, in sending a message to the party organizers that there is change that is desperately needed - change in the Republican Party.
Recent Videos
Ron Paul was on CNN's American Morning just a couple hours ago:
Also, Ron Paul on Alex Jones Yesterday:
Part 1
Part 2
Enjoy!
Also, Ron Paul on Alex Jones Yesterday:
Part 1
Part 2
Enjoy!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Campaign for Liberty is far from over
Ron Paul posted a short message to his supporters today. It can be viewed at the Campaign for Liberty homepage.
Black Panther Intimidation
I first heard reports of this on both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity yesterday while listening to the radio. Voter intimidation tactics used by members of the Black Panthers, documented with video evidence. These videos are must see:
Rick Leventhal of Fox News talking to an individual who called the police on the black panthers:
The actual footage of the man with a night stick:
Rick Leventhal confronts the Black Panther on live television:
Rick Leventhal of Fox News talking to an individual who called the police on the black panthers:
The actual footage of the man with a night stick:
Rick Leventhal confronts the Black Panther on live television:
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
History
It's official.
Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
David Price was re-elected.
The Democrats gained ground in the House and Senate.
Overall, it's very unfortunate the way things ended up turning out. The race I really cared about most was BJ Lawson's. Even though he lost, I know he did great things concerning spreading the message of liberty. Had he received 40,000 more votes he would be heading to Washington. I applaud his relentless effort and his effective campaign. Sure he didn't win, but he sure as hell gave it his best. I respect BJ Lawson immensely and I pray that his time in politics is not over, and that he will be willing to run again.
This election showed me how much work there is to be done for the campaign for liberty. Freedom. Liberty. Prosperity.
What were the two "main" choices in this Presidential election?
A Neo-con against an extreme liberal.
What kind of choice is that? I truly believe that a majority of Americans deep down truly believe in a limited government, a government that respects the constitution, serves the people. I believe in the message of liberty. The message of freedom is popular, as Ron Paul will say. What if people were educated on the issues? They knew ALL the options? How would elections change?
I don't believe that the next few years are going to be pretty for any conservative or libertarian. It just is not going to be. The beautiful thing about the message of liberty is that education is its greatest weapon. There is no doubt about that. A year ago today I did not know who Ron Paul was. I knew nothing about the pros and cons of America's foreign policy. The war on drugs had never crossed my mind. The federal reserve and America's monetary policy was something I took as a given. I couldn't explain why the Department of Education should be abolished, or why it should not. I would have thought someone who advocated cutting all foreign aid was crazy. Eliminating the income tax was a foreign idea to me. The constitutional abuses by the executive branch over the past decades were unknown to me. I was unsure where exactly I stood on gun rights.
But you know what? That has all changed. Simply through becoming informed and exposed to these new ideas. Crazy thing is, they all made so much sense.
Today I am proud to say that a number of people that I know, and who I'm guessing I influenced at least a little bit, decided to vote third party for one race or all the races. It was great to hear this. It was encouraging and it motivates me to continue to become more educated and even more engaged in politics.
I have much more to write about, so look for that in the coming week. From the Minnesota house of representative results, Minnesota Senate race results, BJ Lawson's future, and a lot more.
Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
David Price was re-elected.
The Democrats gained ground in the House and Senate.
Overall, it's very unfortunate the way things ended up turning out. The race I really cared about most was BJ Lawson's. Even though he lost, I know he did great things concerning spreading the message of liberty. Had he received 40,000 more votes he would be heading to Washington. I applaud his relentless effort and his effective campaign. Sure he didn't win, but he sure as hell gave it his best. I respect BJ Lawson immensely and I pray that his time in politics is not over, and that he will be willing to run again.
This election showed me how much work there is to be done for the campaign for liberty. Freedom. Liberty. Prosperity.
What were the two "main" choices in this Presidential election?
A Neo-con against an extreme liberal.
What kind of choice is that? I truly believe that a majority of Americans deep down truly believe in a limited government, a government that respects the constitution, serves the people. I believe in the message of liberty. The message of freedom is popular, as Ron Paul will say. What if people were educated on the issues? They knew ALL the options? How would elections change?
I don't believe that the next few years are going to be pretty for any conservative or libertarian. It just is not going to be. The beautiful thing about the message of liberty is that education is its greatest weapon. There is no doubt about that. A year ago today I did not know who Ron Paul was. I knew nothing about the pros and cons of America's foreign policy. The war on drugs had never crossed my mind. The federal reserve and America's monetary policy was something I took as a given. I couldn't explain why the Department of Education should be abolished, or why it should not. I would have thought someone who advocated cutting all foreign aid was crazy. Eliminating the income tax was a foreign idea to me. The constitutional abuses by the executive branch over the past decades were unknown to me. I was unsure where exactly I stood on gun rights.
But you know what? That has all changed. Simply through becoming informed and exposed to these new ideas. Crazy thing is, they all made so much sense.
Today I am proud to say that a number of people that I know, and who I'm guessing I influenced at least a little bit, decided to vote third party for one race or all the races. It was great to hear this. It was encouraging and it motivates me to continue to become more educated and even more engaged in politics.
I have much more to write about, so look for that in the coming week. From the Minnesota house of representative results, Minnesota Senate race results, BJ Lawson's future, and a lot more.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Introduction to Ron Paul
I was introducing a friend to Ron Paul a few nights ago. He had no idea who Ron Paul was, and it was hard to know where to start. I decided that the best way is via youtube videos. So I found a few that I thought he would find interesting. By the end of it, he was asking "Why isn't this guy running? He is better than both of our current choices."
One of the best:
Ron Paul owning McCain on foreign policy:
*My favorite is him shaking his head at McCain at 1:30
Ron Paul asking McCain a question, and McCain not answering. At 1:20 Ron Paul again asks his question "would you get rid of this group?" but McCain avoids the actual question and rambles on about people he knows.
This video has nothing to do with Ron Paul, but is one of my favorite McCain videos, and is just a great remembrance of Tim Russert. He was never easy on anyone he interviewed (Ron Paul included!) and I respect him for that.
Hope you enjoyed those. I am planning on putting up one more post tonight before election day.
One of the best:
Ron Paul owning McCain on foreign policy:
*My favorite is him shaking his head at McCain at 1:30
Ron Paul asking McCain a question, and McCain not answering. At 1:20 Ron Paul again asks his question "would you get rid of this group?" but McCain avoids the actual question and rambles on about people he knows.
This video has nothing to do with Ron Paul, but is one of my favorite McCain videos, and is just a great remembrance of Tim Russert. He was never easy on anyone he interviewed (Ron Paul included!) and I respect him for that.
Hope you enjoyed those. I am planning on putting up one more post tonight before election day.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
BJ Lawson - National Exposure
BJ Lawson appeared on the Glenn Beck show yesterday. Here is the youtube
I'm praying he makes it into Congress. I have said this once, and I will say it again: this is one of the most important races in the country this year.
I'm praying he makes it into Congress. I have said this once, and I will say it again: this is one of the most important races in the country this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
