A Warning to Heed

I put off my political blogging for a year but I couldn't stay away any longer. I became very discouraged to what was happening in this country and the world around us. I became despondent and further just numb to it all. It's easy to get a defeatist mindset when you see great injustice, great ignorance, and great violence-not just physical violence you see in the world by extremist groups or brutal dictators; but also the violent legislative assaults on freedoms, individual rights and liberty we see in more free democracies. I began to think writing, advocating, stirring discussion and educating were worthless endeavors. I missed the entire reason why I should keep writing. The mere fact that I have the freedom and a guaranteed right to be able to express freedom of thought through blogging or any type of writing venue should be put to use. This is a cherished freedom that so many people throughout the world do not have. One of the main superpowers who we have a very cold relationship with, China, is still a Communist dictatorship where freedom of thought, expression and especially what I'm doing here, blogging, is highly restricted and controlled. There is a constant geopolitical struggle with China in the Asian hemisphere. The struggle also deals with ideology. America stands for the free nation states of the West. China stands for the authoritarian states of the East. There is a place now where the struggle is at a fierce head. The place is the South China Sea. I chose this story about our old enemy, China, and the South China Sea as my first blog piece in a while. The reason is pretty simple. There is a warning to heed. There is a global race for resources and power. China sees this very valuable area of water as their's and their's alone. Any other countries' claim to areas of the South China Sea are being dismissed by China and China has been rapidly building artificial islands/military bases in the sea. The South China Sea is so stratigically important for resources and for shipping. There are vast oil reserves there and China are drunk on the oil there with there massive drilling activities. In the original article I began with, there is a warning. China has explicitly warned us militarily and said they are ready for a fight over their rapid and threatening expansion in the South China Sea.

The red line is China's claim in the map above. I don't want to focus on the warning that China has offered for what "may" happen if we interfere. I want to focus on the warning of what already "has" happened. China is there and has been growing without any constraint or action from the free world. They are entrenched and will continue their hostilities toward the free world and their global commerce. Hell, they are even threatening fellow authoritarian states like Vietnam. So, the warning we need to heed is that China is in a fixed, immovable (without force) position from their military expansion into the waters of the South China Sea. The name China is in it, so I guess that means it can be all theirs, right? Well, they are here to stay and not going away. So, this is in the lap of the free world to make a decision. We can respond with words such as "unprecedented move" or "illegal move." We could get certain think tanks involved to offer their analysis to counter China's arguments. But there requires more action. Remember we are in a very historical moment. The History books that will be written about this time will either show the free world shrink in power toward China and the authoritarian states; or they will show a pivotal moment where the free world makes a stand.

How do we approach this warning and geopolitical situation from a classical liberal perspective? War is something that we should avoid in most situations. History shows us where ill advised and unconstitutional warfare has cost us in human lives, standing in the world and financially. An interventionist strategy and democratizing of the world tends to lead to terrible unintended consequences. I believe with China there is a difference to what we've tried in the Middle East. There's no nation building or interventionism involved here. China poses a real threat to us and the free world. There is a fight for not only international commerce with shipping lanes and the race for resources, but also an ideological fight. Furthermore, China has explicitly threatened us militarily which must be responded to with a show of power of our own. This doesn't mean a preliminary military attack. I am also not saying that America is this powerless nation in the world. We in fact do have a lot of power in the world and one reason why is that we have great cooperative relationships with many states including some authoritarian states (except North Korea with some very good reasons). Many cooperative relationships are based on friendly actions by those nations we cooperate and trade with. China has no intentions of a friendly foreign policy. America has made some mistakes as well in the "friendly" department but that doesn't excuse China's actions nor excludes us from responding. We have an intertwined economy with China but that doesn't mean we should allow them to threaten us and make insane claims to areas of water as their complete own. America has the absolute right to respond to threats even if its from a country that we trade with. Not many Americans will care about this but we all should. It is a warning we should heed. We've had two World Wars that were not so far back. We also had the Cold War not too long ago and it seems we are yet involved in another Cold War. There are so many countries at odds and moving in threatening and defensive positions preparing for another world conflict. The Middle East, East Europe and Africa are grounds where world superpowers are preparing. Now we have the South China Sea where China is on the war path and with their bold explicit warnings they sound the beat of the war drums. Will we heed the warning?

"The Founders’ Model of Welfare Actually Reduced Poverty" via The Daily Signal

This is the most important article I've read regarding American history and Welfare policy.

There has been a shift from a more common sensed approach based on the understanding of human character. A system that "helps drive people out of poverty" and "minimize incentives" that lead to abuse of the system. It has  become more of a "generational inheritance." Welfare has become more of a "living wage."

Another thing that this article pushes is something I've been advocating personally; which is more State autonomy and local administration of welfare benefits. A more localized approach can help eliminate abuse and more accurately weed out who are truly in need of it.

Here is an excerpt:

Rather than making welfare a generational inheritance, Franklin thought it should assist the poor in overcoming poverty as expediently as possible: “I am for doing good to the poor.…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”

Moreover, local, rather than federal, officials administered this welfare, since they were more likely to know the particular needs of recipients and could distinguish between the deserving poor (the disabled and involuntarily unemployed) and the undeserving poor (those capable of work but preferring not to).

The Founders sought to provide aid in a way that would help the deserving poor but minimize incentives for recipients to act irresponsibly. They wanted to protect the rights of taxpayers by preventing corruption and abuses in welfare aid.

Above all, the Founders saw the family and life-long marriage as the primary means of support for everyone, rich and poor alike.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/30/the-founders-model-of-welfare-actually-reduced-poverty/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

Listen up, Millennials! 80's Awareness!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09q04Dlh7r8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Lady Liberty is Crying

The gift was ten years late. 

The Pedestal of Lady of Liberty

It was 1876, and the centennial celebration was underway for that glorious day back in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed. America and France were in negotiations and plans to construct the famous gift of "Lady Liberty," aka, Statue of Liberty. Construction started in the 1860's and was planned to be completed by the Centennial Celebration of 1876. America agreed to construct the pedestal for the Statue of Liberty to rest on. France constructed the rest of Lady Liberty. Fundraising was actually hard to attain for this statue on both sides of the Atlantic. Furthermore, the time, the men, and the materials arranged also added to the delay. So, ten years off the due date, the Statue of Liberty was delivered to New York Harbor. President Grover Cleveland gave the dedication speech. These words are not widely known nor are they reproduced like other presidential speech lines (ie. JFK's "what you can do for your country"). However, the passage was profound and a promise. A promise that has not been kept. 


What were President Cleveland's powerful words that have been predominately left on the dust heap of history? 

We will not forget that liberty here made her home; nor shall her chosen altar be neglected.

America is the home for liberty. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America in 1835 and had some of the most awe-inspiring statements about America that modern day American politicians can't even come close to saying. What is more sad is that Tocqueville was a French citizen and his words can't be matched now-a-days. If so, it is with a small group of virtuous politicians. In reference to America being the home for liberty, Tocqueville said the following:

Americans believe their freedom to be the best instrument and surest safeguard of their welfare . . .that their chief business is to secure for themselves a government which will allow them to acquire the things they covet and which will not debar them from the peaceful enjoyment of those possessions which they have already acquired.

Tocqueville further said, "At the present time, the liberty of association has become the necessary guarantee against the tyranny of the majority." What Tocqueville was proclaiming in his great work was that America was a home for liberty where the individual had soverigenty and rights as opposed to a tyrannical democratic majority. His book had the title of democracy but Tocqueville was excited that this young country had a type of Democracy that extolled individual liberty and protected it. In fact, the US was not a Democracy but a Constitutional Republic. What is more, Tocqueville said, "...the Federal Constitution...disavowed beforehand the habitual use of compulsion in enforcing the decision of the majority." He continues, "The great end of justice is to substitute the notion of right for that of violence and to place a legal barrier between the government and the use of physical force." Some of our Founding Fathers agreed with Tocqueville. Benjamin Franklin said, "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." You guessed it, it was America that Franklin abode. He also said, "Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." 

Lady Liberty was a gift bestowed by other men but her meaning is rooted deep into the intertwining of America's fabric. Benjamin Franklin said in reference to America's purpose: 

"God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country." 

The love of liberty was the purpose. America was the home of liberty. 

Now, what about the altar? What was President Cleveland talking about when he said, "nor shall her chosen altar be neglected." That sounds religious. I know you Progressives are just mad has heck seeing that word. There is something sacred about the word altar. I think Thomas Jefferson described it best when he wrote to Benjamin Rush, another Founding Father. He said, "...for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." So, there is a link between God and the altar that President Cleveland was talking about. America was and supposedly still is a Christian nation. I am a Libertarian and I do agree upon historical fact of our founding that America is a Christian nation. On the contrary, I am not obligated to believe that morality and personal choice needs to be legislated by the Government. However, this means that there is something sacred to America's love of liberty. There is something sacred to America's original intent to fighting the War for Independence, to writing the Constitution, and to form a Government independent of foreign rule. Liberty is sacred and tyranny is evil. 

The question is now posed to our current generation. Have we neglected Lady Liberty's chosen altar? I can go down the line of the tyrannical moves by our government over the last 20 years. Yet, we are currently under the Obama administration and I will focus on that. Apart from his various unconstitutional moves, (ie. using Executive Powers improperly) under Obama, two bills have passed with his signature that have neglected the altar. 


First, the NDAA bill sadly passed, which declares the American homeland as another "front" to the "War on Terror." Furthermore, it allows Americans to be indefinitely detained. All Americans are now "terror suspects." We even now have drones flying around in the sky to spy on Americans. I discussed the NDAA more in a previous entry regarding liberty and security here.

Second, the already infamous, Obamacare or what I liked to call, Marxistcare was passed. It was then solidified by faulty reasoning by the Supreme Court. I'm sure our good comrades from past to present, like Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and our Red buddy, Hugo Chavez are honored by this achievement. Oh, and let's not forget the greedy Progressives that are making millions off this new Communist system of healthcare, like Obama's campaign strategist and crony, David Axelrod. Check out this article that lays it all out. 


Lady Liberty was not only assaulted, she was beaten to a bloody pulp with Obamacare. Liberty was supposed to be protected by the sacred Constitution. Obamacare is unconstitutional. The government can't force an individual to enter into private contract or to purchase anything for just existing. The government can't force the individual to enter commerce. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did strike down the argument for the Commerce Clause. But this is where the whole bill needed to be struck down. The mandate was rendered unconstitutional but Roberts, the surprise swing vote, erroneously reasoned that it was a tax. He and some of the other Progressive justices rewrote the Bill. Obama and his cronies argued that it was not a tax. The government's attorneys argued that it wasn't a tax. Even more outrageously, the lawyers argued alongside the non-tax argument that it was a tax at some instances. This was because the IRS was going to enforce it. 


Now, I know the political maneuvering by the Republicans is to say that it is a tax. This is fine because it technically is now and this is a massive tax on Americans. Hence, it is a wrong move by a incumbent president nearing the end of his first term and up for re-election. But, putting politics aside, this was a loss for liberty not a gain. 


Lady Liberty is crying. Our country has moved from being the home of liberty to the facilitator of tyranny. The individual can now be compelled, coerced, and forced by the violent arm of the government to do whatever said Government wants. Any unconstitutional acts of Congress that assess penalties accompanied along with a mandate can now be rationalized as a "tax." It can be rationalized because the IRS will enforce and that there is ignorant Supreme Court precedence to support it. Our healthcare system is now on the road to other failed systems throughout Europe and even our above neighbor, Canada. Canada's supreme court declared in Chaoulli v. Quebec that their government mandated and centralized control over the healthcare system was violating human rights. Source

Below is a video of the political progressive hack economist, Kruegman, asking some Canadian students whether their healthcare system was terrible. He first asked them to raise their hands if they are Canadian. He then asked how many of them believed their system was terrible. All hands remained. Please watch.

Individual liberty and its protection by the Constitution has become irrelevant. The Constitution is perceived by many and sadly, many in our Government as nothing more than a paper document. Our liberty is then nothing more than a word written on paper. Lady Liberty is nothing more than a statue. The sacred altar that she rests on is just kooky old, American religious talk. Liberty is something that just crazy Right-wing racists talk about. What is more, the FBI now considers you a terrorist  if you have a love or strong desire for individual liberty. Government tyranny is the most reasonable and compassionate. Individual liberty and creating success and wealth is selfish and greedy.

Will you be a son and daughter of liberty to continue carrying on that torch in Lady Liberty's hand? We must fight to preserve individual liberty. We must debate, warn, write, vote, and just get involved to effect our political system for good. To bring back leaders like Grover Cleveland and our Founding Fathers who spoke and believed that America was the home for liberty and that we must not neglect the sacred altar. Lady Liberty is crying as were many liberty-minded Americans when Marxistcare was upheld. However, girls don't cry, they get even. Lady Liberty still carries the torch and so can you. I know I will.

How Liberty Found Me

If you are new to this blog or a current follower, I want to share with you the meaning of the title, Son of Liberty. I am not doing this just for the sole reason of me finding a home-made video by Jim Bob in his garage with his buddies called The Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia, on YouTube. I would provide a link but then I would be promoting them.

So, first, I am not part of a militia call the Sons of Liberty. But if you are a supporter or member of a militia; I do want to clarify that I am not condemning them as they are protected by the constitution.

Second, although I do appreciate the important work of the original Sons of Liberty, the Anti-Federalists Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry; the blog is not named after them. Although it should be noted, that they secured our Bill of Rights and we wouldn't have any liberty in the Constitution without their work.

I have digressed but now I will delve into the meaning in my blog title.

At first, you may think this blog is purely about politics. Well, you would be wrong. I do cover politics. I love politics...at times. As you will see in the above title box, this blog covers a number of topics. But at the core is liberty.

To better understand my philosophy and the overall purpose of this blog, you must first cognitively grasp the idea of liberty. Liberty can be more specifically defined for this article as "individual liberty." Without individual liberty it is impossible to have a free society with a small non-intrusive government. To be free of foreign invaders is not enough. Liberty can not be thought of as being something we need constant wars for. As James Madison confessed, “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” I will not go in great detail in the times in history but you can do your own research and see such examples as the Japanese-American detainment camps during WW2. It is foolish to just sit back and be at peace in your mind thinking that since we can just keep starting wars and sending our soldiers to occupy/police then we have "liberty."

Wars, patriotic rhetoric from politicians, Acts by Congress, and even those promises from your ideal Republican running for the Office do not define nor preserve individual liberty. Man does not create liberty.

My philosophy on individual liberty can be found in agreement with Frederic Bastiat's The Law. He said the following:

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." Ref.

"Liberty existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place" is one of the most powerful statements in the history of mankind, especially for America. Not only is this powerful but true. Liberty is a Natural right, same as life and property. Without individual liberty, you do not have your property rights or your right to life. We have seen when our lives and property can be regulated and even defined "because men have made laws." We have a property tax even on property that is owned outright. Human life in the womb is considered "not human" enough to have a "right to life."

Our daily life choices our regulated now on the part of Utopians on the Left and Utopians on the Right. On both sides of the ideological fence there are those who uphold the "community" against individual liberty. Individual liberty is viewed as dangerous to the community because it is erroneously thought of as "destructive." Those on the Left want to restrict liberty and force them to take care of the less fortunate. Furthermore, they also want liberty restricted for the sake of a unrealistic "noble" government to make our choices for us. On the other hand, you have those on the Right who view uninhibited individual liberty as a threat to the whole community on pure moral grounds. However, "morals" are created by the Left also to justify force and theft of individuals for their programs. Now, the Right tends to merely restrict individual liberty and not force afterwards. An example would be the "War on drugs." Individuals should be restricted from using "street" drugs on themselves such as marijuana because it is viewed as a "moral threat."  The Right also tends to restrict liberty for security reasons. They will publicly rail on the Left about "big government" but at the same time they use "big government" for their ideological whims.

There are many examples of Statists on the Left but I want to give a specific example of a Statist on the Right. You might know him, his name is "Slick" Rick Santorum. He thinks individual liberty is "radical individualism." He criticizes the beliefs on the "Libertarianish Right." His logic is so flawed that he even makes himself sound like a fool by adding "ish" at the end of Libertarian. Just watch this video clip of his pathetic reasoning.

The Declaration of Independence defines individual liberty as the "pursuit of happiness." Our pursuit for happiness has been under attack from the Left and the Right. It is "radical" for us to have individual liberty to pursue our happiness in life with freedom of choice. 

It's very simple. We have individual liberty which entails our right to life and to our property. However, we can not use our liberty to harm others or to take away other people's liberties. That's where the role of government comes in. It is there to protect our liberties and to bring to justice those that harm others. Our government isn't there to conduct Left-wing or Right-wing social engineering. We the people put together government to protect our liberty not to define it or restrict it. Karl Popper said it best, in his classic work, The Open Society and It's Enemies Part I:

“Such arguments in favor of utopian engineering exhibit a prejudice which is as widely held as it is untenable, namely, that social experiments must be on a ‘large scale’…The Utopian engineer we are opposing is right when he stresses that an experiment in socialism would be of little value if carried out under laboratory conditions, for instance, in an isolated village…But this very example shows where the prejudice of the Utopian engineer lies.  He is convinced that we must recast the whole structure of society, when we experiment with it…But the kind of experiment from which we can learn most is the alteration of one social institution at a time.  For only in this way can we learn how to fit institutions into the framework of other institutions, and how to adjust them so that they work according to our intentions.  And only in this way can we make mistakes, and learn from our mistakes, without risking repercussions of the gravity that must endanger the will of future reforms.  Furthermore, the Utopian method must lead to a dangerous dogmatic attachment to a blue print for which countless sacrifices have been made.  Powerful interests must become linked up with the success of the experiment.  All this does not contribute to the rationality, or to the scientific value, of the experiment…(Piecemeal engineering)—and not Utopian planning or historical prophecy—would mean the introduction of scientific method into politics, since the whole secret of scientific method is a readiness to learn from mistakes.” (Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Part I, [New Jersey:  Princeton University Press, 1962], 162-163.)

How did Liberty find me? Well, I was born like every other human baby fighting for freedom in the darkness of the womb. I was born not under any "rights" created by man but under the Natural rights afforded to us by our Creator. If you are a Christian then you understand about liberty in the spiritual sense. Liberty first found me through the grace of Jesus. I was very much bound to my own frailty as a human and the transgressions that I commit through life. Christ set me free and Liberty found me.

You see, my Christian belief is protected because of individual liberty. Under individual liberty you can worship who or what you want. You can join whatever religion. We wouldn't have religious liberty without the understanding of individual liberty. Liberty was not just in my religious beliefs, it became more real through my love of History, literature, poetry, philosophy, and economics.

I heard a radio talk-show host say, "I hated being told what to do growing up but I respected authority, especially the authority of my parents." This is exactly what my mindset was growing up. I hated being told what to do because inside my heart liberty was dear. However, I understood that I had authority over me that was supposed to be there. So, I respected it. Now, there were times I rebelled like everyone else because we are only human. Authority whether right or wrong will be resisted by people.

Without liberty, there wouldn't be such great works of literature, poetry, and overall works of history. We have those to read, enjoy, and learn from because of liberty. However, there have been those that use their liberty to evoke change in society to restrain liberty. It is those works that we must be weary of and fight their influence on others. Furthermore, we must fight to derail their paths to implantation in our society through legislation, regulation, and judicial rulings.

From my studies of the Magna Carter to the Pilgrims landing in the New World to the War for American Independence to the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution; liberty was very real to me but did not mature till the year 2008. I spent the previous 8 years thinking that liberty could be defined and played with by the government under Bush. I saw nothing wrong with a "big government" and believed that Republicans had our best interests. I was dead wrong.

Like a lot of Conservatives and Liberals, I believed a lie that we need Big Brother to say what liberty is and just take care of us. Whether through war or welfare, I used to believe that our liberty is defined by our "noble" leaders in our government. I at first was liking the Democrats because of how they respected civil liberties and didn't want the destitute to go without help. Yet, I studied their failed policies and flawed logic and found my self more philosophically in line with Republican leaders in history. However, I blindly followed Republican leadership and policies. I was a drone to that party.

Liberty finally found me and shook me to my senses when I started reading John Locke, Bastiat, Blackstone, Montesquieu, Milton Friedman, and Thomas Jefferson. I also read great works of literature like 1984 by George Orwell.

It all reached a climax in 2008 when I saw Ron Paul speak at a debate. I was dumbfounded to hear a Conservative speak about how liberty is under assault by the very so called "Conservative principles" that the Republican party have been evoking. War, excessive taxation, government growth, and out-of-control spending have been eroding our individual liberty and both damn parties have allowed it to happen. He would say things like, "The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.' Ref. And he would say, "There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator [sic] and our liberty comes from our creator [sic]. It has nothing to do with government granting it.' Ref. He also said, "You don't have freedom because you are a hyphenated American; you have freedom because you are an individual, and that should be protected." :Ref. He also talked about the destruction of the dollar and inflation caused by our Republicans and Democrats through their "laws." 


He was the only one who truly believed in individual liberty without government intrusion. He didn't align himself with Democrat or Republican ideology. He, like myself, aligns himself with liberty, above all else. 


I am a son of Liberty and my parents are my Creator and the State of Nature where Liberty was before man. This blog is where you can be informed and enlightened on individual liberty. What is more, this blog embraces all different works, topics, and ideas where our individual liberty allows us to have discourse and debate. Join my site and follow this blog to be a son or daughter of Liberty.

RON PAUL IS A RACIST?

The GOP establishment and the media have been perplexed and confounded over Dr. Ron Paul’s steadily increasing popularity. So not too long ago they resorted to pulling out a bogus charge of racism against him re: a newsletter written 20 years ago by someone else that was connected with him but of which he denies knowledge and renounces. That innuendo also died a quick death which is testimony to its spuriousness.  But I say his actions always speak louder than any words indirectly connected to him. My view on racism is simple. God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” (Acts 17:26)

I write the following reasoned defense based on research I have done.

Interracial animosity has been responsible for much ugliness throughout our history and that of the world. The ease and frequency with which rival partisans, ever ready to score cheap political points, hurl charges of racism at one another divests the word of meaning and, in the process, threaten to marginalize the very real evils to which racial animus has far too often given rise.

Still, it is hard to see how, of all of the candidates in this race — and, for that matter, all of the politicians in Washington D.C. — Ron Paul should be on the receiving end of this allegation. If ever equality had a champion, he is it. Yet it is the only morally defensible form of equality for which he fights: equality before the law. There can be no liberty unless there is equality before the law. It is liberty and equality for all Americans that he advocates. There is nothing — not a single thing — in his quite extensive record in Congress that so much as remotely suggests otherwise. If there was, his critics would have long ago seized upon it. That they have not reveals just how flimsy is their case.

Not only, however, has he steadfastly refused to lend support to any measure that would result in treating Americans of some races differently than those belonging to other racial groups. He has just as ardently fought to insure parity of treatment of Americans of all races.

The so-called unwinnable "War on Drugs," for example, has had a devastating impact on black communities throughout the country. Crime, violence, and higher rates of incarceration for blacks are among the poisons produced by this prohibitively costly enterprise. Yet he alone among the candidates of this race demands an end to it.

His commitment to racial equality and liberty for all can also be seen in the way of his conflict with the other candidates over foreign policy. They are committed to an interventionist foreign policy that during the last decade has been falsely justified in terms of  "the War on Terror." The overwhelming majority of those who have been harmfully impacted by it are people of color, namely Muslims and others of Middle Eastern descent. He, on the other hand, opposes this interventionism. African-Americans are notably over-represented in the military as a whole. They make up 19.1 percent of the active-duty force, and a staggering 24 percent of the Army, as opposed to just 12.1 percent of the population. So they incur a proportionately higher risk through our illegal and unconstitutional wars. As President, he will see to it that we follow the Golden Rule and do unto others as we ourselves would be done by.

He would also indeed be a peculiar sort of white "racist" who advocates domestic and foreign policies that would improve the plight of untold millions of non-whites. And it is more than a bit ironic that those whose policies have proven to be, quite literally in many instances, destructive of the same number of non-whites should be the ones calling him a "racist"!

In his own words, “[r]acism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.” [Government and Racism by Ron Paul, April 18, 2007]

Feel free to forward to all carelessly uninformed lemmings of the Republican party that you know.


**************************************************
The below link is to the Unabridged: Ron Paul Anti-Racist Encyclopedia. This has many links and referenced quotes. 
http://ronpaulracistimpossible.blogspot.com/

Also, here is a link to a story of when the Texas NAACP defended Ron Paul and said he is not racist.
http://www.dailypaul.com/194140/naacp-leader-clears-up-smears-on-ron-paul-embed

Here is the interview of Nelson Linder, Texas NAACP president defending Ron Paul.

America's Slippery Slope: The Constitution (#2-February 14, 2012)

It seems in politics today that the Constitution is used to justify unconstitutional acts. One current example is the Patriot Act which violates the 4th Amendment that protects US citizens from unwarranted searches/seizures. Older examples in history are the Alien/Sedition Acts of 1917-these acts also shredded Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and of the press. Throughout history there seems to be two common reasons for unconstitutional acts; either fear or the social public need. I addressed fear with the above examples. Social need was used to establish the unconstitutional Welfare program. In fact, many Americans believe in a large State and more flexible Constitution to fit their political ideology. I am going to take you down a rabbit trail right now because I have to say this. Republicans seem to anger me more now-a-days. I debated one Republican sheep who said to me, “we need to fit the Constitution in our modern day,” which was in response to my claim that we have been waging unconstitutional wars. The Founding Fathers knew a little something about war and illegal invasions of sovereign countries. They just fought one and won it against King George III when framing the Constitution. James Madison once postulated, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.”  Conservatives tend to want undeclared war and more government intrusion for the sake of security at the expense of our Constitutional rights. Liberals tend to want the government to entitle and regulate as many Americans at the expense of our Constitutional rights. 

Now, a third group and more dangerous group are the Progressives or Utopian Statists. This term is not commonly used by the media or those in government. Just think of it as the term abortionist used to describe those who espouse woman's rights to choose. Liberal Progressives, who believe in a fairyland Utopia as written about by Thomas More, Karl Marx, and Thomas Hobbes, are Utopians. Utopians desire an America without the old rigid Constitution and many Americans don't know better. We know throughout history Utopian experiments do not work and usually end in death. Just look at Mao’s China or Cambodia after the Vietnam War. Canada is another example. They attempted the Utopian experiment of Government controlled healthcare which lead to the Supreme Court deciding it “unconstitutional and inhumane” in the landmark case, Chaoulli v. Quebec in 2005. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v._Quebec_(Attorney_General))

I believe in a society that resists Utopian-engineered government—government that is centralized and retains all power of both entitling the people and regulating every facet of the people's life. Furthermore, liberty must replace Utopian-centralized government. I say replace; because the Utopian style of government has been growing as a terrifying overreaching tree whose roots are firmly attached into the sinews of our society. It grows stronger everyday while the people become complacent and the youths of the next generation are sheep, fed with Utopian propaganda throughout their years of education. Fed is a more soft term; no, Americans are being brainwashed to believing that we simply need a government that "works" and not worry if it is too big. (President Obama's Inaugural Speech http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address) Liberty can only be protected and encouraged by a return to Constitutional Republic form of government. But there are those in Government who know about this crazy thing called Liberty and how it endangers their Utopian dream. They must actively undermine the Constitution till they render it completely irrelevant.

You see, when someone wants to do something that contradicts the law above them like the Constitution, they vaguely justify the behavior. How do they vaguely justify? Political rhetoric is used to etch in false reasoning and wording between the lines. Liberals say "separation of church and state" and this phrase is etched in between the lines of the Constitution. "Right to privacy" is more political rhetoric that was used to justify the unconstitutional deprivation of life to the unborn. Just try to follow this flawed logic. I’ll give a disturbing comparison. Woman should be able to kill human life in private but people shouldn't have all their private wealth and property. Liberals are not the only ones that use political rhetoric to justify unconstitutional doings. Republican conservatives have also done this, more on fear rationale and military intervention. They also have attempted to engineer society in their own way with Prohibition both with alcohol in the past and currently with drugs. They also seem to think the government has an authority not given to them by the Constitution in defining marriage. However, the Utopian-progressive motives are much more dangerous to our country with their push for a strong centralized government envisioned by Marx whom their savior-complex minds salivate over. What I am getting at, is that the Constitution is in danger of further being ignored and usurped—usurped by a powerful Oligarchical-centralized government with an all-powerful Premier.  

Why has the Constitution become another paper document gathering dust on the back shelf in the library of American history?  To many Statists, it needs to fit to their ideological purpose. To Utopian Statists, it is irrelevant and outdated needing to be burned over an open flame. It is too rigid and keeps the president from getting things done. A powerful Chairman is needed to direct the central government without opposition. The people can't have so much freedom and prosperity from that freedom. Supreme Court judge, Ginsberg, said to Egypt, don't use our Constitution but use Canada's or South Africa. This is an important time in American history. We desperately need a return to a Constitutional republic that protects and promotes liberty. When the Constitution is treated as another old paper document, our liberty will cease to be. As my favorite author, George Orwell, bluntly said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.” We Americans have been told much nice, unrealistic, illogical rhetoric to convince us we need Utopia.  It is time we listen to what we don’t want to hear, the uncomfortable and politically incorrect truth. Our Constitution is still relevant and must be guarded. 

America's Slippery Slope: Security and Liberty (#1-12/26/2011)

A question sparks debates and increases understanding. That's a nice way of saying it though; as we humans tend to get mad and take it personal when someone questions our stance on an issue. An important issue that needs questioning is the fine line between security and our liberty during times of war. I will have different blog entries on a number of issues concerning security and our liberty. Texas Congressman and Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul has said, “There is no need for us to be forced to choose between security and freedom.” (Paul, Ron, "Is America a Police State?" speech delivered to the House of Representatives, June 27, 2002.) Benjamin Franklin once postulated on liberty and safety that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 [1963]). Congressman Dennis Kucinich previously stated, "America stands strongest in challenging terrorism when we do not give up an inch of our civil liberties" (Speech, Cleveland City Council (13 October 2003).

One area where our liberty and security has been dangerously blurred is the "battlefield" and who the "enemies" are in the so called, "War on Terror."  I want to pause here and explain that you can't declare war on a tactic. I believe that this phrase "War on Terror" is another incorrect term regurgitated by political pundits and honest patriotic Americans; similar to "Democracy" in place of Constitutional Republic. This term is not only false but also a blanket statement. When you declare "war" on a tactic then any place can be deemed the "battlefield" and any person can be deemed the "enemy" (terrorist). This is true recently in America with the NDAA Bill which makes America a "battlefield" and all Americans as "terrorist" suspects with the option of "indefinite detention" at the Government's disposal. The bill's section 1031 specifically and vaguely states if you "substantially supported" forces "associated" with al-Qaeda or the Taliban (but according to VP Biden, Taliban is not our enemy, right...) that "are engaged in hostilities" against the US or coalition forces then you can be indefinitely detained by the President. No terms are defined hear, sadly. For example, who are forces or groups "associated" with al-Qaeda? That can be any group the Government sees as "extreme" or a "threat." We have seen similar fear mongering and excessive Government control throughout US history. A few examples in history do come to mind such as the Japanese Americans who were put in detention camps during WW2. Lincoln suspended the Constitutional right of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War to which the Supreme Court justice at the time, Taney, declared that executive order unconstitutional. How about the Sedition Act of 1918 or the Espionage Act of 1917 that placed our Bill of Rights over a candle stick to be decimated. Freedom of speech and of the press was infringed upon. Paul Johnson, a world renowned historian author, put it this way in reference to the Espionage and Sedition acts during a time of war:

Thus the war demonstrated both the impressive speed with which the modern state could expand itself and the inexhaustible appetite which it thereupon developed both for the destruction of its enemies and for the exercise of despotic power over its own citizens. (Johnson, Paul, Modern Times, pg. 17, [1991, revised 2001])

                                                   

 "The exercise of despotic power over its own citizens" is such a powerful and bold statement that holds true every decade of tumultuous times in America's history, especially now during this "War on Terror." We must believe that our own citizens whether bad or good should be protected by their Constitutional rights from "despotic power." A prime example is Anwar al-Awlaki who was an American citizen hiding in Yemen working with Al Qaeda. He was never charged with a crime and was targeted for assassination by POTUS. Now, I am not going to argue if he should have been assassinated. There could have been intelligence that proved he was an imminent threat at the time. But I wanted to bring this example up to question whether Constitutional rights are for all citizens and whether this is a slippery slope combined with the NDAA bill where American citizens can be targeted for assassination without due process. 

A fine, bold line should exist between security and our individual liberty. If not, then we become suspect terrorists and America becomes the battleground. Senator Lindsey Graham shockingly stated in support of the NDAA, “Is the homeland (i.e. America) the battlefield? You better believe it is the battlefield.” Fear and Big Government during times of war is a dangerous concoction that leads to the suspension of Civil Liberties guaranteed by the Constitution-the Constitution becoming just another piece of paper with old guidelines. We need to ponder and consider what John C. Calhoun said in response to Andrew Jackson's defense of a stronger central government (stronger Union), "The Union, next (emphasis added) to our Liberty, most dear." Our liberty is first when the Government makes decisions on security in times of war.