Dear Rep. Velazquez,

I won’t bore you with a form letter. I am writing today to ask you co-sponsor HR 1207 to allow the G.A.O. to audit the Federal Reserve.

As a member of the financial services committee you are in a unique position to help further President Obama’s promise of transparency and vote in this bi-partisan issue. This bill has over 200 sponsors from both sides of the isle, and is now being considered by your committee for further action.

There is no logical reason why the Federal Reserve shouldn’t be audited by Congress. Your efforts in supporting this important legislation would go a long way in proving to your constituents that you not only hold the Federal Reserve to the same standard as you do your constituents, but it would also show that you believe in transparency. Anything less than support for this resolution suggests that you are in favor of secrecy and a lack of accountability to the people who pay the bills. We pay the tab; we have a right to know where our money is going.

If you are not going to support HR 1207, I would appreciate a letter from your office with the reasoning behind your decision, so that I may further understand all sides of this issue. At this point I see no logical reason why this shouldn’t be supported by all members of congress.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this very important matter. We have a historical opportunity to change this country for the better, and I hope we can make it happen.

-Concerned constituent in NYC

I encourage everyone to contact their members of congress and ask that hey support H.R. 1207. There are currently over 200 cosponsors as of today (June 9, 2009), both Democrats and Republicans.

We will continue to see the same problems over the next few years, only worse.  As I write this, the DOW sits at 7495(!!!) and people continue to lose their jobs, homes, and savings.  Yesterday our new President Obama has signed into law another bailout bill, and by the market’s reactions, it is probably not going to help.  Many of the same people who’ve gotten us into this mess in the first place are still in positions of power in both government and private industry.  The fools in the US Government continue to give $BILLIONS$ (In reality it’s now in the $$TRILLIONS$$) to their old pals in the private sector that caused this mess through greed and corruption. Now millions of American tax payers for generations to come will suffer the consequences, while these greedy bastards continue to live the good life.

There are many people who feel they have the solution to our problems.  Truth is, nobody knows what the best fix will be, but I can tell you printing money and giving it away to the same people who fucked us in the first place, is not the solution.  Harder times are on the horizon.

Please enjoy the episode of PBS’ Frontline: Inside the Meltdown.  Encourage others to see and understand how this mess has happened, and continue to educate those close to you.

In order to speak of libertarianism one must first attempt to define the terms of greatest importance to the libertarian perspective. The first of these terms is liberty. One way of defining liberty is the “freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control” (Dictionary.com). Liberty is exemplified when the individual is in a state of independence so that he may make his own decisions about how his life will be lived. Liberty is threatened when an individual, group of individuals, or governing body tries to enforce control over another individual, group of individuals, or governing body. Liberty is an uncompromising position. There are no “what ifs” or “buts” when it comes to liberty. Either something helps to support liberty that already exists and creates a greater context where liberty can grow, or it inhibits liberty and works to exert greater control and a decreased freedom of choice and action.

Another way of defining liberty is “the absence of coercion of a human being by any other human being; it is a condition where the person may do whatever he desires, according to his wisdom and conscience” (Harper 3). It must be made clear that this definition leaves room for varying degrees and views of morality. Liberty in and of itself is neither “good” nor “bad”. Rather, it allows the individual to decide what is “good” or “bad,” and to make errors in judgment and behavior that they may learn from. Attempts to legislate morality in regards to an individual’s conduct tend to subvert individual liberty. Wherever there is liberty there must also be personal responsibility. If an individual were to value their own liberty they must hold themselves to a particular standard where she not only promotes liberty for herself, but for others as well. As Mary Ruwart has expressed, “Liberty requires respect for the personal choices that others make. In trying to control others, we will eventually find ourselves controlled” (Ruwart 1). One does not have to agree with another’s decisions or how he would live his life. However, at least a basic respect for their right to do as he chooses must be observed. If one individual or governing body were to create a rule which limits another individual’s behavior it only becomes a matter of time before a rule will be made which limits the law maker’s own behavior.

A third way of looking at liberty brings us back to Bastiat’s original question posed above. If we’re looking at liberty in terms of oversight, a libertarian tends to believe “that individuals and society can work out their own problems in the absence of top-down management” (Rockwell 1). It is not any other individual’s or governing body’s responsibility to tell another how to live, think, work, or play. In fact, liberty encourages the individual to have freedom of thought, word, and deed. The idea of liberty is by definition, nonrestrictive in regards to directing an individual’s code of conduct. In fact, libertarians tend to come from a diverse array of lifestyles. In order to further define what it is to be a libertarian one must also consider the other pillars that hold it up.

While the idea of liberty on its own may seem too broad to be pragmatic in today’s troubling and complex social climate, one must understand that libertarianism is not a strict platform of behavioral standards or a code of ethics. Instead, it is a basic framework of principles that all support and build on one another in the striving for maximum liberty. While libertarians may debate specific questions of morality and matters of public policy, the non-aggression axiom is paramount to libertarian ideals and helps to further define what it is to be a libertarian. Walter Block’s assertion that “we’re all libertarians if we agree on the non-aggression axiom and property rights” is an accurate one (Block 5:58). Someone who professes to be a libertarian yet finds exceptions in the non-aggression axiom is undermining the philosophic system as a whole.

Examples of the non-aggression axiom have appeared as early as ancient Greece. The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus is credited with expressing that “The justice of nature is a pledge of reciprocal usefulness, neither to harm one another nor be harmed” (Morgan 423). This is the most basic pledge of the non-aggression axiom. Basically, a libertarian may not initiate the use of force or coercion against another. The only justification for a libertarian to engage in the use of force against another individual or property is in cases where one is acting in defense of aggression. Only in the defensive context may one individual encroach upon another. Unfortunately, this interpretation has taken a life of its own in this age of terrorism.

Some self-described libertarians have tried to argue that we live in different times and the idea of preemptive strikes laid out by the Bush Doctrine are compatible with libertarianism and the non-aggression axiom. This assertion is nothing more than a distortion of what the non-aggression axiom states. Not only is this axiom meant to govern the acts of the individual, but it also extends all the way to the state. Generally speaking, the foundational concepts of libertarianism apply to all of life’s contexts regardless of how large or small they happen to be. Acts of aggression against other nations are just as unacceptable as acts of aggression against the individual. Allowing preemptive acts of aggression is akin to allowing one group to impose restrictions on liberty to another group. Allowing for this exception would only go to undermine the foundations of the entire philosophy. Just as there are no “what ifs or “buts” in regards to liberty, there are none for the non-aggression axiom.

To further define the conditions that liberty and the non-aggression axiom set up, one must also consider the idea of absolute property rights. As Butler Shaffer says, “individual liberty and the private ownership of property are synonymous” (Shaffer 1). Under libertarianism, the ability to own private property is stressed to guide the exchange of goods and services, and as a further clarification in regards to what is protected under the non-aggression axiom. In a manner of speaking, one’s property is an extension of the self. Furthermore, each individual not only owns the extensions of the self but she also owns her person. By viewing herself as her own property and her property as a part of her self, it allows for the non-aggression axiom to be much clearer in regards to what can and cannot be aggressed upon. Each individual has the right to utilize what he or she owns in any way of their choosing as long as it does not violate the non-aggression axiom.

If the concept of self-ownership were rejected, the implication would be that another person has a higher claim on an individual’s life than the individual himself would have. An individual who is the property of another, and not owned by the self, is by definition a slave. Libertarians reject this notion that human beings are born and exist as slaves. The product of one’s life and liberty becomes his or her property. Exerting time, energy, and talents towards a goal which produces wealth of some kind entitles an individual to hold that production as their property. Property is the fruit of one’s labor, so-to-speak. By disallowing the ownership of property is to subject individuals to a life which also in turn equates to a life of slavery. If individuals each possess property, exchange of said property is an eventuality.

The free exchange of property, or commerce, is an offspring of property rights and is governed under the principles laid out above. Therefore, the non-aggression axiom will govern how people engage in trade with one another. This allows an individual to hold his own property and do with it as he wishes, free from coercion. If an individual feels she is being unfairly treated in dealing with another, she may choose not to engage in business with that person. It is this idea of voluntary interaction and exchange which is the key to understanding the libertarian philosophy. Under libertarianism, the belief is that voluntary society is morally and practically the best form of society. In such a system of living, individuals become personally responsible for their own actions and their dealings, and with whom they themselves deal with.

This idea of individual responsibility acts as the glue which holds liberty, non-aggression, and private property together. Without a sense of individual responsibility, no benevolent system will ever come to fruition and exist for very long. If an individual refuses to be responsible and uphold the non-aggression axiom and allows for exceptions to creep into his or her day to day behavior, other individuals will eventually defend against the aggression which in turn will threaten each individual’s liberty. If care is not taken to be responsible in dealing’s of private property, the chances of the same dire result of the loss of property, liberty, and increased aggression becomes more of a reality. These dangers are not only apparent on a personal level, but also in a societal context.

In order to explore real fundamental change in our society, the libertarian philosophy becomes a convenient and effective filter of examination. A society structured under libertarian principles would function much differently than our current society does today. An adjustment of ideas and priorities must take place in order for it to be understood, to take hold, and to succeed. Libertarianism cannot be viewed in the same light as the dominating political philosophies that exist in contemporary American society. During each national election, for example, the voting public makes a decision in regards to which group of people to involuntarily plunder and who to redistribute that which has been plundered. This is done through the mechanism of taxation. Rather than having a debate about whether or not individuals would prefer to retain property and do with it however one would see fit, the debate is framed in such a way that doesn’t even raise this basic concept of the libertarian philosophy.

Individuals do not have the right to use coercion to fix social problems, so the state should not have that right either. If a man were to take the property of a woman and give it to a third individual, we would consider this theft. When the state engages in the same basic activity it is framed as taxation and redistribution or subsidization. If it is wrong to steal, then it should also be wrong to tax. If it is wrong to kidnap, then a government should not be allowed to institute a draft or other mandated compulsory service to the state. That which is illegal in private society should also be illegal in public matters. Instead, individuals are lead to believe that all of these actions are done in the common good of man.

Unfortunately, many programs and systems in place that function under this image do just the opposite. Public institutions tend to be far more inefficient than their private counter parts. People who believe in the libertarian philosophy feel that economic incentives in the free-market should act as the carrot which drives innovation and harbors solutions. Government interventions in the markets are viewed as an act of force or coercion in the dealings of private citizens, which not only distorts market prices but also slowly erodes basic liberty. One may argue that the act of voting will make these actions that of the people themselves. The libertarian would argue that it does not matter who or what the source of such actions happens to be. Increasing the number of people who agree to take property from one individual or group and give it to another does not justify the action or change whether it is right or wrong.

Rather than exercising the right to vote in the voting booth, the libertarian philosophy proposes that individuals take responsibility to stay informed and vote with his actions and dollars. In a true free-market system, each and every time someone engages in commerce, he or she is casting a vote. If the integrity of the person, the product, or service being offered is in question, it is then the responsibility of the individual to cast a vote by disengaging from further business with the entity that is in doubt. If government sponsored coercion in the form of taxation, subsidies, and other meddling in the market place were to cease, the market itself would be determined by man. In an artificially stimulated environment, not only do markets become distorted, but individual responsibility and morality become subverted as well.

In a society that has systems designed to subsidize industry, legislate morality, and exert control over the liberty of man, libertarians believe that many of the incentives and ingrained rugged individualism that is part of the American tradition have been overthrown. If there is no risk of failure, then there is no real incentive to take care of and improve said systems. Rather than taking care of one self, family, and community, individuals rely on the state to take care of basic needs. This leads to an inefficient mode of living, and allows systems and ideas that have long lost their use and value to live on; prohibiting expansion, growth, and progress. Only under the ideas presented in the libertarian philosophy can we begin to adjust our ideas and the systems that spring up around them in such a way that truly benefits the common good, and respects the individual’s right to engage voluntarily in the activities of his or her choosing.

In America’s history, a 1% tax by the British on tea was enough to spark a revolution. Today, we see state sponsored looting on a scale far greater than 1% on a single product. If some time was taken to have an honest and healthy debate about the functions of state in society, and the individual’s role in the absence of a statist entity, ideas could easily begin to shift and adjust toward greater liberty. Through liberty and the non-aggression axiom, individuals could find themselves in command of greater resources and increased peace of mind knowing that each individual were their own house’s keeper. Accepting the weight of responsibility that comes with such a free philosophy would be nil in comparison to the demands placed by the state, the increased poverty, and lack of liberty which comes along with it. Maybe it is finally time to respond to Frederic Bastiat’s question, and take the steps necessary to advance the cause of liberty. Perhaps it is time for another revolution, a revolution of ideas.

Bibliography

Bastiat, Frederic. The Law. Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007.

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden and Civil Disobedience. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2003.

Morgan, Michael L. Classics of Moral and Political Theory. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., 2006.

Harper, F.A.. “Liberty Defined.” Ludwig von Mises Institute. 09 September 1957. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 17 December 2008. <http://mises.org/resources/2677>

Ruwart, Mary. “The Indivisibility of Liberty.” LewRockwell.com. 23 April 2008. LewRockwell.com. 17 December 2008. <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/ruwart3.html>

Rockwell, Jr., Llewellyn H.. “Liberty Yet Lives” LewRockwell.com. 04 November 2004. LewRockwell.com. 17 December 2008. <http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/liberty-lives.html>

Shaffer, Butler. “Are There Limits to Liberty?” LewRockwell.com 25 June 2002. LewRockwell.com 17 December 2008. <http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer22.html>

Rockwell, Jr., Llewellyn H. “The Lew Rockwell Show” Lew Rockwell interviews Naomi Wolf. 30 October 2008. The Lew Rockwell Show. 10 December 2008. <http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/feed.xml>

Block, Walter. “Rothbard and Big Tent Libertarianism.” Walter Block – Rothbard and Big Tent Libertarianism. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 13 October 2007. 11 December 2008. <http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/25thNYC/11-Block.mp3>

Thornton, Mark. “An Introduction to Libertarianism.” Mark Thornton – An Introduction to Libertarianism. Auburn University Libertarians, 18 January 2005. 09 December 2008.

<http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Thornton-01-19-2006.mp3>

“Liberty.” Dictionary.com. 2008.

December 17, 2008

Dear Friend of Liberty:

The Founders’ inspired vision of limited government has been kept alive by the hard work and generosity of Americans who truly cherish individual Liberty… average people like you and me.

In the toughest times… times like we are facing right now in the life of our nation… freedom fighters have always stepped forward for America—armed with whatever it takes and at whatever sacrifice—to answer the call to defend our liberty. That’s how America was born and how we, as a free and sovereign nation, have survived.

A major economic crisis is unfolding in our nation. New government programs are started daily, and future plans are being made for even more costly government expansion. All are based on the belief that we’re in this mess because free-market capitalism and sound money failed. The obsession is with more spending, bailouts of bad investments, more debt, and further dollar debasement. Many are saying we need an international answer to our problems with the establishment of a world central bank and a single fiat reserve currency.

These suggestions are merely more of the same policies that created our mess and are doomed to fail.

It is unimaginable that Congress could be so derelict in its duty. It does nothing but condone the arrogance of the Fed in its refusal to tell us where the $2 trillion has gone. Every Member of Congress and every American should be outraged that conditions could deteriorate to this degree. It’s no wonder that a large and growing number of Americans are now demanding an end to the Fed.

The Federal Reserve created our problem, yet it manages to gain even more power in the socialization of the entire financial system. The whole bailout process this past year was characterized by no oversight, no limits, no concerns, no understanding, and no common sense.

I hear daily from Americans like you who are up in arms about what is going on in our nation. Messages come into my congressional office morning, noon and night. Taxpayers are outraged by the huge bailouts, the massive expansion of government and the refusal by Congress and the leaders of both parties to follow the Constitution.

Many Americans are frustrated—or even outright angry—about failed government policies that just tighten the government’s noose around our necks.

The results of the recent election and the socialist policies that we are seeing proposed are indeed reminiscent of FDR and the New Deal and are equally dangerous. Free market economists and historians have correctly pointed out that Roosevelt’s horrendous economic policies only served to prolong and extend the severity of the Great Depression by many years. When the market is not allowed to work, government-created economic downturns are only made that much worse.

Since the financial crisi s has become more and more apparent and the attempts by the Fed, and Treasury and Congress to solve the problem have become more desperate, my phone has been ringing off the wall with calls from media outlets wanting to interview me and get my opinions about what is going on and how we need to deal with it.

During the presidential election, do you remember how the media scoffed at my suggestions that we were facing economic disaster? They laughed at my calls for limited government, for abolishing the Fed and the IRS, for cutting federal spending at home and abroad to balance our budget, and my call for a sound monetary system.

Today, with the crisis at hand, they are not laughing any more.

But, if we love our nation, it is not sufficient for us to sit back and say “we told you so.”

The task before us is huge. Our challenge is both political and philosophical, but either way the solution must begin by properly educating Americans as to why our current out-of-control, misguided political and financial systems have failed, and what must be done to turn things around.

My Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE) has been waging such an educational effort for several decades. We have had a great deal of success publishing newsletters and books and producing radio and TV programs teaching people about the Constitution and free markets and sound money.

FREE has done much to educate patriots like you and to win the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans young and old. Today, however, given the severity of the crisis we face, we must do even more in our battle to spread the truth It is imperative that we redouble and expand the work and scope of FREE’s educational effort. Right now, while people are still looking for answers and even the media is trying to figure out what in the world is going on, we must step in to fill the void that exists and to provide answers and solutions for the problems that face us.

You have been a faithful supporter of the cause of liberty. You understand the serious nature of the threats that confront us and the dangers posed to our freedom and our very way of life.

It is up to us step up and lead the pro-freedom movement, not just in Congress, but in every community and at every level of government and every institution of learning.

Our ability to lead this movement comes from your tax-deductible contribution to FREE. $50 or $100, or even $250 or more if you can afford it, is urgently needed to help fund the effort to turn our government and our nation around… before it is too late.

Leadership is sorely lacking in Washington. It is time for true leaders like us to step forward and offer the vision needed to point Congress and our nation in the right direction… and to halt the assault on our nation’s sovereignty.

This is a dangerous time. But it is also an historic opportunity. Please help today with your most generous, tax-deductible gift for freedom. We must act swiftly to fill the leadership void in Washington. The time is NOW and the need is urgent!!!

Please log on to www.FREE-NEFL.com and contribute to the incredibly important work of FREE. No gift is too small… and every donation will help me continue to lead the battle for Liberty.

I’m counting on you.

For Liberty,

Ron Paul

P.S. If you can help with $50 or more, I will send you my “Freedom Report” newsletter for a full year as my “thank you” for your generous help. And for a gift of $100 or more I would like to send you a copy of my book on foreign policy… A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship

P.P.S. If you can help FREE with a magnificent gift of $500 or more, I’ll send you a personally autographed copy of my best-selling book, The Revolution: A Manifesto

Thankfully, Cynthia Mckinney was more receptive to answering the moderator’s questions than she usually is in interviews.  One example of her usual and more difficult style would be when Greta Brawner interviewed her for an hour for CSPAN’s series entitled, Road to the White House.  She displays an Palin-esque quality of avoiding any direct question and talking about whatever she feels.  This becomes annoying at best – angering at worst.  Coming from someone who generally supports her and agrees with much of what she says, I can only imagine what it must have been like to hear her reapetedly ignore the questions posed by NPR’s Neal Conan on Talk of the Nation for someone unfamiliar with her.  NPR’s Scott Simon of Weekend Edition can also be credited with giving her some airplay in one of Cynthia’s better, albeit brief, showings.

Bob Barr is polling at a modest 1.5% nationally and has also benefited by being featured on Road to the White House.  I feel he had a far better showing on both Washington Journal and Road to the White House due to actually presenting some sort of concise message.  Not only that, but he succeeded in the simple task of answering questions posed to him.  What a radical move.  Especially considering the hosts of CSPAN and NPR tend to be far more fair in comparison to most moderators.  NPR’s News & Notes also gave him a few minutes to detail his campaign goals alongside Weekend Edition’s profile of the candidate.

Unfortunately for Barr and Mckinney, neither of them appeared in the only Third Party Debate after the one at Columbia was canceled.  Complete with caller responses immediately following the event, Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin were the only two to take part.  This is a really pathetic result for something I personally deem to be quite important.  I was personally influenced by the Libertarian platform presented by Michael Badnarik in the 2004 election as a result of CSPAN airing the Third Party Debate.  Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin were both also featured on NPR’s Weekend Edition.

After viewing and listening to the minimal coverage the Third Party Candidates receive, I honestly have to say I’ve been the most impressed with Chuck Baldwin’s performances.  He comes off as the most honest of all the candidates and presents the most compelling message.  He is the most outspoken against real issues such as the Federal Reserve, the New World Order, gun rights, and other Constitutional principles.  This is not an endorsement, however.  Unfortunately, I disagree with him in regards to some other elements of his platform.

At the end of the day I am still an undecided voter.  All I know is that I reject the two corporate puppets that most media outlets present to us as the only options.  Its sad that many people believe them.

Joseph Biden has stated that “we’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis” and that he can “guarantee you it’s going to happen.”  He continued to state that “it’s not going to be apparent that we’re right” in regards to how an Obama/Biden administration would handle such a situation.  Here – take a listen for yourself:

He isn’t the only one that feels this way.  When questioned about Biden’s statements, Fmr. Secretary of State Madeline Albright felt that “its just a statement of fact, frankly.”  Sen. Joe Lieberman appeared on Face the Nation on 06.29.2008 and echoed Biden’s sentiments by saying that “our enemies will test the new president early.” He also went on to tell Bob Schiffer to “remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton Administration.  9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush Administration.”  I’d like to personally thank Joe the Politician #2 for narrowing the timeline for when the next terrorist attack or crisis will strike America and the world.  It will happen with in the 1st year of the next President’s term.

However, that is not close enough.  I think I’d like to narrow it down a bit more.  Lets see what Fmr. Secretary of State Colin Powell had to say while appearing on Meet the Press on 10.19.2008:

In case you missed it, Colin Powell stated that “there is going to be a crisis [to] come along on the 21st or 22nd of January that we don’t even know about right now.”  Oh, really?  What an interesting thing to say.  However, don’t worry!  The United States Military is already in place and engaged in homeland tours – for your protection of course.  Who needs a 2nd amendment and Posse Comitatus when you have the US Army on American soil to protect you?  Oh, wait.

You have been doing a huge disservice to the Libertarian Party during this election.  First you snub Ron Paul’s 3rd Party Press Conference and now you refuse to show up at the 3rd Party debates being held this Sunday.  Grow the fuck up and get your head out of your ass,  Mr. Barr.

I have been fighting for and championing greater access to debates for the 3rd parties.  People need to hear the Libertarian platform in these trying times.  You are doing the country a great disservice by refusing to debate other 3rd party candidates.  You are behaving like a petulant child, probably because Ron Paul has failed to endorse you and the fact that Dr Paul has single-handedly blown the LP out of the water in terms of financing and following.

Instead of trying to win over the hearts and minds of liberty loving americans, your campaign has been busy bad mouthing other 3rd party cantidates and alienating members of the freedom movement brought in by Ron Paul.  This is neither the time nor the place for such petty attacks.  Your campaign is really starting to turn off a lot of people in the freedom movement.  I sometimes believe that you are still working for the CIA, as an agent provocateur, to discourage and break up the movement.  Ron Paul scared the establishment and you come in to divide and conquer.

If indeed you are a true Libertarian and pro-liberty, start acting like it.  IF I do decide to vote for your sorry excuse for a Libertarian ass, I will do so in  the spirit of the party and its ideals.  I will not be casting a vote in favor of Bob Barr, because sir, I do not like you.  I  wanted to like you, I’ve tried to like you, but you make it so hard.  You sir, are an asshole.

Even though I endorsed you on my website last week, I now encourage those who cannot look past your problems to write in Dr Ron Paul.  It’s better than giving a vote to you and endorsing your bullshit.

Show up to the debate Sunday.  Win.  Spread the cause.  Shit or get off the pot.

The ACLU is offering the “I’m a Constitution  Voter” bumper sticker for free.  Their goal is to sign up over 300,000 by Oct 15th.   The ACLU Website states:

I Am a Constitution Voter

• I believe that no one — including the President — is above the law.
• I oppose all forms of torture, and I support both closing the Guantánamo Bay prison and ending indefinite detention.
• I oppose warrantless spying.
• I believe that government officials, no matter how high-ranking, should be held accountable for breaking the law and violating the Constitution.
• I believe that the Constitution protects every person’s rights equally — no matter what they believe, how they live, where or if they worship, and whom they love.
• I reject the notion that we have to tolerate violations of our most fundamental rights in the name of fighting terrorism.
• I am deeply committed to the Constitution and expect our country’s leaders to share and act on that commitment — every day, without fail.

Over at Free Libertarian Stickers dot com you can get yourself a sticker which reads: Libertarian: More Freedom, Less Government as well as a Bob Barr for president bumper sticker.

Here is what I did with my free(dom) stickers:

There is very little difference between the policies of McBama.  Slight nuances maybe.  Neither candidate has concrete plans for change, despite the rhetoric. If people would stop voting for the lesser of two evils, and vote their conscious, its very possible that we’d get some real change.  I agree, the fear that McCain would win might be enough for some to vote for Obama, but I for one like my country and don’t want to see it slip into socialism.  On the same token, I don’t want to see McCain turn the country into a police state, or continue this folly of continuous war (nor do I want to see Palin as president when McCain kicks the bucket).

Just because everyone says that we have a “two party system” does not mean it has to go down that way.  There are so-called “third parties” out there, that are probably more aligned with your beliefs and feelings about how things should be run.  It’s unfortunate that the media does not give alternative parties the press they deserve.  The media is too invested in the two major parties to shake things up, and most people are too emotionally invested in the Democratic and Republican parties to actually vote their gut.  It’s a sad state of affairs.

The closest thing we had to a true third party candidate with a chance was Ross Perot in 1992.  He was allowed into the debates and got almost 20% of the national vote.  This scared the shit out of the 2 major parties.  As a result, debates since 1992 have only had the Republican and Democratic candidates in the debate.  This was orchestrated by the 2 main parties to never again allow a threat to their party supremacy.

The fact that the way things are allowed to be this way speaks volumes of the willful ignorance of the American people.  There seems to be no long term memory for historical events, or the actions of people in previous administrations.  The same people have basically been in power in America since the late 1960′s.  Yet people continue to vote them and their surrogates into office, while at the same time wishing and hoping for “change”.  Change cannot be possible until people start voting their conscious.

At this point, I would like to suggest that if you hate taxes, love the constitution, want your personal freeoms, privacy and liberty preserved, and want to stop the war… send a message… vote for Bobb Barr of the Libertarian Party.  Again, he may not be the BEST choice, but he is a voice of reason in unreasonable times.  A vote for a third party is NOT a wasted vote, it sends a message and will help shape the political landscape in the future.

As you may have heard, I’ve decided to make my new film, “Slacker Uprising,” available for free to everyone in the United States and Canada. It is the first time ever that a major feature-length film is debuting as a free download on the internet — legally. I am doing this for two reasons:

1. Next year it will be 20 years since my first film, “Roger & Me,” so I’d like to give those of you who’ve supported my work over the years a thank you gift in the form of a brand new movie; and

2. I hope the release and wide distribution of this new movie will help to bring out millions of young and new voters on November 4th.

“Slacker Uprising” takes place in the wake of “Fahrenheit 9/11,” during the run-up to the 2004 election, as I traveled for 42 days across America, visiting 62 cities in a failed attempt to remove George W. Bush from office. My goal was to help turn out a record number of young voters and others who had never voted before. (That part was a success. Young adults voted in greater numbers than in any election since 18-year-olds were given the right to vote. And the youth vote was the only age group that John Kerry won.)

And now, enjoy Slacker Uprising by Micheal Moore:

Issues such as stolen elections and election reform, fixing the debate structure, ballot access, and even the New World Order were discussed.  Unfortunately due to low coverage, the side drama of Bob Barr and Dr. Paul’s rejection to support McCain, most of these key issues have fallen by the wayside when discussing the press conference.  Personally, I feel this is unfortunate.  The gesture being made and the message being transmitted yesterday is far too important to allow to be swept under the rug.  Bob Barr’s decision to walk out of the press conference without warning shows me that he apparently could not put his ego and personal ambitions aside for one day to take part of something larger than himself.  The Libertarian Party is framing this as “leadership.”

Some, including members of the Libertarian Party, have come down on Ron Paul for his decision to hold this press conference and blame him for “endorsing” other candidates who don’t share his complete views on all issues.  I don’t view it this way.  Ron Paul did not endorse any candidate in particular.  Instead, he attempted to take a step back, freeing up his followers to vote their own conscience with the advice that it should be anyone besides the two front runners.  He can do this because they all agree upon the most basic and pressing issues that need to be discussed and changed before we debate the nuances of far less pertinent issues.  Honestly, I’d say that’s mighty libertarian of him.

I generally consider myself a Libertarian in philosophy when it comes to national governmental structure, but no longer really associate myself with the party.  Numerous factors have amounted to this feeling, the latest with Bob Barr and people in his campaigns being the icing on the cake.  In Andrew Kevins‘ blog today on the Libertarian Party’s website, he states that the reason Bob Barr could not take part or stand on stage is due to the Libertarian Party having principle.  I would like to know where Bob Barr’s principle’s lied throughout his career as a member of the GOP.  I also would like to know where the LP’s principles were when they decided to cast Bob Barr as the figurehead for the entire party.  Not only that, but where are the LP’s principles when they seem to actively try to silence and belittle anyone that feels there are unanswered questions about 9/11?  I’ve had that direct experience with someone employed by the Wisconsin branch of the LP.  Thankfully many members don’t seem concerned about losing that group of voters.

There are more important things to worry about right now than party unity, number of votes, or even that magical 5% in the national election in order to get national funding.  A long term and unified front needs to be built now to fight over the next four years to get the message out.  What good is funding if the debate structure hasn’t changed?  What good is funding when how the votes are cast and counted hasn’t been fixed?  What good is funding when its still nearly impossible to get on every ballot?  Even if all of those obstacles are surmounted, I have one more question.  What good is winning the election if the new president is still unwilling to truly hold the establishment’s feet to the fire and harbor some real change in our foundations and dialog about our nation and those who rule it – elected or otherwise?

I hope the rest of you join me on November 4th in voting for a third party.  Beyond that, I hope you join me in doing all you can to spread the word and take action to help solve the foundational problems that our nation is facing.  There’s a fork ahead, which path are you going to take?

Watch CSPAN’s Coverage of the Press Conference (09/10/2008)

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

If you liked what Gov. Jesse Ventura had to say in his speech, check out his new book:

The Rally for the Republic was even carried on CSPAN-2 on Tuesday 9/2/2008 in it’s entirety, and was probably more press coverage than Dr. Paul got during his entire race for the nomination. Better late than never I guess, as the message is still very important, maybe even more-so now than ever.

Since dropping out of the 2008 race for the republican presidential nomination, his organization has transitioned into the Campaign For Liberty.   Ron Paul’s people say that there is a major announcement coming next week, so keep your eyes out for that.

Ron Paul made an appearance on the Colbert Report last night on 9/4/2008. Check it out:

If you haven’t done so yet, be sure to pick up a copy of Ron Paul’s latest book:

Help spread thew0rd and keep on fighting for your rights.

Something that pisses me off every time I hear about it, is when the police use a Taser on a “suspect” for little or no reason. Every day you hear of a new story about police officers using Tasers excessively. Television shows like “Cops” and “Jail” show officers using Tasers on people with little or no provocation. Officers always claim that they “fee threatened” or “fear for their lives”. I believe the use of Tasers should be outlawed and banned in the USA. When you watch these videos of police using a Taser, many times it is hard to believe that the office could have felt threatened.

Now, I do agree that officers should have options for non-lethal force when appropriate. But it seems that the policy has become “Taser first, as questions later”. As for a Taser being non-lethal, there are hundreds of incidents where people die from the Taser. It’s like playing Russian roulette. There will be continue to be hundreds of unnecessary deaths each year due to Tasers.

If you don’t know about the Police brutality, or don’t have an opinion about it, check out the following and put yourself in these people’s shoes for a moment…

Here’s a story from just a couple of weeks ago of a 16 year old boy who somehow fell over 30 feet from an overpass. The police came to respond, but they then decided it would be appropriate to Taser him 19 times… If the kid was acting crazy it was because of the shock from the fall, not drugs or alcohol (none was found in his blood).

This next video shows a Utah Highway Patrol officer pulling over a young man with his pregnant wife in the passenger seat. The man driving the van is asking why he’s been pulled over, and is complying with officer requests. When the victim turns to walk away from the officer, the UHP officer unleashes when the guy has his back turned. Another example of officers choosing to Taser instead of talking.

CNN Coverage of the above:

In what may be the most sickening use of force, an off duty officer uses a stun gun on a father holding his newborn baby. Again a total case of “shock first, ask questions later”:

I mean, what is a guy holding a baby going to do to threaten an officer?? Apparently the nurses forgot to take off a bracelet on the baby and an alarm went off, as if he was trying to kidnap the baby… But the mother was there as well, the officer just would not listen. Shameful.

Apparently speaking truth to power is also a taser offense. By now you may have heard of the “Dont Taze Me Bro” incident, well below is the video. This guy asked if John Kerry was a member of Skull and Bones, and got mobbed by police officers, taken down, and tased:

Again, more shameful shit. Keith Olbermann from MSNBC gives a great summary:

Finally, for anyone trying to say that Tasers are non-lethal, consider the fact that hundreds have died from the violent electrical shocks from Tasers. That does not sound like non-lethal at all, in fact it sounds quite lethal.

We need to stand up as a people and have Taser use by Law Enforcement banned.

(…and YES I took this photo myself in Milwaukee, Wisconsin at Badger Guns & Ammo, so if you use it, please give some credit)

I think most people would be amazed if they found out that banks create money out of “thin air”, most would even disbelieve the concept. Banks create money out of debt. When you go to take a loan from a bank, you are not borrowing on someone else’s savings, the bank is basically printing the money on demand. Our economy survives because people are in debt. If all debt were to be repaid, there would be virtually no money left. It boggles the mind.

The following video “Money As Debt” breaks down how our money system works in simple terms, that is easy for anyone to understand. I believe everyone should watch this video at least once to gain a basic understanding on how the monetary system works, and what it means for you and your family. This video simply lays out “how it is”. Enjoy.

On Sunday December 16th the champions of freedom and liberty (you, the people) will hold another mass donation day for Ron Paul. December 16th is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. From the Tea Party 07 website:

On December 16th, 1773, American colonists dumped tea into the Boston Harbor to protest an
oppressive tax. This December 16th, American citizens will dump millions of dollars into the
Ron Paul presidential campaign to protest the oppressive and unconstitutional inflation tax -
which has enabled a flawed foreign policy, a costly war and the sacrificing
of our liberties here at home.

Please join us this December 16th 2007 for the largest one-day political donation event in
history. Our goal is to bring together 100,000 people to donate $100 each,
creating a one day donation total of $10,000,000.

Please pledge via feedburner below to confirm your commitment to donate.
Each day you’ll receive an email with our total number of subscribers.
In this way we will know exactly where we stand in our efforts.
Our goal is 100,000 subscribers.

Please pledge now. Please spread the word. Thank you.

As I write this Ron Paul’s Q4 donation totals are up to about 11,350,000. The total Q4 goal was set at $12,000,000 and I am hoping it will pass that before the money bomb starts on the 16th (but doubtful). Please spread the word to friends and family about Ron Paul before the 16th. Instead of an xmas gift, ask for a donation to Dr. Paul’s campaign in your name. This holiday season be sure to print up some literature to distribute to your family.

For those who don’t know about Dr. Paul please do some Google searches and find out about what he stands for. The media has been censoring his campaign and it is no surprise if you don’t know about him.

Ron Paul needs your vote in your state’s primary.

When I see stories about our government sanctioning torture, spying on Americans, murdering innocent Iraqis, warmongering, hiring mercenaries to fight our wars, cronyism and turning America into a police state, I get really pissed off and nervous. What pisses me off most is that the average American doesn’t know or care about any of these issues, at least not enough to try to change things. They toss up their hands and say “What can I do?”.

I’ll tell you what you can do. Start talking about these issues with anybody who isn’t aware. Start voting for principled politicians (are there any?). Get involved with non-profits and local politics. Stop making excuses for being ignorant. The reason all of this is allowed to happen, is because the majority of people allow it to happen. Those in power COUNT on your apathy and ignorance to further their plans for control of the populace.

I was raised to believe that America was “the land of the free”. A place where different people can come together in a common belief of freedom and liberty. You don’t mess with someone and they cant mess with you. Live and let live. That is not the America that I see today. Through the politics of fear we have allowed the government to erode our civil liberties, invade our privacy and label whole groups of people as ‘the enemy’. All under the guise of “preserving the American way”. I would like to remind everyone of a famous quote by Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I think Keith Olbermann did a great job explaining the path America is headed down in the video below.

And if you still dont think that any of these issues affect you, think about this poem from Pastor Martin Niemöller about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

The time has come for anybody who claims to care about their fellow man, to take a stand. Start caring and start fighting for your liberty and that of your family. You think that all of this stuff doesn’t affect you, but it does.