If you read the above linked article, you will see that I am not quoted, nor was my position that I gave the reporter explained. Since the unlisted author of the YDR opinion piece supports term limits for members of Congress, I imagine that my statements did not matter in the end, because they do not fit with the official YDR opinion on term limits. What follows is my entire opinion on term limits and why I will not take a pledge to impose term limits on members of Congress.

A member in the U.S. House of Representatives serves a two year term upon being elected. Members elected to the U.S. Senate serve a six year term. The current format, being dominated by a supported two party system, has several inherent problems. Once elected to the House, a member may have one year to concentrate on legislation. The following year is most likely spent campaigning for office. This is one flaw and goes against doing the work of the people that elected them.

Not only does the two party stranglehold on Washington D.C. already remove many choices from the voters already, incumbency holds another stranglehold on voter choice. The incumbent already has name recognition when it comes time for another election. Combining this with an enforced two party system does not allow for many different candidates to compete for the office. Before Congressman Platts decided not to run for re-election, there was one other candidate besides myself opposing him. Since his announcement, there are now ten candidates seeking the opening office. Whether the Republican candidates agreed with Congressman Platts’ opinions and voting record or not will never be known. They allowed him to continue running in the Republican Party for this office, election after election, for six terms. Both of these factors reduce voter choice.

Another reason why the voters’ choices are further limited are due to the two party stranglehold on American politics. In the 2010 election, all statewide minor party candidates were removed from the ballot due to political pressure. From reading that article, you see how the two party system forces minor party candidates from the ballot: by threatening the candidate with huge fines/costs to fight the nomination papers challenges. No minor party candidate in this state can compete with the money raised and spent by the Republicans and Democrats. No minor party candidates can therefore fight to stay in a race when they are challenged. How did the law get that way? Ask the Democrats and Republicans. They continuously make it impossible for anyone else to compete in elections. These tactics drastically reduce the amount of candidates that run for office, thus restricting the choice of the voters.

With incumbency, a two party stranglehold on Washington, and the power to make laws to keep other candidates off the ballot, it certainly seems like the Republicans and Democrats have cemented their foothold doesn’t it? Absolutely not! They continue to further restrict a voter’s choice in the election booth with other ways to keep those that are not the party’s chosen few from the ballot. Some candidates who choose to fight the establishment of the parties, will join those parties as their only perceived hope at getting elected. The primary election choices, coming this year on April 24th, has already been tampered with by the two major parties to further reduce your choice as a voter. The two major parties hold endorsement hearings several months before the primary. Unless you are part of the establishment, have played the game, bowed down to the party elite, and waited your turn in line, you will not receive the party endorsement. Once endorsed, the party’s machine begins to work on the endorsed candidate’s behalf by raising money, contributing money, contributing volunteers and building name recognition. When a non-endorsed candidate attempts to compete against the party endorsed candidate, the vast majority of the time, the non-endorsed candidate loses. This further restricts your voting choices and allows the party to pick the candidate that it wants…not necessarily the one you want as a voter. Combine this with consistent low voter turnout for primary elections , your choice in November has already been reduced so many times that you might as well not even attempt to run for office at all as a common citizen (one that is not part of the political scene already), let alone run as a minor party candidate. Is this how it should be?

As I have detailed above, your choice as a registered voter is already limited by the time you even go to the polls to vote. If you like your representative in office, and that representative continuously does a good job in your opinion, why further restrict your choice by imposing a legislated term limit on him/her? You as the voter are already supposed to have the ultimate term limit determination with your vote. If you do not like the politician in office, your vote for their opposition will end that politician’s term. With all of the detailed information above that removes your power as a voter already, I will not support term limit legislation or any pledges to that effect, as it will further restrict your power as a voter.

Finally, let us take a look at some of these term limit pieces of legislation. Congressman Platts, who graciously decided to not run for re-election, supported term limits for members of Congress. Since he supported term limits, he term limited himself. It is commendable to see a politician that follows through on what they believe.

What needs questioning however is the term limit numbers in various pledges and pieces of legislation. There are various levels of pension benefits available for members of the U.S. Congress. Most of the information that I have found, states that members are eligible to receive a basic pension after five years of service at the age of 62. The longer they serve, the earlier they can collect a pension. Either way, for the ability to receive one at all, a member has to serve only one term in the Senate, and at least three terms in the House. Every variation of term limit legislation that I have seen fully exceeds those basic requirements. In the vast majority of cases, getting elected to the U.S. House of Representatives is just the first step in a long career in politics. Does this make term limit pledges by candidates hypocritical or just uninformed? You decide…

I imagine that my older readers will recognize these lyrics from Paint Your Wagon, a movie released in 1969. For those “youngsters” who would like to see Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin singing in their own voices, this is the movie for you. (Please don’t ask me who Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin are. I don’t want to talk to you.)

Except for King Midas, nobody has as much gold as they’d like. It has been the symbol of royalty and the measure of weath since before recorded history. It is the first of three gifts carried to Bethlehem by the wise men, and the object of desire in almost every pirate movie, and the central theme of at least one James Bond film. Gold! The value of which appears to skyrocket as the value of our worthless, fiat currency continues to plummet as it is hyperinflated with the full complicity of Congress.

Tyrants have confiscated gold so often it is a cliche. Cortez destroyed the Aztecs for it, the Germans pryed tiny pieces of it out of their victim’s mouths in the concentration camps, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt pretended to make it illegal to own gold in 1933 with the passage of House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192. This website points out:

As a result of HJR 192, and from that day forward (June 5, 1933), no one in this nation has been able to lawfully pay a debt or lawfully own anything. The only thing one can do, is tender in transfer of debts, with the debt being perpetual. The suspension of the gold standard, and prohibition against paying debts, removed the substance for our common law to operate on, and created a void as far as the law is concerned. This substance was replaced with a “PUBLIC NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEM” where debt is “LEGAL TENDER” money.

As the world economy continues to crumble, and European nations openly declare bankruptcy, one tyranical government is continuing the sterotype by prohibiting public exchange of this most precious of metals. I, for one, am not the least bit suprised that “China clamps down on gold trading frenzy”.

Gold exchanges have mushroomed across China, from the northern port city of Tianjin to Guangxi bordering Vietnam, as spot prices in the precious metal have soared to record highs and speculation has boomed.

“No local authority, institution or individual is allowed to set up gold exchanges,” said the notice dated December 20 and jointly issued by the People’s Bank of China, the Ministry of Public Security and other regulators..

“Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.” Given our economic trajectory the farsighted person will ask themselves when the United States will insist that owning gold and/or silver is again illegal. In an attempt to make a game of this bleak inevitablity, I am starting a “confiscation pool” asking you to predict the day that precious metals are outlawed in this country. I am willing to award the winner ten ounces of silver if they pick the exact day, five ounces if they are within 7 days, and one ounce of silver within a month of the actual event.

You are only allowed to enter once, and you are not allowed to change your guess once you’ve “placed a bet”. I will accept guesses until April 30th. Keep in mind that my giving you the silver and your acceptance of it will probably be considered a felony if you win. IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT that you select a date prior to the April 30th deadline, the person closest to the actual date will win the ten ounces of silver.

Please format your comments in this mannerYEAR/MO/DA – FIRSTNAME LASTINITIAL
A sentence or two giving the reason for your prediction. SWAGs are perfectly acceptable.

Lighting the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!

Last November I wrote that I had experienced a Colorad Rocky Mountain High when I toured the state with congressional candidate Tisha Casida. After my endorsement of her campaign (but certainly not because of it) Tisha appeared as a guest on Judge Napolitano’s television program. Tisha has been working very hard to campaign all across her district, which comprises nearly 40% of Colorado. She is actively fundraising to continue her sucess in spreading the passion for Liberty throughout Colorado. I would greatly appreciate it if you would read her request, and then give generously.

Thank you,

Michael

Dear Friends & Liberty-Lovers,

We have had an amazing start to 2012 – this is a great year for liberty. We have out-raised any “third-party” or “independent” candidate in the history of our district, and we are working on our next fundraising goal that will give us the war-chest we need to be able to reach even more voters in Colorado and concerned citizens across the country. I want to go to Washington, D.C. to be a voice for all Americans – specifically when it comes to protecting the individual liberties and natural rights that are the basis for who we are. A well-known voice for liberty will be leaving the Congress this year, and I want to be a re-enforcement for this message of truth and constitutional government.

Would you donate $25, $50, even $100 today to help us build our war-chest? We will have to make our media buys soon, and your donation goes directly towards marketing my platform and our goal for seeking State and local solutions to federal tyranny.

People like yourself have gotten us this far, and now we must push forward to continue our momentum and voice. We win when we work together, and I would be honored for your consideration and contribution.

In Liberty,

Tisha
Casida2012.com/

When American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan as retaliation for an accidental Quran burning, Rush Limbaugh asked last week:

“It’s gotten to the point: Why are we there? If this is the end result of us being there, let’s get these people out, bring them home and the hell with the place over there…”

Now, is Limbaugh suggesting America adopt an “isolationist” foreign policy? Is he saying we should “cut and run” in Afghanistan? No, Rush is reasonably asking why we’re still there. Two years ago Limbaugh said:

“The thing that bothers me about this is that we’re there, whether we should have done or what we’ve done here or for is now irrelevant. There’s only one thing to do: win. You know, ‘What about Afghanistan?’ Easy. We win, they lose.”

Today, Rush and few Americans obviously don’t see any “easy” victories in Afghanistan. Today, Limbaugh and most Americans obviously don’t think asking “Why are we there?” is irrelevant.

I first became a conservative listening to Rush Limbaugh as a teenager. In the two decades since, I’ve come to learn that foreign policy is the one issue where most conservatives tend to be the least conservative.

Conservative behavior on foreign policy is similar to liberal behavior on domestic policy. If liberals never concede that welfare spending has made the problem of poverty worse, conservatives never concede that our constant intervention overseas might be making the problem of terrorism worse. Liberals always say we will finally end poverty if we would just spend more money. Conservatives always say we will finally end terrorism if we would just fight more wars. The fact that none of this ever happens doesn’t seem to phase either camp.

Conservatives who now ask what reason we have for staying in Afghanistan are absolutely correct to ask the question, the problem is their timing. Many on the Left and Right have been asking why America is still in Afghanistan long before we reached the decade mark. Many have asked what “victory” America hoped to achieve. Many have long wondered whether there was real “victory” we ever could achieve.

Asking questions of one’s government used to be a primary function of conservatives, but on foreign policy, conservatives have more often decided to demonize anyone who dares question our government.

Conservatives are finally questioning Afghanistan because it has become painfully obvious that we’re stuck in a quagmire. But wasn’t this always the case? If we had entertained more questions about the wisdom of nation-building, the limits of democracy in the Middle East, the impossible task we were asking of our soldiers—could we have avoided our current dilemma? Cost benefit analyses are inherently conservative. Spending lives and dollars for no good reason is not.

Rush Limbaugh is absolutely right: “Why are we there? If this is the end result of us being there, let’s get these people out, bring them home and the hell with the place over there…”

Saying “to hell with that place” is not “isolationism.” It’s rational. Saying “bring them home” is not “cutting and running,” it’s salvaging and saving.

If we’re going to put our best and bravest in harm’s way, Americans should always make sure it’s for a damn good reason. There’s nothing patriotic about carelessly sending our troops around the globe for just any old reason—and there’s certainly nothing conservative about it.

We have proudly affixed our names to this petition and encourage you to do so as well regardless of who you are supporting for the primary nomination. Rob Gleason and his fellow party leaders endorsed Tom Corbett during the gubernatorial primary over Sam Rohrer in 2010. Undoubtedly, Rohrer wants to ensure, by fighting back, that the party won’t destroy his campaign here in 2012. All of the other GOP senate candidates agree that the party should not pick the nominee, so it should be a no brainer for all PA Republicans – sign on to this petition and tell the party that we will choose the best candidate to take on Bob Casey.

And just for the record, the party bosses do not have a great record of “crowning” conservative Republicans. This is the same group of party bosses that endorsed Arlen Specter (who would later become a Democrat). They also supported Tom Corbett over Constitutionalist Sam Rohrer in 2010, going so far as to mail a postcard attacking Rohrer to registered Republicans a week before the primary election.

Stand up for your conservative principles and the belief that the people should make the decision, not corrupt liberal Republican party bosses – go to http://www.dearmrgleason.com, read the letter and add your name to it!

With Education being so important, it’s crucial to know where all the candidates stand on the issue. Now I don’t claim to know everything about all four of the candidates left in the race or every aspect of their education policy but this is what I do know:

Rick Santorum supported and voted for No Child Left Behind. Now he says he opposes it but I’m not convinced I believe him. He has flip-flopped on many issues, as a citizen of PA, I have witnessed this firsthand.

Mitt Romney was never in a position to vote for No Child Left Behind, but adamantly supported it verbally.

Newt Gingrich was also a strong vocal supporter of No Child Left Behind. I haven’t heard Romney or Gingrich change their minds on this either, but that’s not to say they haven’t (after all, now it is popular to be against it, so I would presume they are now opposed).

The only candidate running for President who doesn’t, and never has, supported it is Texas Congressmen Ron Paul. Paul’s stance on education is quite simple: Get the federal government out of it! First of all, there is no Constitutional authority for the feds to be involved, and even more so he believes it would be most beneficial to teachers and students. This would be better for all Americans for as Mark Twain once said, “Out of the public school grows the greatness of a nation.” Regardless of whether you believe in home, private or public schooling our nation as a whole relies on the advancement of a good education and knowledge.

Now for a brief overview of education in America. During the 1950′s, students in the U.S. (state-run schools) were #1 in math and science. Russia was a distant #2. People all across the world were sending their kids to the U.S. to get a good education. In 1953 we established the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Then in the 70’s Jimmy Carter decided to make the Department of Education its own entity and we have now had the Department of Education for almost 60 years and today out of 29 participating countries, we rank 24th in international student assessments.

Many people blame this on teachers and student behavior and lack of funds, but it is Ron Paul’s belief (which I happen to share) that the teachers are not the problem they are the solution. The only real factor between the days when America was number one and now is the creation and involvement of the federal government’s one size fits all education system. Ron Paul seeks to eliminate the Department of Education and return the role of education back to the states where it belongs. This will also in turn allow local school boards, districts, and most importantly parents and teachers, to have more say in what happens in their classroom, similarly to how it was done before the federal government got involved.

If it’s more federal money* you are looking for, Ron Paul isn’t your candidate. If you’re looking for better statewide funding and more liberty as a parent or teacher, Ron Paul is your man! Most people think that we need the Department of Education, in fact, all four of the other remaining candidates including Obama want to keep the department. So if you like Obama, you’ll love Newt, Mitt and Rick! Ron Paul is the only exception, and it’s not that he wants there to be less money in the education system, but better spent money. In the words of the good congressmen, the department of Education “is a huge bureaucracy that squanders our money. We send billions of dollars to Washington and get back less than we sent. The money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington.”

I firmly believe Ron Paul is the best there is when it comes to education because I know teachers and their amazing potential which is often held back by an over reaching federal government. I believe in teachers and I’m 100% confident that they can cater to their students needs much better than lawmakers in Washington who have never taught a class can.

*That inevitably comes with strings attached such as No Child Left Behind and other programs, oversights, and restrictions

As the Founders understood well, it is hard-to-impossible to preserve limited government at home while maintaining big government abroad. History and experience tell us that one always begets the other. This certainly rings true as we spend trillions of dollars on domestic programs that we match with trillions more overseas….

Like every other conservative, Paul believes that America must have a strong national defense — he simply believes we can no longer afford our current irrational offense.

Unfortunately, unlimited Pentagon spending remains the big government too many Republicans still love. During the Reagan era, when we were fighting a global superpower that possessed thousands of nuclear weapons, this made sense. It does not make sense anymore. Today, we are fighting individuals, or collections of individuals, with infinitely less military capabilities and no particular attachments to nation-states. Ask yourself this: What, exactly, does having thousands of troops stationed in Afghanistan do to prevent some sick individual from trying to blow up his underwear on an airplane? Just as important, ask this: Does having thousands of troops in places like Afghanistan make it less likely — or more likely — that some sick individual will try to blow up his underwear on an airplane? Our own military and CIA intelligence tells us that our overseas wars actually encourage terrorist attacks. A majority of the members of the U.S. military agree, or as a Pew Research Poll of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans published in October revealed: “About half (51 percent) of post-9/11 veterans say that the use of military force to fight terrorism creates hatred that breeds more terrorism.”

These are basic questions that Americans desperately need to ask. Ron Paul is asking them. The other candidates don’t even consider them questions.

Which brings us to conservatism’s fate. Want to know why Paul is the only GOP presidential candidate who has proposed substantive spending cuts — $1 trillion in the first year? It’s because only Paul addresses Pentagon spending, the largest portion of our budget after entitlements. What the Republican candidates who eschew Paul’s foreign policy are essentially saying is this: We support limited government in theory but in practice it’s simply too dangerous. Paul continues to make the same argument that former Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff Mike Mullen has made: that our debt is the greatest threat to our national security. Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and the other GOP candidates do not see our debt as a similar threat — if they did, they would be calling for bigger spending cuts.

As for national security concerns, Paul’s $1 trillion in cuts still allows for a defense budget four times greater than China’s and larger than even President George W. Bush’s 2005 defense budget. This is how drastically Pentagon spending — along with all government spending — has grown under President Obama. Cries from the GOP field that Obama is “weakening” our defense with “cuts” mirrors liberal shrieking about conservatives hurting the poor or seniors by reforming welfare or entitlements (just ask Paul Ryan).

Big-government advocates always claim that any changes or reductions in the status quo would be catastrophic. Conservatives always argue that not only can we no longer afford such spending, but that reducing big government will be better for all parties involved in the long run. Republicans can remain doubtful about whether Paul’s foreign policies will actually make us safer (they will, if our own intelligence and military members are to be believed). But they cannot doubt that Paul’s foreign policy addresses a cost we can no longer afford (our current foreign policy and related spending costs about $1.2 trillion annually, roughly our entire deficit).

Enabling governments to “control the governed” has always been easy as tyranny has long been mankind’s default position: Virtually every regime in history has sought to increase its power. Obliging government to “control itself” has always been the hard part, and nations that value freedom have always tried to place limits on their rulers in recognition of the fact that governors are not always angels.

Most Americans, from the Founding Fathers to the current generation, would likely agree that decisions to wage war are probably the most important decisions our federal government makes. Madison noted that it was a fairly universal truth that the more powerful a government’s leaders, the more interest there will be in going to war. “The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it,” Madison wrote. “[The Constitution] has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

Last week, Senator Jim DeMint studied the question of the nine-year-long Iraq War, and decided to end it. I don’t mean “end” the Iraq War in merely the sense that President Obama now advertises — bringing the troops home, ending hostilities, etc. Hell, President Obama starts and ends wars all the time (see: Libya) without even the pretension of seeking legal authority. Sen. DeMint’s support was for something much different and more significant: He voted to end the Iraq War by demanding that the president no longer be able to legally wage it.

The United States hasn’t officially declared war since World War II. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan — none of these were “wars” officially, though the men and women who fought in them might beg to differ. President Bush took us to war with Iraq in 2003 in the same extra-constitutional manner: He went to Congress to get “authorization,” but still both Congress and the president apparently thought that the Iraq War wasn’t important enough to merit an official declaration of war, as the Constitution demands.

When Senator Rand Paul offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act last month that would revoke the authorization given to Bush in 2003 regarding Iraq, only three Republican senators joined him: DeMint, Dean Heller of Nevada and moderate Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine. There were plenty of Democrats who voted for Paul’s amendment. Of course, there were plenty of Democrats who were against the Iraq War from the beginning, though they were probably not motivated by limited-government considerations.

Sen. DeMint supported the Iraq War. Most Republicans did. Conservatives can now debate whether that support, in retrospect, was justified. But Sen. Paul’s amendment was a debate over whether the Iraq War is still justified today. Paul’s amendment was also a debate over whether giving the president of the United States carte blanche in Iraq is still justified. Only four Republicans said “no.”

It is DeMint’s vote that is the most instructive. Sen. Paul is a tea party champion who has always been upfront about his opposition to the Iraq War. While her vote was commendable, Sen. Snowe is not exactly a guiding light for most Republicans. Sen. Heller probably has the lowest profile of the four. But Sen. DeMint is a conservative’s conservative. The right has long followed DeMint’s lead on most issues. Conservatives need to follow it on Iraq and executive power too.

When asked whether or not he was sexually attracted to young boys he said, “Sexually attracted, no. I enjoy young people, I love to be around them, but no, I’m not sexually attracted to young boys.” He also said, “I shouldn’t have showered with those kids.”

Now there are some beginning to question whether or not Sandusky is guilty or not, or if Mike McQueary made the story up, and parents are pressing charges because they smell money. Well I don’t know about the second half, but what I do know for certain is that Jerry Sandusky is innocent. Now before you go AWOL on me let me explain…Jerry Sandusky is innocent…until proven guilty!

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”
-Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
-Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

According to the Constitution, every American is innocent until they are proven guilty in a court of law. The 5th and 6th Amendments found in the bill of rights are crucial to the security of the people. These amendments concerning the Judicial branch of government should never be forgotten under any circumstances. Our founding fathers believed that justice was the guardian of liberty, it protects you against the tyranny of the majority. If we took up a vote today as to whether or not Sandusky should be given a life sentence or a slap on the wrist, I am sure, based on a democratic vote, he would be serving a life sentence. But in our republic, it doesn’t matter what the majority believes, Sandusky can not be deprived of his life, liberty, or property until it has been proven that he did violate the rights of these children. When the 5th Amendment says “be deprived of life” it doesn’t necessarily mean capital punishment, it also means held against his will for any extended period of time because he has a right to choose how he is going to live. Holding him captive against his will would be a violation of his right to liberty.

Now Sandusky very well may have done these heinous actions, and if he did, I will be the first to have him thrown away. That’s not depriving him of anything, there is an understanding in America that with every right you have you also have a responsibility, and if Sandusky is convicted guilty before a jury of his peers, he will be held responsible for his actions.

But conservatives have also stressed that any government designed to be powerful enough to restrain men will also be run by men, whose collective propensity for evil is to be feared even more. Conservatives have never argued that man should not be governed — only that there is far more to fear from humanity organized in the collective called “the state” than from the inherent and inevitable shortfalls of individual men. Classical liberal Lord Acton perhaps summed up conservatives’ creed best when he wrote that “Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Our Founding Fathers were unabashedly conservative in their attitudes toward the state. President George Washington said: “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant — and a fearful master.” James Madison noted: “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” Thomas Jefferson was even blunter about the danger of centralizing state power: “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.”

From the Founding to the 20th century, critiques of the modern state — or what we today call “big government” — were at the heart of traditional American conservatism. Ronald Reagan’s hero, President Calvin Coolidge, was a champion of laissez faire and a harsh critic of statism. “Mr. Republican” Senator Robert Taft led conservatives in their battles against President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. President Reagan would later sum up conservatives’ view unequivocally: “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

This brief history of the American conservative tradition is necessary to demonstrate how it has now become history. The election of Reagan in 1980 was revolutionary in that it popularized the term “conservative” like never before — and it was tragic in that the word’s widespread use stripped it of any substantive philosophical meaning. Today, virtually every Republican — relatively liberal leaders like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are prime examples — calls himself a “conservative.” But do they mean it in the same way the Founders or Reagan did? Do they mean it in any substantive way at all?

We know the GOP presidential candidates don’t like Obama, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, and each candidate can rattle off one-liners about Democrats. But who among them has a major beef with the modern state, to the degree that it guides their political philosophy?

Last month, The Los Angeles Times put the current Republican presidential field into proper context:

The basic question posed by the likes of Republicans Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry is:

“Would this person do a better job as president than Barack Obama has?”

The basic question posed by Rep. Ron Paul’s candidacy is: “Why do we have a federal government?”

[…]

Paul isn’t saying the federal government is wasting every dollar it spends; he’s saying the federal government doesn’t need to do much of what it does. Which gets us back to the existential challenge that Paul poses to Washington. Why is the federal government performing so many functions?

This “existential challenge” is American Conservatism 101. Much of what passes for conservatism these days is mere Republican tinkering with the current system, not a rejection of it. Too many of today’s self-described conservatives don’t necessarily want to get rid of big government. They simply want to “fix” it, or as current Republican presidential front-runner Herman Cain noted of a certain fellow contender: “[With Ron Paul] everything is ‘end this, end that, end this, end that!’ You have to fix stuff, not end everything.”

Not “end this” or “end that”? Now this is something new for conservatives. Should we not get rid of the Department of Education that Reagan (like Paul) always wanted to abolish, and instead just “fix” it? No Child Left Behind, Cain-style? Conservatives’ argument has long been that the federal government has no constitutional role in education. Senator Barry Goldwater, the conservative movement’s long-time standard-bearer, went even further in outlining proper constitutional parameters:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.

Who speaks like this anymore? Some of the GOP candidates say that they’ll take Obama’s mess and make it more Republican, which might be enough to win the next election, but it’s not conservative. Not even close.

This is particularly interesting, or depressing, at a time when the grassroots right is more open to pure conservative philosophy — in all its unadulterated anti-government, anti-state bravado — than it has been at any other time in recent political memory.

The big government that the Founders warned us about, and that Coolidge, Taft, Goldwater and Reagan tried to fight, is now here. It’s hard to fathom the concept of “big government” being any bigger than our current federal government. And we’re simply going to “fix” it? Good luck with that — and goodbye to conservatism

“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?” – Jesus

I always loved how negatively Jesus talked about tax collectors. But that’s neither here nor there. Typically, I am not much for going off about religion and politics at the same time because I believe in the separation of Church and state – I don’t think Christianity should be legislated and I believe the government should stay out of the affairs of the Church as well.

I do understand, however, that there are some people who love to intermingle the two, most of the time they call themselves, or are known as, the “religious right”. The only way to sway these people over to the true movement of liberty is to speak to them in their own language. Therefore, this blog goes out to all those who are of the tribe who likes to legislate their morality upon the American people.

This morning as my wife and I were doing our daily devotions, I was reading through 1 Timothy and there was one sentence that jumped off the page. This was because this sentence was the only one on either page of the spread that appeared in red letters; red letters meaning that Jesus said those words. I am going to pick up in Chapter 5, Verse 18, “The laborer deserves his wages.” Another version puts it this way, “The worker has a right to his reward.”

Note that Jesus didn’t say he has a right to some of his reward, or that he deserves some of his wages – Jesus said the worker deserves his wages and has a right to his reward. This means that the money you worked for is yours and no one can take it from you. Tell that to all the crooks in Washington who believe that the government is entitled to a portion of your income. Please note that when I say crooks in Washington I am referring to any and all politicians who do not support the abolition of the income tax, the most unconstitutional immoral act of government that enslaves every American for a portion of their day. This begs the question, “How can you be part slave?” That would be like being a “little bit pregnant!” As a parent you wouldn’t accept that answer from your teenage daughter, she either is pregnant or she is not, and it’s time we stop accepting a little bit free as an answer from our government. Freedom versus slavery is a zero sum game and it’s time we start treating it as such!

Below are some other great Conservative Declaration resources on this topic. There is a link to our interview with Christian Comedian Brad Stine where we ask him about what Jesus meant when he said, “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesars’?” and also a speech I gave last spring on the topic of the income tax.

Episode #77 – Interview: Comedian Brad Stine Political Correctness

April Fools (Tax Day Tea Party Speech)

This may sound harsh, but current U.S. foreign policy is a disaster. Most Americans will admit as much if they examine our most significant foreign interventions individually.

Our least disastrous recent foreign intervention occurred in Libya, where aiding rebel forces did help depose dictator Moammar Gadhafi. Yet, we now learn a radical Islamic regime is taking his place. Mission accomplished?

There is Iraq, where President Obama is crowing about bringing the troops home while downplaying the fact that this was an exit process President Bush started and the even more glaring fact that the Iraqis are essentially kicking us out. The Iraq war cost $4 trillion, took more than 4,000 American lives and lasted nearly nine years. And we’re leaving behind a resentful and divided Iraqi people, an America-weary Iraqi government and an empowered Iran.

Then there is the Afghanistan war, the longest war in U.S. history. Trillions of dollars have been spent, almost 2,000 American soldiers have been killed and nearly 15,000 American soldiers have been wounded in Afghanistan over the past decade. And yet our goal there remains unclear. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was practically installed by the U.S., said last week that if America went to war with Pakistan, his country would side with Pakistan.

Strangely enough, the only one of these wars that receives relatively high marks from the American public is Libya, where a majority of conservatives don’t think President Obama should have intervened in the first place. Conservatives believe that despite Gadhafi’s demise, intervening in Libya was still not worth the risk or cost, insisting that the decision to intervene abroad should require a high threshold which this instance did not meet. These conservatives are correct. Still, the Libyan intervention remains popular with a plurality of Americans precisely because Gadhafi was killed at minimal cost.

On Iraq and Afghanistan, most conservatives find themselves on the complete opposite side of the same cost/benefit argument they make concerning Libya, and also against the overwhelming sentiment of the American people. In most polls, upwards of 60% and even 70% of Americans call the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mistakes, say they were not worth the cost and believe it is time to bring our troops home. Many American soldiers feel the same way. As CBS News reported this month: “One in three U.S. veterans of the post-Sept. 11 military believes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting, and a majority think that after 10 years of combat America should be focusing less on foreign affairs and more on its own problems.” Perhaps even more interesting, a Pew Research Poll of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans published this month revealed: “About half (51 percent) of post-9/11 veterans say that the use of military force to fight terrorism creates hatred that breeds more terrorism.”

Many conservatives say, “I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.” Perhaps thinking they’re going for the jugular, Paul’s critics like to first cite his contention that our foreign interventions breed more Islamic terrorism than they quell, often saying the congressman somehow “blames America” for our troubles. Yet, according to the Pew poll, a majority of our soldiers — who you might think know a thing or two about what causes Islamic terrorism — actually agree with Paul on this point. More significantly, Paul’s overall foreign policy of avoiding going to war where there is no clear national interest is where the congressman is most in line with public sentiment. The only exception is Libya, where ironically most Republicans side with Paul and against public opinion.

Perhaps Sarah Palin said it best last week on Sean Hannity’s Fox program: “You’ve got to give it to Ron Paul … [who] I think hit the nail on the head, when he came out and said Obama had better be careful when he interjects himself and our country in other nations’ business.”

Palin was, of course, talking about Libya. Hannity agreed with her.

So what does saying, “I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy” really mean?

Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real

By SETH BORENSTEIN – AP Science Writer | AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world’s surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of “Climategate,” a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

I find the timing of this article very funny in that my wife and I jut held a Halloween Party over the weekend that was nearly canceled due to a very rare October 29th snow fall. We still hosted our party but the only guests were people who lived close by; about half of our guests had to back out at the last minute due to icy conditions, power outages and road closures from scads of tree branches that fell because the leaves that hadn’t finished falling helped catch snow weighing the branches down more than they could handle causing accidents and all sorts of problems.

Then just this morning I went out to start up my car to defrost it and the door was completely frozen shut. By the time I got the door thawed by pouring steaming hot water on it, I noticed the door lock was also frozen preventing me from opening the door. When I called time and temp, I was surprised to find unseasonably cold weather at 24°F.

Global warming scientists have realized their theory does not play out in reality and every year that we have cold spells they resort to blaming record cold temperatures on global warming…as if that makes sense!

What this AP article about the recent global warming converts does not explain is the fact that many scientists who have consistently questioned global warming are losing their jobs or have the threat to lose their job because there is no money to be made in the denial of this theory. Global warming scientists can make more money from the government and green freaks willing to donate their hard earned cash buying carbon credits and other eco-friendly wastes of money.

This is why the media only writes articles about deniers who convert to the theory of global warming rather than the other way around. It’s because there is only money to be made in the acceptance of this myth. I am no scientist and I won’t pretend to be one, but there is a great documentary out called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. I highly encourage anyone who likes to think for themselves to watch it. It is a film made by many of the worlds top scientists who disprove all of the so called science that proves its existence.

Other Conservative Declaration original related links:
The Lie that is Global Warming

Episode #110 – Do You Believe in Global Warming?

Osama-bama Green Crusaders

Al Gores’ Tell Tale Heart Part II

The Inconvenient Truth

Al Gores’ Tell Tale Heart

Saving the Environment Not the Needy

Episode #18 – The Debate is Over…Global Warming is a LIE!

This is a new class and somewhat unorthodox but as one teacher put it “ We as educators can do the most good for our students by helping them to be self sufficient without judgment or shame that is outmoded and frankly, abusive.”

Some have called it controversial because it teaches kids that stealing is wrong but for those that choose to steal they want them to be informed on how to do it without being arrested.
To be fair the curriculum does state that “getting a job” is the best way to avoid homelessness and jail time, but for those who are practicing robbery and theft there are some perimeters.

1) Choose areas that have little to no security, which would include charities, homeless shelters and Salvation Army donation centers.

2) Discuss your plan with your “partner” in order to be on the same page and assist each other equally in the responsibility for the heist.

3) Kids are being told to either abstain from theft or at least plan your crime well as both are equally valid.

Now for those of you reading this that are shocked you need to know something…I made this up.

BUT there is a curriculum that NY city schools are implementing on sex-ed. It mentions abstinence but says “safe” sex is equally valid. It has curriculum tasks like pricing condoms and role-playing negotiating condom use with a partner.

It also will teach anal sex, mutual masturbation, oral sex and a referral to Columbia University site called “Go ask Alice” that informs them on sadomasochistic sex play, oral sex with braces, doggie style, fetishes etc.

My first segment on stealing showed an idiotic concept that a normal person would find ridiculous. Any initiative that taught stealing to kids is absurd which helps demonstrate what this sex-ed course looks like to open-minded conservative thought that places perimeters on desires because humans aren’t animals.
Ironically the sex-ed curriculum that liberal thought has created at one time would have been a jail sentence for someone teaching this garbage to minors but now passes for education.
No punch line here folks, just showing what the liberal mind has constructed as “good for society”. I rest my case.

Yesterday there was a French airborne attack that killed a ton of Qadhafi’s loyalists who were traveling with him. Qadhafi himself survived the attack suffering few injuries and crawled into a a storm drain with some of his bodyguards where he was found by rebels who took him captive and later killed him.

Today the Pentagon totaled the amount of money that US taxpayers spent on the military campaign to overthrow Qadhafi at $1.1 billion through September. Joe Biden stated that the US, “spent $2 billion total and didn’t lose a single life.” Both sides of the aisle are throwing in their two cents, most Democrats are praising the president on this huge accomplishment. The Republican field is split, half of them are joining in with John McCain and say “it is a great day, I think the administration deserves great credit.” The other half are uniting around those like Rep. Michele Bachmann saying, “it was wrong for the president to go into Libya.” The two groups can be identified as the pro war any war crowd who support the US invading any country with a dictator and the other crowd that just supports the wars that Republicans start.

There are two major problems with these ideologies besides the fact that they’re both unconstitutional. The first being that we should never support wars based on political purposes. I know many soldiers who are returning from war who are forever mentally scarred. Many soldiers are committing suicide and it is tearing families apart. This is why our founders envisioned a foreign policy that only allowed war in times when we were actually attacked. The cost of war is too great for us to support it for political clout.

The second problem concerns those who support overthrowing any dictatorship across the world. We can not afford it and it is completely unsustainable! The majority of the countries across the world are run by dictators and we can not overthrow them all. So the question is what dictator do we overthrow and when? Probably the worst dictatorship today is found in communist China, where Christians are murdered daily by the government. China’s military alone is larger that our entire country, we lay a finger on them and we are all dead and owned by China. Even if we don’t get involved with China, all it will take is our reckless spending to continue and China to decide they aren’t going to continue supporting what we are doing and they will stop buying our debt. When that happens we will be owned by China anyway. The stakes are simply put too high, it’s nice to try and help out other people but if we no longer exist we will not be an asset to anyone. America’s future rests in the hands of the voting public. If we elect any candidate, Republican or Democrat, who is not going to bring our troops home we can kiss America as we know it goodbye. And one day in the words of Ronald Reagan, “we will spend our sunset years, telling our kids and grandkids what it was like in America when men were free.”

For all the left’s talk about how tea partiers are racists, extremists, terrorists, vulgar and all the rest, liberals have either been giving a wink and a nod to the Occupy protesters or openly praising them. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the protesters “spontaneous,” said that they “had her heart” and told ABC News: “I support the message to the establishment, whether it’s Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest, that change has to happen.”

A message to the establishment that change has to happen? What, exactly, does Ms. Pelosi think the tea party has been screaming about for two years?

My fellow conservatives have been having a field day portraying the Occupy protesters as a bunch of unkempt, lawless hippies. This may be accurate in some cases, but the left’s portrayal of tea partiers as crazy right-wingers who shout at town halls, hold wacky signs and exhibit other crude behavior is also accurate in some cases.

That populist movements are often messy has never been in dispute. That those in power will often use this characteristic messiness to discredit movements they don’t like is also not in dispute.

But there is a question, and it’s an important one: Is either the tea party or the Occupy movement ideologically valid? Does either movement have a message worth hearing? Does either have a point?

The degree to which the tea party and Occupy movements have been good or bad is also the degree to which they have espoused coherent messages. The relatively simple idea of cutting government spending and reducing the debt was what created the tea party — and so long as that has remained its message, the movement has enjoyed widespread support. Some polls from a year ago showed a majority of Americans agreeing with the tea party and even relating to the movement more than to either major party. No matter how much leaders like Pelosi and her liberal friends tried to dismiss the tea party as a bunch of crazy right-wingers lacking all sense and sanity, most Americans still feared a $15 trillion national debt and endless government spending. They still do.

But later, when some in the tea party began to veer off into birtherism, religiosity, paranoia about Sharia law and other diversions, the movement’s popular small-government message became obscured. Liberal enemies of the tea party like to talk about these nasty aspects of the conservative grassroots because they know it makes the movement look bad. And it does.

If the tea party stays focused on the goal of limiting government, it can succeed. If it veers off into other areas, it will become yet another ideological comfort zone for right-wingers. To remain effective, the movement cannot just become the grassroots outpost for the same mindless partisanship that defines Washington, D.C. The earlier tea party was bipartisan in its scorn, and for the movement to remain dominant, it must stick to its roots.

The Occupy movement, on the other hand, does not have a path to choose, because it has never had a coherent message.

The Occupy protesters are mad at Wall Street. So am I. That’s why I opposed the bank bailouts, which were nothing more than our federal government allowing corporations to privatize their profits but socialize their losses, which everyone from liberal Congressman Dennis Kucinich to conservative Senator Jim DeMint pointed out. Americans from across the political spectrum agreed that the bank bailouts were immoral.

But what do the Occupy protesters suggest we do about such governmental thievery? They want even more government. Here are some of the demands listed at the website OccupyWallSt.org: “Raise the Minimum Wage to $20; Free College Education; Guaranteed living-wage income, regardless of employment; Immediate across-the-board debt forgiveness for all; Outlaw all credit-reporting agencies; One trillion dollars in infrastructure spending.”

Granted, one post on one website does not necessarily speak for the entire Occupy movement. But there’s a reason this post is cited so often: It’s one of the only examples of a coherent message that members of the Occupy movement have produced. And that message is socialism.

The protesters seem to think that our current government isn’t socialist enough. Not only is this beyond absurd, it’s antithetical to the current anti-government mood held by much of the public. Still, many of the Occupy protesters reject the idea that they’re socialists. What are they, then? I’m not sure. Neither are they.

The tea party is ideologically valid to the extent that it remains focused on attacking big government. We cannot be sure if the Occupy movement is valid because we cannot be sure of its ideology. And to the extent that the Occupy protesters’ ideology really is just a desire for bigger government, Americans can be doubly sure of the movement’s almost comical invalidity

Recently I have been getting into conversations with people about the meaning of true conservatism and the way a perfect society would function under our constitutional republic(ie: the way our founding fathers envisioned). The discussions all revolve around how the private sector could operate any and all programs that the government currently runs better than the government currently does, while still protecting individual liberties. We also discussed the one and only legitimate function of government: to protect rights and that everything the government does has to cooperate with that one function.

The topics have covered nearly every topic under the sun from legalizing drinking and driving, prostitution, drug legalization, environmental protectionism, welfare, taxes, the governments ability to take a child away from abusive parents. If you can think of an issue, I almost guarantee we discussed it. The friend I was having these discussions with is a born again Christian and had a lot of good “devil’s advocate’ style comebacks to the ideology I subscribe to. I have found these to be legitimate concerns that most evangelical Christians take issue with. Most people hear me talking about why drugs should be legalized assume that I must myself be on drugs and that is why I want them legalized.

This is not the case, I have never abused or even tried any illegal drugs for that matter, the “worst” thing I have ever done smoked is tobacco, and the most dangerous drug I have ever used was a prescription drug prescribed by my doctor. Many Christians look at the issue of drug legalization and take the stance that they are dangerous and therefore should be illegal. The problem however is that there is really only one way you can enforce a law such as a ban on drugs and that is by the use of force. After all, you can’t even spell the word enforce without force and force is the method the US government uses to prevent people from using drugs. This is the part of the equation that most Christians disregard in the discussion. Whether or not Jesus would be cool with people using drugs is not the question, even if Jesus would condone drug use the question is would Jesus support taking drugs from a person at the barrel of a gun?

This question opens the door to a much more broad question that, if answered honestly, will change your world. What current law or laws in the US do you believe Jesus would support by the implementation of force and coercion? If you can’t think of any than what laws do you think he would like to see carried out by way of force and coercion? The only way to answer this question with an educated answer would be to know the will of Jesus and or know how he conducted himself when he was here on earth. Until I find a person who can show me a specific occasion where Jesus did use force to solve a problem or where he verbally advocated the use of violence to support a moral cause – you simply will not find such behavior. I have heard many excuses such as Jesus’ table flipping behavior in the temple and taking a whip to the money changers. But if you look further into the story you find that the anger that sparked Jesus’ anger was the money changers ripping off the Jewish people who were coming to make their sacrifice. This was a matter of protecting the rights of the people, not protecting the violation of the peoples’ rights by way of governmental abuse. There are also those who say that Jesus saying, “Pay unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s…” proves that Jesus was advocating paying taxes. But that’s only half of what Jesus said, the last part is the most important part, “But give unto God that which is God’s.” Christian conservative comedian Brad Stine addressed this claim in an interview he did on our talk show where he said that Jesus had to have said that out of sarcasm, since in the eyes of a believer and in the eyes of Jesus, everything belongs to God. That being said, how can you give anything to Caesar if everything belongs to God?

But back to the topic of drug legalization … most people who I discuss this with who can accept the fact that in theory the government shouldn’t use force to implement such laws often conclude that we can not legalize them now because they have been illegal for so long that legalizing them would cause chaos and you would have people using and driving and using and walking down the streets causing problems. First of all, I would like to point out that people already do all of these things and the law does not stop them. I wonder if these people who hold these beliefs, if alive in the 1800′s would have opposed the freeing of the slaves under the premise that freeing them could cause a lot of distress and problems. You may laugh and say this is a crazy comparison, but it’s really not. The US government was afraid to free the slaves for this very reason. In fact, the history of gun permits came from this very issue – they were afraid that if we had someone in chains on Tuesday and freed them on Wednesday that they would get guns and try to shoot their former masters and anyone else who supported slavery. So they required citizens to apply for and obtain permits so they could prevent former slaves from starting another war.

Freeing the slaves potentially could have started some very chaotic times, but it was the right thing to do. Obviously, I was not around when the slaves were freed, but I think history books would agree with me when I say that there was a serious struggle in the societal adjustment. Similarly with drugs, legalizing them would likely cause some what of a problem, but just like the abolition of slavery, ending the drug war is also the right thing to do. Regardless of the issue at hand, as long as I am alive, if force is being used to hinder liberty I will always be here to oppose it. Whether or not it is freedom of negotiating wages and pay in exchange for labor or if it is the freedom to use a product or service on your own volition, the government shall not interfere with the God given right to free will. It reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw some time ago, it read, “God Gives Us Free Will and Governments Takes it Away”

Former senator Rick Santorum said that his plan would never get passed and more than likely than not, he is right. It will take a lot of work on behalf of the president and it will be even harder to get congressional approval. However, I don’t think Santorum’s lack of faith in the programs’ ability to be passed is grounds for dismissing it. Such a pessimistic view harnesses the notion that because no one else will go along with it, it must not be worth supporting. This is exactly why we have representatives who don’t vote their conscious but rather for the most likely legislation to get passed. Santorum is and always has been a cheerleader for effective government. Sadly his definition of effective government is being effective at passing bills. I believe we have too many bills passed as is but Santorum believes if bills aren’t passed then government is failing. I believe if bills aren’t repealed government is a failure. So if it’s more likely that a bill will go through that erodes at our freedom he will support it over a bill that increases freedom but stands slim odds of passing. What we need is a candidate who is going to defy all odds and fight adamantly to pass the bills that are right, not the bills that are just likely to pass.

Governor Mitt Romney went as far as to say that Cains’ 9-9-9 plan was “inadequate” to solve the problems our nation faces. Although I personally am not a huge fan of Herman Cain’s tax plan – and I will get to that in a minute – if anything, Herman Cains plan is overkill. The problem is that Mitt Romney was a big government tax-and-spend governor and a 9% national sales tax, 9% flat individual income tax and a 9% flat corporate income tax simply put is not large enough for his spending plan.

Representative Michele Bachmann said, “You turn the 9-9-9 plan upside down, and the devil’s in the details.” Although I’m not going to say Cain is the anti-Christ, Cains plan is inherently evil in that is goes as far at to say that the government is entitled to 9% of your income. Regardless of whether or not you consent to this 9% donation or not, the government will do as they always do and take it by force. Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is just as evil and unconstitutional as our current tax system, the only difference is it is just a little more fair. Fair in its equal opportunity violation of the people rights. With his plan it won’t be just the rich getting soaked, but everyone equally. A fair evil is still evil and corrupt. Cains’ plan may be considered the lesser of two evils, but that’s not what I am looking for in the 2012 GOP presidential primary election.

The last point I would like to make is concerning the danger of Cains’ plan. There is a question he has been unable to answer so he dismisses it as if it’s not a possibility. The question is what will happen when a non-Cain administration is elected and decides to raise the corporate, individual and or sales taxes. If a non-Cain administration were to raise individual income taxes back to what they currently are and keep Cains 9% federal sales tax, that would absolutely cripple our economy. Imagine living off your current income plus an extra 9% federal sales tax, on top of the 6% or what ever percent your current states sales tax is. Every time Cain is asked about the potential danger of such a thing happening, he laughs it off and says it would never happen. Such a statement could only be made by a very naive candidate or the anti-Christ himself knowing that there will be no predecessor to himself … I do not subscribe to the latter option, so I am going to go with calling Herman Cain a naive candidate.

In some ways this plan is good. It would eliminate the progressive structure of our current income tax in which people who make more money pay a higher percentage of their income, thus discouraging growth. A 9% flat tax rate would take its place, which would be an improvement for the majority of Americans. Another improvement can be found in the change to corporate taxes. US businesses currently pay the sixth highest corporate tax in the world, around 30%. Reducing that to 9% would increase the United States’ competitiveness in the world market and also allow businesses to keep more of their profits which can be used to grow their business. This results in the business hiring new employees, adding a new business location thus giving jobs to construction outfits, producing more products which creates a demand for more raw resources which gives more business to other industries, and many other things that will help fight our unemployment and economic problems.

The third aspect of Cain’s program leaves much to be desired. The institution of a NEW tax – a national sales tax – is not a good idea. The last thing this country needs during this difficult economic time is a new tax to deal with, and it being a sales tax, it will be a fee that Americans will have to deal with on a daily basis as they purchase goods and services. Many over the past few years have called for the FairTax – a broad consumption (sales) tax that would replace all income and corporate taxes. Cain’s plan doesn’t take it that far, in fact, one could argue it is even worse than the FairTax.

Under Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, you would not have as much money taken from you via the income tax, however, every time you purchase a product, you will pay a 9% federal sales tax. In many states where there is a state sales tax, people will be paying an additional 10% to 19% above sticker price for items they purchase. This price increase will cause many people on fixed incomes, or even the more frugal among us, to go without and many businesses may see a decrease in their sales. Of course the obverse of the situation is the fact that this will encourage saving – something many Americans no longer practice, and that is a positive I can see in this idea.

Now for my main fear about instituting the 9-9-9 Plan. Let’s say Herman Cain becomes president and successfully installs his 9-9-9 Plan. We have 4 or 8 years of the Cain administration and then we elect another Barack Obama-style socialist to the White House and a bunch of Democrats to the Congress to boot. What will stop them from making the existing 9-9-9 Plan into a 15-15-15 Plan? Or maybe a 20-9-9 Plan? Or a 20-20-20 Plan? Nothing. The Cain administration cannot control the actions of future presidential administrations or put any type of cap on the numbers that cannot be breached. There is no way of guaranteeing that these three tax rates don’t skyrocket. When electing a socialist president or congressman, there is always the threat that tax rates will go up. Right now, that threat is basically restricted to income and corporate taxes. Under Cain’s plan, future administrations can get you three ways instead of just two. I don’t think it is the right step towards reducing taxes and increasing competition. If it was a 9-9 Plan – 9% flat income tax and 9% flat corporate tax – I could support it. Read my lips, “No new taxes!”

The founders were keen on making sure the federal government’s powers were limited and few, and given their recent experience with King George III, they made a particular point to balance and restrain the power of the executive branch. Unlike in other countries and certainly unlike in 18th-century England, in America even the head of state would not be above the law.

At the time, many observers saw our Constitution as the crowning achievement of the West. It was the grand culmination of philosophies on governance that spanned centuries. It wasn’t simply a statement of law; it was an affirmation of proper civilization.

President Obama has never seemed too bothered by constitutional restraint. To be fair, neither have most of his modern predecessors, who steadily expanded executive power far beyond its constitutional bounds. Liberals viewed President George W. Bush as one the worst enemies of civil liberties, because he supported legislation such as the Patriot Act, policies such as indefinite detention, and legal redefinitions of torture. Yet despite promising “change,” Obama has maintained most of Bush’s anti-civil liberties policies, even expanding them in some cases.

Now, Obama has lowered the bar even further. When American-born al Qaida collaborator Anwar al-Awlaki was assassinated by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen last week, The New York Times noted that “it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.” There is little question that al-Awlaki was as bad as most reports indicated. He was inspiring radical jihadists to take up arms against the United States. There is also little question that the war against radical Islamists is a war unlike any other in our country’s history.

The problem with killing al-Awlaki is the precedent it sets. If President Obama’s overall domestic and foreign policies weren’t already bad enough, he has now taken the United States to a new civilizational low by undermining the most basic purpose and precept of American law: the protection of citizens’ rights through due process.

When, in 2004, the Supreme Court ruled against a father who was seeking constitutional protections for his American-citizen son who had been imprisoned as an enemy combatant without charge or trial, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, arguing: “Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime …”

Obviously Scalia believes our Constitution and legal traditions should have some bearing on such matters. Later in his dissent, Scalia quoted 18th-century British judge Sir William Blackstone, widely considered to be an authority on English common law:

The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive. Blackstone stated this principle clearly: “Of great importance to the public is the preservation of this personal liberty: for if once it were left in the power of any, the highest, magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper … there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities. … To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom. …”

It’s easy to imagine what liberals would have said if George W. Bush had ordered the assassination of al-Awlaki — certainly “despotism” and “tyranny” would’ve been some of the more pleasant words thrown around. But while Bush was rightly criticized for imprisoning some citizens without due process, Obama is now applauded for killing them.

Conservatives all across the country were pissed that John McCain had won the primary election and was now our candidate for president. Ironically, up until that point they hadn’t done much complaining about him, they didn’t think he was much of a threat, and they all wanted to play nice, abiding by Reagan’s so called 11th Commandment: “thou shall not speak ill of another Republican.” By the time they did start speaking ill of McCain it was already too late.

Lately, in the GOP primary debates, I have heard the moderators nitpicking at the candidates to get into the details about their specific plans and how they compare to the other candidates. Every time Newt Gingrich is asked his thoughts on RomneyCare or another candidates support for big government in any situation, he immediately condemns the moderators for “trying to turn Republican against Republican.” Every time he continues with “we are all in this race because we all have one common enemy, anyone of us would be a better president than Obama and we are all campaigning against him, so I would rather hear you ask us questions about how we will oppose Obama.”

It’s funny because I seem to remember in 2008 when Obama was campaigning he would frequently discuss how he was going to be a better president than Bush, all the Republicans had to say was, “you’re not campaigning against Bush so stop talking about him, you’re running against McCain so campaign against him.” None of the Republicans running has secured the nomination yet and until then they are not running against Obama and they need to run against each other, they need to compete in a free market style so we can see the differences and make the best choice as to who we want to run against Obama to be the leader of the free world.

Sadly, too many Americans are not concerned with who is best for America, that becomes apparent every time Newt opens his big mouth in a debate and the crowd goes nuts. All too many Republicans are afraid to criticize a candidate in case they wind up winning the primary, they don’t want to have to go back on their words and vote for someone they called a liberal months or weeks before. Too many Republicans don’t worry about how conservative a candidate is, they worry about how electable they are.

Sadly, candidates like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, although they have no shortage of experience in their resumes, are probably the most electable but they are far from the most conservative. In fact I would go as far as to say the pickings are slim when it comes to finding authentic conservatives. I would even go as far as to say there is only two candidates running whose records and platforms are worthy of being called conservative.

If you are a registered Republican and/or plan on voting in the GOP primaries this year, you need to vote your conscience, don’t for a minute factor in who you think can beat Obama or who you think is electable. Don’t factor in age or appearance. Don’t worry about who is the most articulate, these details are completely irrelevant. We need a conservative to get us out of the problems we are in. And if you’re not complaining now about the flaws in all of the candidates and instead you’re focusing on who is easier on the eyes or who is most electable, you wont have your eyes on the real prize and when we get stuck with another liberal Republican toeing off with a socialist democrat you will have no room to complain, and no one to blame but yourself.

In 1968, after he was laid off from his job as an electrician, Dad started his own electrical contracting business, literally out of the trunk of his car. Today, he’s a successful businessman — and believe me, he has earned every bit of his success.

His attitude has always been that he’d be damned before anyone took his business away from him. In an email exchange with me about how right-to-work South Carolina is far preferable to non-right-to-work states, Dad explained how the unions once tried to muscle into his business at the height of his success:

In the 80s when our business was big, 240 employees, 2 planes, worked in 3 states, they tried to get in my door and others. We had a strong Open Shop policy among many major local electrical contractors … Unions [were] losing ground in every direction. I had always said I would close my shop if it were to go union [and] I presided over the [Associated Independent Electrical Contractors of America] Charleston Chapter for 3 years. We operated Merit Shop … we did not believe all should get same pay and benefits, just on years of service alone. We left room for advancement based on personal performance … merit … it works and I still have dedicated employees today.

Dad added, “The country should run that way.”

He’s right. Before I became a conservative political pundit, I worked for my father’s company in the field — digging ditches, running conduit and wire, installing electrical equipment, you name it. I did this off-and-on throughout high school and for a solid eight-year stretch later in life. Most of the job foremen at the various construction sites where I worked were men I had known since I was a child. They were hard workers and good people, and because they were always treated accordingly, they were always there. Some are still there. And my father would be the first to admit it would be hard, if not impossible, to run his business without these talented and dedicated workers. “Merit” pays.

But the very notion of a union coming in and telling Dad how to run his business: Who he can hire, fire, where he can work, where he can’t and all the other dictatorial aspects characteristic of organized labor — this is anathema to anyone who has managed to build their own American dream from scratch. Of course, at various times in this country’s history, unions have done some good, protecting workers and correcting injustices. But today, unions mostly damage the states and industries in which they hold sway, precisely because they demand far too much while offering comparatively little in return.

By their very nature, most modern unions are top-heavy bureaucracies that reward members based on longevity and seniority, not necessarily quality and merit. The results of such a system are often disastrous. What the United Auto Workers have done to the automobile industry in Detroit and elsewhere is a perfect example. So is what teachers’ unions have done to public education. So is what the National Labor Relations Board has been trying to do to Boeing in South Carolina, where unions are attempting to take away merit-based jobs for those in my home state and give them to organized labor in Washington state — simply because working in cahoots with the federal government allows them to do so

The CIA, which most big government conservatives worship as another arm of American ‘strength’, has released numerous reports and studies that prove what Ron Paul was saying. In fact, the CIA is where the congressman gets his information, not the talking heads who feel it is their duty to push American exceptionalism at all costs on their radio programs Monday through Friday. Perhaps Santorum, along with the other ill-informed boobs on stage and in the audience, ought do a little brushing up on their foreign policy reading. A simple place to start is reading a letter to America straight from the horse’s mouth, Osama bin Laden. In the 2002 letter, Bin Laden describes in detail why he orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. The letter contains its fair share of Sharia Law mumbo jumbo, but the thrust of the note is clear – the radical jihadists attacked us because of our military actions in their holy land and home countries. Chances are if we weren’t involved in Middle Eastern politics, 9/11 would not have happened.

Take this excerpt for example:

Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine

b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis.

d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.

Right or wrong, this was the main motivation for Osama and his ilk. Santorum and other like-minded empty suits act totally stunned and appalled at Ron Paul’s “un-American” talk when Paul merely quotes what the ringleader has said! If we are attacked is it not common sense to ask what the motivation for the action was? It is like we are living in some type of twilight zone. I have to laugh at social conservative Rick Santorum though, a deeper read into the letter from Osama will uncover the fact that the former terrorist and the former senator are almost ideological twins on the issue of homosexuality, drugs and morals and religion in government:

We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling’s, and trading with interest….You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator….You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants…..You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly….

Below is the letter its entirety. It is long, but is worth the read if you have never seen it before. After reading this and further researching the topic and briefing yourself with the information the CIA has uncovered, you may understand what Ron Paul is talking about and come to see that Rick Santorum and all those that agree with him on the issue are emotionally-charged zealots and nothing more.

Bin Laden’s Letter to America:

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,

“Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory” [Quran 22:39]

“Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan.”[Quran 4:76]

Some American writers have published articles under the title ‘On what basis are we fighting?’ These articles have generated a number of responses, some of which adhered to the truth and were based on Islamic Law, and others which have not. Here we wanted to outline the truth – as an explanation and warning – hoping for Allah’s reward, seeking success and support from Him.

While seeking Allah’s help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.

When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) – and we make no distinction between them.

(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

(iii) These governments steal our Ummah’s wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.

(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!

(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.

(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.

(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.

(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.

The American Government and press still refuses to answer the question:

Why did they attack us in New York and Washington?

If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of peace!!! America does not understand the language of manners and principles, so we are addressing it using the language it understands.

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them – peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah’s Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.

(b) It is the religion whose book – the Quran – will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Quran or even ten verses like it.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling’s, and trading with interest.

We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton’s immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he ‘made a mistake’, after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.

(viii) And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention.

(xi) You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries.

(x) Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.

(xi) That which you are singled out for in the history of mankind, is that you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your interests and profits. You who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war. How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O callers to freedom?

(xii) Let us not forget one of your major characteristics: your duality in both manners and values; your hypocrisy in manners and principles. All*manners, principles and values have two scales: one for you and one for the others.

(a)The freedom and democracy that you call to is for yourselves and for white race only; as for the rest of the world, you impose upon them your monstrous, destructive policies and Governments, which you call the ‘American friends’. Yet you prevent them from establishing democracies. When the Islamic party in Algeria wanted to practice democracy and they won the election, you unleashed your agents in the Algerian army onto them, and to attack them with tanks and guns, to imprison them and torture them – a new lesson from the ‘American book of democracy’!!!

(b)Your policy on prohibiting and forcibly removing weapons of mass destruction to ensure world peace: it only applies to those countries which you do not permit to possess such weapons. As for the countries you consent to, such as Israel, then they are allowed to keep and use such weapons to defend their security. Anyone else who you suspect might be manufacturing or keeping these kinds of weapons, you call them criminals and you take military action against them.

(c)You are the last ones to respect the resolutions and policies of International Law, yet you claim to want to selectively punish anyone else who does the same. Israel has for more than 50 years been pushing UN resolutions and rules against the wall with the full support of America.

(d)As for the war criminals which you censure and form criminal courts for – you shamelessly ask that your own are granted immunity!! However, history will not forget the war crimes that you committed against the Muslims and the rest of the world; those you have killed in Japan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon and Iraq will remain a shame that you will never be able to escape. It will suffice to remind you of your latest war crimes in Afghanistan, in which densely populated innocent civilian villages were destroyed, bombs were dropped on mosques causing the roof of the mosque to come crashing down on the heads of the Muslims praying inside. You are the ones who broke the agreement with the Mujahideen when they left Qunduz, bombing them in Jangi fort, and killing more than 1,000 of your prisoners through suffocation and thirst. Allah alone knows how many people have died by torture at the hands of you and your agents. Your planes remain in the Afghan skies, looking for anyone remotely suspicious.

(e)You have claimed to be the vanguards of Human Rights, and your Ministry of Foreign affairs issues annual reports containing statistics of those countries that violate any Human Rights. However, all these things vanished when the Mujahideen hit you, and you then implemented the methods of the same documented governments that you used to curse. In America, you captured thousands the Muslims and Arabs, took them into custody with neither reason, court trial, nor even disclosing their names. You issued newer, harsher laws.

What happens in Guatanamo is a historical embarrassment to America and its values, and it screams into your faces – you hypocrites, “What is the value of your signature on any agreement or treaty?”

(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves – and I doubt you will do so – to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.

(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.

(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins.

(6) Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.

(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you.

If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him. The Nation which is addressed by its Quran with the words: “Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of believing people. And remove the anger of their (believers’) hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” [Quran9:13-1]

The Nation of honour and respect:

“But honour, power and glory belong to Allah, and to His Messenger (Muhammad- peace be upon him) and to the believers.” [Quran 63:8]

“So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be*superior ( in victory )if you are indeed (true) believers” [Quran 3:139]

The Nation of Martyrdom; the Nation that desires death more than you desire life:

“Think not of those who are killed in the way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive with their Lord, and they are being provided for. They rejoice in what Allah has bestowed upon them from His bounty and rejoice for the sake of those who have not yet joined them, but are left behind (not yet martyred) that on them no fear shall come, nor shall they grieve. They rejoice in a grace and a bounty from Allah, and that Allah will not waste the reward of the believers.” [Quran 3:169-171]

The Nation of victory and success that Allah has promised:

“It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad peace be upon him) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over all other religions even though the Polytheists hate it.” [Quran 61:9]

“Allah has decreed that ‘Verily it is I and My Messengers who shall be victorious.’ Verily Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty.” [Quran 58:21]

The Islamic Nation that was able to dismiss and destroy the previous evil Empires like yourself; the Nation that rejects your attacks, wishes to remove your evils, and is prepared to fight you. You are well aware that the Islamic Nation, from the very core of its soul, despises your haughtiness and arrogance.

If the Americans refuse to listen to our advice and the goodness, guidance and righteousness that we call them to, then be aware that you will lose this Crusade Bush began, just like the other previous Crusades in which you were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen, fleeing to your home in great silence and disgrace. If the Americans do not respond, then their fate will be that of the Soviets who fled from Afghanistan to deal with their military defeat, political breakup, ideological downfall, and economic bankruptcy.

This is our message to the Americans, as an answer to theirs. Do they now know why we fight them and over which form of ignorance, by the permission of Allah, we shall be victorious?

After the assassination of Lincoln the North wanted those responsible for the assassination to hang, so they brought several suspects in for trials after John Wilkes Booth was shot in a barn fire. Mary Surratt was one of the many suspects brought in for trial because she was a southern boarding house owner who rented a room to Booth.

Fredrick Aiken is a Union veteran of the War for Southern Independence who is basically assigned to the defense of Surratt by his mentor, the former attorney general and senator, Reverdy Johnson.

I think the thing I liked most about the movie is although Aiken is not convinced that Surratt is innocent he takes her defense because Johnson convinces him that every human has the right to a fair trial. Most Northerners are upset that a fellow Union soldier is defending a Southerner. The prosecuting attorney, John W. Lloyd, believes and tries to convince Aiken that regardless of weather or not Surratt is innocent or guilty, she needs to hang because the majority of the people believe she is guilty and to allow her to walk would cause chaos in the already weakened North an potentially destroy the Union that Lincoln end even Aiken fought so adamantly to preserve.

Throughout the movie Aiken begins to believe that Surratt is innocent and then poses the question – which is worse, to lose our nation to the chaos or to lose our nation by disregarding the constitution and that which our nation believes in? The movie depicts well the debate that has been going on in America since the very beginning. The same style debate that John Adams was faced with in defending the rights of the British troops who fired upon colonists at the Boston Massacre. An argument that is still relevant today in discussing whether or not terrorists or suspected terrorists have rights protected under the constitution.

At the end of the film Aiken convinces a judge to stay her execution and allow her to have a trial by her peers as the Constitution requires, but President Johnson over rides the ruling by an abuse of his powers and has Surratt hanged, the first woman executed by the United States Government in history. Later evidence would indicate she was in fact wrongfully executed. All because of corruption in the United states government and policies that did violence to the Constitution. The Conspirator is a movie that every American should watch, a movie about

Some might find it absurd to say that Ron Paul has a “Reaganesque” foreign policy. The man himself has never made any such claim. But it is far less absurd to note the similarities between the 40th president’s foreign policy and the views of the Texas congressman than it is for Paul’s hawkish critics to continue claiming the exclusive rights to Reagan’s legacy. In fact, Republicans who still refuse to show the slightest hint of regret for the Iraq War or our continued presence in Afghanistan would be fairly alien to the ever-reflective Reagan. And when Republican hawks wax nostalgic for the Gipper’s “bold” and “muscular” foreign policy, most of what they remember is fantasy — as Reagan’s characteristic aversion to committing troops was far closer to Paulian prudence than Bushian recklessness.

Let’s examine Reagan’s actual foreign policy record. Writing for Foreign Policy magazine, journalist Peter Beinart has noted:

Today’s conservatives have conjured a mythic Reagan who never compromised with America’s enemies and never shrank from a fight. But the real Reagan did both those things, often. In fact, they were a big part of his success … Sure, Reagan spent boatloads — some $2.8 trillion all told — on the military. And yes, he funneled money and guns to anti-communist rebels like the Nicaraguan Contras and Afghan mujahedeen, while lecturing Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down that wall. But on the ultimate test of hawkdom — the willingness to send U.S. troops into harm’s way — Reagan was no bird of prey. He launched exactly one land war, against Grenada, whose army totaled 600 men. It lasted two days. And his only air war — the 1986 bombing of Libya — was even briefer. Compare that with George H.W. Bush, who launched two midsized ground operations, in Panama (1989) and Somalia (1992), and one large war in the Persian Gulf (1991). Or with Bill Clinton, who launched three air campaigns — in Bosnia (1995), Iraq (1998), and Kosovo (1999) — each of which dwarfed Reagan’s Libya bombing in duration and intensity. Do I even need to mention George W. Bush?

Former American Conservative Union chairman and current National Rifle Association President David Keene has compared Reagan’s reluctance to put troops in harm’s way with other presidents and today’s Republican hawks:

He resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office … After the [1983] assault on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, it was questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement that led Reagan to withdraw our troops rather than dig in. He found no good strategic reason to give our regional enemies inviting U.S. targets. Can one imagine one of today’s neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?

“Backing away”? Why, heaven’s no! Real “Reagan conservatives,” as they love to tell us, are committed to any fight, anywhere, for any reason and even for no reason in particular (Sen. John McCain and Libya).

The problem with this narrative is that the actual Reagan wasn’t anything like this.

Reagan admitted that the worst mistake of his entire presidency was his decision to commit troops in Lebanon, and he thought American efforts in that part of the world would always be severely limited by the region’s political and cultural realities. Whereas both Presidents Bush and Obama embrace the Wilsonian notion that America can help transform parts of the Middle East into democracies, Reagan took a decidedly more conservative approach, or as Paul described in 2005: “We should remember Ronald Reagan’s admonition regarding this area of the world. Ronald Reagan reflected on Lebanon in his memoirs, describing the Middle East as a jungle and Middle East politics as irrational. It forced him to rethink his policy in the region.”

The New York Times reported last week that “Hurricane Irene will most likely prove to be one of the 10 costliest catastrophes in the nation’s history … Industry estimates put the cost of the storm at $7 billion to $10 billion …”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said that Washington would send aid to the affected areas, but that it would have to compensate for this unexpected spending by cutting other parts of the budget.

“Those monies are not unlimited,” Cantor told Fox News.

Last month, McClatchy News Service reported that, “According to Defense Department figures, by the end of April the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan … had cost an average of $9.7 billion a month, with roughly two-thirds going to Afghanistan.”

The total damage from one of the “costliest catastrophes in the nation’s history” is basically equal to what the United States spends in one month in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cantor is absolutely right that the federal government’s “monies are not unlimited,” but this mathematical fact is equally applicable to the entire budget, including Pentagon spending. Broke plus broke equals broke.

Conservatives used to explain away Bush’s irresponsible spending by saying, “Well, we are fighting two wars.” The implication was that reasonable people understand that wars cost money.

But according to some, reasonable people are now supposed to understand that wars don’t really cost much money. In a recent Daily Caller op-ed titled “Defense spending isn’t the place to skimp,” Rebeccah Heinrichs wrote:

“Military spending is not and never has been the bulk of our budget deficit. According to the Congressional Research Service, “by 2009, mandatory spending had grown to 60% of total outlays, with Social Security, Medicare, and the federal share of Medicaid alone comprising almost 41% of all federal spending.” Earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office’s Budget and Economic Outlook showed that at $2 trillion, mandatory spending (excluding TARP) in fiscal year 2010 was almost three times more than defense spending, which totaled $690 billion, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Something doesn’t compute. We know that wars cost money, which was the conventional Republican reasoning behind why Bush spent so much of it — but somehow, just now, we are being told that wars don’t really cost that much. Is this contradictory? Cantor says we must now skimp to help Americans post-Irene, even though the amount of money needed is equal to what we spend overseas each month. Few Washington politicians say we need to skimp on that spending.

Like I said — something doesn’t compute.

Retired General John Adams agrees, as he explained in an op-ed in The Hill last week:

“Over the past 10 years, the DOD budget increased from $297 billion to $549 billion, not including the Overseas Contingency Operations, which alone stands at $159 billion for FY11. Even if we factor in inflation, in an era of constant budget deficits, this rate of spending is unsustainable.”

Paul believes that the only just war is a war of defense. When America was attacked on 9/11, Paul supported going into Afghanistan because he believed what most Americans believed — that the Taliban was harboring those behind the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. When America is attacked, she defends herself. This is what most Americans think of as “national defense.”

But what Paul’s critics on the right call “national defense” is often something quite different. The concept of preventive war — that is, going to war with nations that “might” be a threat at some point — is something new and without precedent in our history. This part of the Bush Doctrine, coupled with the notion that America can — and must — spread democracy throughout the globe, has become many conservatives’ default foreign policy position.

But this is a strange position for conservatives, because it is not conservative. President Woodrow Wilson’s notion that it was America’s mission to “make the world safe for democracy” was a clarion call for liberals and progressives of his era — and was considered utopian gobbledygook by conservatives. In a 2005 interview, columnist George Will and William F. Buckley explained:

WILL: Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?

BUCKLEY: It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”

Will then noted the radical transformation the right underwent during the Bush era: “But something odd is happening in conservatism. And we have a president and an administration that clearly is conservative, accepted as that. Yet it is nation-building in the Middle East. And conservatism seems to be saying government can’t run Amtrak, but it can run the Middle East.”

Will outlines an obviously un-conservative premise of the Bush-era right. Buckley would go on to denounce Bush as not a real conservative and, as early as 2004, would admit concerning Iraq: “If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.”

Both Will and Buckley initially supported the Iraq War, believing as many Americans did that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States. After this turned out to be false, Will and Buckley expressed regret for their former position. Today, Will is one of the fiercest critics of our decade-long intervention in Afghanistan.

Are Buckley and Will liberals?