Don't Let the Media Choose Our Next President!

Please, please, please, do not let the media choose our next president. Do the research yourself. Go and watch the youtube speeches by the candidates. Because of the internet, you have the ability to research candidates as never before. So here is a little test. I'm going to list the name of a candidate, and for each one, I want you to write down the first thing that comes to mind.

Hillary Clinton
John McCain
Ron Paul
Barack Obama
Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee

Now, did you write down your answers? If you did, now look at what you wrote down and ask yourself "Why do I think that?" Is that grounded in facts?

I challenge you to go and watch a youtube speech for each candidate, do the research, then go back and see if you still think the same of the candidate.

Media Bias

So how did I get on this rant? Well, when you follow a candidate that the media does not like, it is very easy to get angry and disgruntled. I want to give you some blatant examples of media bias towards Dr. Paul.

Fair and Balanced? I think not!

Fox News and the New Hampshire GOP are putting together a debate/forum on Jan 6th in New Hampshire. Fox News decided to exclude Dr. Paul from this debate/forum. At first there were all sorts of wrong and misinformation floating around on the internet, but it looks like we finally have some solid information. Fox News and Ron Paul have never been friends, but that being said, Fox News should have enough journalistic integrity to include all the candidates. But I guess not. The problem is that they have invited Fred Thompson. even though Ron Paul has consistently polled above Fred Thompson in nearly every poll. See for yourself:

New Hampshire - 2008 Presidential Polls

Fox News has yet to respond to requests dating back to Friday as to why Dr. Paul was excluded. His own campaign has had trouble getting in touch with Fox News. That seems strange now that we have Text Messages, Blackberries, email and cells phones, that somebody at Fox can not confirm or deny if Dr. Paul has been excluded. At this point it is very hard to say this is just a miscommunication.

Here is the latest word from the New Hampshire GOP who is co-hosting this event:

New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen releases the following statement regarding primary weekend debates:

“Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.”


[Full Article]

Pop quiz: The owner of Fox News is Rupert Murdoch. Which presidential candidate has Mr Murdoch contributed the maximum amount to? If you said Hilliary Clinton, you would be correct.

Rupert Murdoch Political Contributions

He has given heavily to Republican Congressmen and to the Republican Party, but the only presidential candidate he has given to (to the best of my knowledge) is Hilliary Clinton. I do not know about you, but I found that interesting.

The truth about Earmarks

Dr. Paul was on Meet the Press last week. Tim Russert asked him about earmarks. Russert was trying to discredit Dr. Paul about his adding of earmarks to spending bills. The problem is that if you don't understand what an earmark is, it does sound like Dr. Paul is having his cake and eating it too. (Though in Russert's defense and my personal opinion, Dr. Paul did not do a good job defending his position) But if you dig a little deeper you start to see that Dr. Paul is working against a horrible system, and he is using a tool he is given. If he had his way, all earmarks would be banned.

Dr. Paul would put in an earmark to a spending bill, then vote against the entire bill. Russert's comment was this was similar to the "your were for it before you were against it". Unfortunately this shows a total lack of understanding about the nature of earmarks by Russert. So what came out of that interview was lots of articles bashing Dr. Paul's "hypocrisy". Well once again, if you go and read about what an earmark actually is you will begin to understand that it is more complex than a 30 second sound bite.

So what is an earmark? [wikipedia]

Earmarking bypasses the normal procedure by which tax revenue is pooled in a general fund and then allocated among various government spending programs as opposed to a specific program.

In other words, if during the creation of a spending bill, if you don't earmark money for a certain expense (a new highway or whatever), then the department that gets that money can decided however they want. The money will be spent either way, so Dr. Paul is trying to serve his constituents by bringing some of the tax money they pay into the Federal Government back to his district.

Here is an article from this summer on Dr. Paul's website about earmarks:

Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One

Here is another good explanation:

In Defense of Ron Paul’s Earmarks


Paint Ron Paul as a racist

In the worst of all smears, the New York Times ran an article that said that Dr. Ron Paul has regular dinners with a White Supremacy group. The article was the worst of the worst. So after being up for two days, they pulled the article and put up a retraction.

The quote from the original article:

Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Va., usually on Wednesdays.

Oh for the love of all that is holy!

Here is the retraction:

The post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White.

But the problem is how many people read the first article, made up their minds, and do not go back to check the facts. Does not matter I guess. The damage is already done.

PLEASE do not let the media choose our next president! Please do the research yourself and vote the issues. That is all I'm asking. If you vote for Ron Paul, then I think you will have made a good decision, but if you vote otherwise, just make sure you are voting your mind and not your emotions. Electablity is something We the People choose, not the media. And if you have not done the research, or can not backup why you like a candidate with facts, then please Do Not Vote. Seriously. A Republic only works, with an informed electorate.

Is anybody else scared?

I had a very powerful thought the other day pertaining to how people work in groups, especially when those groups have power over others. Anywhere from management of a company, to our State and Federal officials. The conclusion that I came to was this: Many folks start out with the best of intentions, but what happens is that apathy and arrogance kicks in, and the people in power quickly become comfortable with the power they have, and they forget where that power actually comes from. The only power that elected officials have, is the power that WE give them.

What happens at the point of apathy is that, even with the best of intentions, a solution to a problem is developed but because it is not well thought out, it has disastrous consequences. A prime example of this is the support of the Patriot Act in Congress. Many Congress men and women went along with this horrendous legislation because they thought it would make our country safer. We, the citizens, also went with it thinking the government needed this to help keep us safe. Government should move slow for a reason. If Government moves too fast, you should stop and investigate.

Do not forget that it is us, the citizens that are in charge and not the politicians. "They serve us", not "we serve them"!

So that being said, this was the main story that Google News picked up the other day.

FBI Prepares Vast Database Of Biometrics

Maybe I have just read too many books (1984, Brave New World, etc), but one of the key problems with power, is simply that it will pretty much always be abused. So when I see the Government spending a billion of our tax dollars to create a database to help track us, then I just keep thinking that we have been taxed to build tools to keep us in line. Just look around the world at all the tyranny of the past and present, and do not think for a second that our government, if left unchecked, is somehow immune to these thoughts. It may not happen intentionally by all, but it only takes a few leaders to lead the blind herd. Just look back at the McCarthy Hearings or the way that the 16th Amendment was passed. Also go and read about the current ideas floating around for a "National ID Card". This is another horrible idea that sounds good at first, but when you peel the layers back you see it for the terrible idea that it is.

A National ID Card Wouldn't Make Us Safer - Bruce Schneier

Finally, take a look at the this incredible piece of legislation: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 On the surface, it sounds fine, but when you start digging, it just has alarm bells all over it.

HR 1955 [wikipedia].

Sadly it passed 406-6. It was presented by a Democrat. So much for the Democrats sticking up for Civil Liberties. I guess that has fallen out of favor with both parties. My complaint about this bill is that it is totally unnecessary, but that is my personal opinion.

Here is the status of the bill now before the Senate.

In summary, do not let it be said that we built the cage for ourselves to be held in, whether it be taxes, civil liberties, or apathy. If you are not working against these items, then do not complain when we pay 50% of our taxes to a government that tracks our every move. As Dr. Paul said the other day (paraphrase) "Freedom is a new idea, Tyranny is old, very old"

The Voice of Ronald Reagan 1964

Here is a powerful quote I pulled from a youtube comment section:

Ron Paul's ideas only seem insane because we've lived under insane policies for all our lives. Ron Paul is the only one trying to bring us back to sanity. Please learn all you can about economics, history, and philosophy. Educate yourself. --odigity

Man! I could not agree more! The more I read, the more I study, the more I say: "WHOO! Stop this crazy train".

Ron Paul was on Bill O'Reilly a couple of months ago. It was a sham of an interview. [link] The problem with the interview is that Dr. Paul was repeatedly trying to explain the complicated history of dealing with Middle East politics, and Bill O'Reilly's comment was "we don't need a history lesson". (2:48 seconds into the clip).

Sadly we have all heard the saying: Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

Also, Bill O'Reilly was looking for a "sound bite" answer, but Dr. Paul's ideas are bigger than any 15 second "sound bite" allows. The news media really does not allow for ideas that take longer than 30 seconds to be fully explained. (which is why I keep urging you all to read and research for yourselves). There are so many incredible ideas out there that are just not going to be covered by the core media (Fox, CNN, NBC, NPR, etc). But I digress...

So to help us remember our history, I ask that you watch this 6 minute video which is a mixture of a famous Ronald Reagan speech and Dr. Paul's speeches. It is really sad to me that all the Republican candidates love to talk about how awesome Ronald Reagan was, but sadly when Ron Paul makes the EXACT same statements about liberty, freedom, and small government that Ronald Reagan made back in 1964, Dr. Paul is considered "a kook","a gadfly", and the "far fringes of the debate".

Here is a link to the full text and audio of Ronald Reagan's famous 1964 speech:

A Time For Choosing - Ronald Reagan

For me, this is the crucial statement:

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

WOWOWOW!!!!!

For me, the one issue I am focusing on for this election is Fiscal Responsibility. My thought is that if we can have Fiscal Responsibility then many of the other issues facing this country will fall by the way side. If the government does not have money to spend on terrible programs, then the programs will die. The rest of the Republican field, other than Dr. Paul, seem to just want to tinker around the edges. Even the Fair Tax, which is much better than what we have right now, just changes how the government gets our money, and not the amount they receive. It is time to clear house, and bring the Federal Government back to a more reasonable level. If the States want to increase their taxes to cover programs, then so be it, but we must move back towards a more limited government at the Federal level.


[NOTE: The text at the end of the video is actually a quote from Ronald Reagan about Ron Paul. Make sure to pause it and read it. The font is not easy to read]

When States Rights and the Environement meetup

I saw this article at the top of Google News today, and wanted to put a quick note out about it because it highlighted perfectly what I was complaining about the other day.

A couple of days ago, I was lamenting the centralization of power by the Federal Government. I feel strongly that the States should have much more power to regulate the items inside their borders.

Well this came to the forefront today with the Federal Government winning. (big surprise). My statement in short is this: States have every right to manage their environment (businesses, social programs, etc) how they see fit. If they want to make incredibly restrictive laws, then let them. It is their right under the Constitution!

E.P.A. Says 17 States Can’t Set Emission Rules for Cars

Republicans use to carry that banner of States Rights, I guess nobody is really carrying it anymore. Sad. Soon we should change our name from the United States of America to just America. [shrug]

Dr. Ron Paul having quite the week!

In case you missed it, Ron Paul is on fire this week. Unfortunately, most of the news media are giving this just a quick brush over then it is back to "Brittney Spear's 16 year old sister is pregnant" (seriously! ugh)

Tea Party

This past Sunday, the supporters for Dr. Paul raised $6 million in 1 day! This is a new record for fund raising. This was completely organized by his supporters and his campaign had nothing to do with it. To put that in prospective, John McCain only raised $5 million in the entire 3rd quarter (July 1 to September 30) Wow! The average donation was just over $100. Wow again. This campaign is funded by average American who are just tired of the status quo. It was organized through http://www.teaparty07.com

To compare this against other candidates fund raising take a look at this chart:

Presidential Election 2008 Fundraising [wikipedia]

Endorsed by Andrew Sullivan

Although I do not put much weight in endorsements, it was nice to see a prominent blogger stump for Dr. Paul.

Andrew Sullivan Endorses Ron Paul!

Glenn Beck Show

Also For those who did not see it. Dr. Paul was on Glenn Beck's show on CNN Tuesday night. All in all, it was a good interview, though I don't understand all the 9/11 "truth" questions or the question about the crazy supporter. If you have not had a chance to hear Dr. Paul speak about his positions, this is a great opportunity to hear him. All 5 videos together are 40 minutes.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

Meet The Press

Also he will be on "Meet The Press" this coming Sunday, so make sure to setup your Tivos.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

Telecom Amnesty - Round Two - Success... For Now

A couple of weeks ago, I was on quite a tear about a bill before Congress that would give Telecommunication companies amnesty from lawsuits about the warrantless wire tapping.

Rant from the other day

Well there is some good news to report. Harry Reid pulled the bill off the floor of the Senate thanks to Senator Chris Dodd.

Here is a very nice writeup of what really happened in Congress

Here is another good writeup by NPR

Insight into the Banking System

One man's propaganda is another man's truth --me

Unless people research and learn about topics themselves, then everything they know about the world they would learn from (FOX, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc), and sadly those are very very biased towards a given set of folks. (Go and Google Missing white woman syndrome to see a great example) That being said, the Internet is changing that!

So one of the things that has been the most interesting for me in following Dr. Ron Paul's campaign has been the education piece. I'm now reading about the War on Drugs, Presidential Powers, the "Separation of Church and State" (BTW, contrary to popular belief, those words are not in our Constitution), State vs Federal authority, Council on Foreign Relations, Monetary Policy, etc. Although these items do not seem to be a list of the most riveting subjects, when you learn that they are some of the corner stones of our Governmental policy, then they take on a whole new level of interest.

I am also learning how tough Politics really are. I'm learning that when you state a position, be prepared to have shots fired your way, correctly or incorrectly. This is a new position for me, considering that just two months ago, I kept a very very low profile about politics. But I guess my skin in toughing up.

So on to the topic at hand. Over the past half a year, the media has been talking about the "credit crunch" and the "subprime mortgage" mess. Well for most of us those words just flow over us, myself included. Well, I am now here to share some knowledge about this, and you can thank Ron Paul. One of the first things I heard Ron Paul say was his statements about the "Inflation Tax" [YouTube 30 seconds] [wikipedia]", and how this was directly related to the activities of the Federal Reserve and Central Bank. Federal Reserve? Central Bank? What are these things?

So I started reading. Here is what I learned. First off, the definition of a Central Bank from wikipedia is:

A central bank, reserve bank or monetary authority, is an entity responsible for the monetary policy of its country or of a group of member states. Its primary responsibility is to maintain the stability of the national currency and money supply...

Most all countries have some sort of Central Bank. (see list here)

Our Central Bank is called the Federal Reserve. For better or for worse, the Federal Reserve is highly independent from the Government, although it was the Government that set it up back in 1913.

So rather than try and explain it to you, instead I have found two sets of very good videos on YouTube that explain it in a very straightforward way.

Where does the money come from?
Part 1 - 8.5 min
Part 2 - 8.5 min
Part 3 - 7.5 min

Money, Banking and The Federal Reserve
Part 1 - 22.5 min
Part 2 - 19.5 min

So here is where the propaganda come into play from me :D Take a look back at an earlier post from me about Monetary Policy and Ron Paul's interaction with Ben Bernanke (current Reserve chairman), and ask yourself this question: How many of the other candidates could have that type of conversation with Ben Bernanke? Dr. Paul lists his favorite books as "Human Action: A Treatise on Economics" by Ludwig von Mises and "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich A. Hayek. Now there is some light reading.

State vs Federal Government

What is Government? Any why do we have both a State and Federal Government?

Simple question with a very complex answer. Your answer depends on your definition of Government and what political view point you come from. Take a look at the difference between a Socialist, a Communist, a Libertarian, or a Capitalist.

When our Founding Fathers setup our Country, they were coming out of a Monarchy. So they wanted to make certain that the structure they setup was decentralized. This was key. You can see this by how much power they gave the States. Remember we are the "United States of America". The key word there being States. Their original intention was that each state would be a fairly autonomous unit. If the Federal government collapsed for some reason, then the states would be in a position to carry on without issue. This is very different from how most European governments are setup. Most of those have highly centralized governments.

So lets take a quick vocabulary lesson:

Federalism - Federalism is the system in which the power to govern is shared between the national & state governments

The Constitution codified this by make certain statements over what the Federal Government was suppose to handle, then saying that everything else goes to the states. They accomplished this through the 10th Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

That is very powerful! Their goal was very clear, to make the states strong. They did not intend for the Federal Government to be the lynch pin of the country. Now, can you name your State representative? Most people probably can not. The reason I believe this is the case is because so much power has been shifted from the states to the Federal government.

Take a look at this great article detailing this out: Federalism: National vs. State Government

If this was the case, then why are we moving more and more towards a centralized Government? Because we have forgotten about history.

So lets take a look at some contentious issues and (In my opinion) why the states should handle these.

1) Education -- Why do we have a "Department of Education" at the federal level? Why is it that the bureaucrats in Washington are directing via dollars how our local schools work? This is a state issue, and should remain that way. So the question will arise? What if California and Georgia have different standards? Well then so be it. My guess would be that they would not be too different because of external forces (colleges, parents, etc), but the States should be in charge of their individual school systems. If a state wants to pass a law saying that kids have to go to school until they are 25, then so be it, but what will happen is that people will move out of that state. In other words, let the folks close to the people decided on the setup not some Politician in Washington. And that goes for the money as well. That department should be removed, and the taxes that were collected should cease to be collected. The biggest example of this is the No Child Left Behind. If Georgia wants to pass this individually, then so be it, but it should not be a National standard.

2) Drug Use -- Once again, states should be able to individually manage drugs in their state. Let me say that I am against drug use in a very passionate way, but still States should be able to decided this. In the same way that States should decide about education, if a state wants to legalized Drug use then let them, but if Crime increases, and it is shown to be a negative on society, then people will move out of state, and leaving that state with a lower tax base. One argument to this is that people will drive over state lines to buy drugs. My answer is Don't they do this now? Don't people drive out of dry counties to buy alcohol on Sunday? I don't think this problem is any different if the Federal Government decides or if States decided. Feel free to disagree.

(On a side note, do you ever wonder why the Federal Government passed an Amendment to the Constitution to allow Prohibition? The answer is very interesting. It is because, the Congress at the time understood that they did not posses the legal standing to regulate Alcohol sales which was a state issue, so they added an Amendment. Some some argue that this same reasoning applies to the current War on Drugs. That basically it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to have laws regulating drug use because it is a State issue. Some food for thought).

3) Prostitution -- To the best of my knowledge this is not a Federal issue right now. The states control whether prostitution is legal or not. Look at Nevada. I am personally against prostitution, but once again, this needs to stay at the state level.

4) Medicare & Medicaid -- Once again, I think that this should be at the state level. This one is a bit more complicated, but in short, if Georgia wants to setup a social safety net system, then so be it, but it should not require Alabama to help pay for it. So in the same vein of competition between the states, if Georgia sets this up, it could draw people into the state or it could cause people to leave the state, but that is the risk/reward that that individual state takes.

5) Drinking Age -- For those over a certain age, you know the history of this, but in short, for many years, the States set the drinking age. The Federal Government did not have the legal standing to force this standard, so what they did was to withhold Federal Road funding. So once again, this is the Federal Government overstepping their boundaries, without the standing to do so. (BTW, most of the world is around 18. Here wikipedia page detailing this.)

6) Marriage -- If other states want to allow gay marriage then so be it, but Georgia should not be force to recognize the marriages from other states. Why is it again that we have to go to the state to get married? I thought that marriage was a religious institution. But just my opinion.

In short the Federal Government should stick to what the Founding Fathers intended it to do, as spelled out in the Constitution. Anything beyond that should be carefully considered, and they probably rejected. In short, leave it to the states. If California wants to shift to more of a socialist type government then so be it. As long as their decisions do not directly impact the citizens of Georgia, and vice versa. Why is it that people get all upset about a Court ruling in another area of the country? Because we are becoming to tightly bound to each other. The states need more latitude to make the best decisions for their own citizens.

If you disagree with me on any of the points above, I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to post a named or anonymous comment below.

Now for the obligatory propaganda:

So when choosing the next president, if you feel strongly about the fact that the states are loosing their power to the central government, then you should pick a candidate that has show the strongest record for supporting states rights. That candidate is by far Ron Paul.